Re: RE: Motor Trend "Muscle 2000" Comparison (Kinda Long)

From: nosdakota (nosdakota@email.msn.com)
Date: Fri Oct 29 1999 - 13:12:55 EDT


come on guys The R/T, While it does have some shortcomings, was probably not
designed to be a race car BUT it was endowed with several "fixin's" which
allow it to be modified to a VERY fast truck. The big rear, beefy trans and
360 offer alot of potential that my 318 will never have without alot of
money being spent.I'm not sayint the 4.7 or any other truck is a bad truck
I'm simply saying I don't think you people(noone in particular) are
realizing the R/T for what it is. It is the foundation to build BIG power
and not have to worry about the small stuff like will it hold together.
Joe W.
87 Shelby Charger 13.9
98 Dakota 13.1
----- Original Message -----
From: Barret, Matt <MATT_BARRET@EARTHTECH.COM>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 6:34 AM
Subject: DML: RE: Motor Trend "Muscle 2000" Comparison (Kinda Long)

> Once again the 4.7L rules!!! Thanks Bernd!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernd D. Ratsch [mailto:bernd@texas.net]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 9:21 AM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: DML: Motor Trend "Muscle 2000" Comparison (Kinda Long)
>
>
>
> Well, Motor Trend went at it again and took the top "Muscle Cars/Trucks"
and
> put them to the test.
>
> They include:
>
> Chevy Camaro SS
> Ford Mustang GT
> Pontiac Firebird T/A WS6
> Pontiac Grand Prix GTP
> Ford SVT Lightning
> Dodge Dakota R/T
>
> All of the vehicles performed very well (and very impressive) with the
> exception of the R/T. This is a quote from the article:
>
> "...But soon found myself parroting the old lady in the classic Wendy's
> commercial...'Where's the Beef?'"
>
> "...Even more embarrassing: This '99 Dakota 5.9 R/T was 0.4 second slower
> 0-60 than the 300-plus-pound-heavier 2000 Dakota SLT Quad-Cab (4.7L)."
>
> "As for muscle car prowess, however, the Dakota 5.9 R/T was out-classed in
> this field. We include it because we thought it the quickest Dodge under
> $30,000, but the heavier 2000 Dakota SLT Quad-Cab's amazing 0-60 advantage
> blows it out of the water. While not exactly a sheep in wolf's clothing,
> the 5.9 R/T doesn't completely fulfill its performance pretensions.
> Memo to Dodge: Install a bored-and-stroked" version of the 4.7 SOHC V-8
and
> try again."
>
> This is a sad day for Dakota owners...I think we need a moment of silence
> for this.....
>
> If anyone want to read the full article, it's in the December 1999 Issue -
> Page 36 for the R/T.
>
>
> Bernd D. Ratsch
> Pflugerville, TX
> 1997 Dodge Dakota SLT/CC - 2WD
> http://lonestar.texas.net/~bernd/Dakota.htm
> http://www.mopars.net/dak/bernd
> bernd@texas.net
> ICQ: 39320084
>
> "The Hell with Milk...Got Nitrous?"



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:18:33 EDT