I don't think you were catching what my point was. YES the 4.7 is
impressive, I am a firm believer in getting alot out of small engines. I
race a 87 charger with a 4 cyl running 13's. But my point is there is
nothing like the proven technology of a strong rear and trans combo coupled
to a large engine that has a strong bottom end and plenty of aftermarket
parts available for making alot of hp. Yes they are going the way of the
dinosaur but there is alot of POTENTIAL locked up in the R/T package.
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 7:56 AM
Subject: DML: RE: Re: RE: Motor Trend "Muscle 2000" Comparison (Kinda Long)
> Joe, I don't think we'll have a problem with the 4.7L coming apart, she
> won't redline until 5500 rpms. The 360 is living on borrowed time, she is
> what 25 years old?? soon to be a memory, Technology will prevail, everyone
> can see this in the 4.7L. OK, I'll agree the torque may be down alittle,
but
> if you look at Hp to Cube ratio, you just cannot beat it, with some
> inexpensive modifications you're looking at 1 hp per cubic inch. That is
> very impressive to me! How much torque do you need when the truck only
> weights like 3200 pounds( somebody help me on the RC 2wd weight)??
> Yes, I agree that the RT looks sweet, in fact I personally think the RT is
> the best looking factory truck produced period!, but when I went to buy a
> performance truck I wanted real performance, 5 spd, 9 1/4 rear (yes it
does
> have a 9 1/4 rear), bang for the buck and the latest technology. If you
take
> all this into consideration the 4.7L 5 spd is the way to go! If you want
to
> spend extra cash on an auto truck that does look very sweet , with a big
> ole 360 that flat out doesn't get you much more than the little ole 4.7
than
> go for it.
> I know you RT guys are hating me but, hey, I'm defending my little 4.7L!
> Look at Truckin magazine Dec. 99 page 50, QUAD Cab dakota 2wd Auto 4.7L
3.90
> rear ran a 16.10 in the quarter.
> Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nosdakota [mailto:nosdakota@email.msn.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 1:13 PM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: DML: Re: RE: Motor Trend "Muscle 2000" Comparison (Kinda Long)
>
>
> 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