| From | Message |
derrick
Dodge Dakota
8/23/2001
22:53:50
|
 Subject: RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
And i have more than just headers and exhaust no SC or nitrious kit though.
|
Jason
Dodge Dakota
8/23/2001
23:21:40
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Well you know I did not think his truck could do it, but its not mine so I cant say it wont. But my brother offered him his 96 mustang gt which has 83,000 miles on it and he said no. He thinks his truck will beat it. If you ask me theres no way on earth it can be done. Not with a air filter and exhaust. I heard chevy is coming out with a new ss pick up truck, supposely its fast its got like 400 h/p, but its a four door. I know chevy already has a SS Z71, but i dont know how fast they are, buts its a nice truck. I dont know but im tired of my cousin bragging about is chevy 454, its stock but he claims it can beat a r/t, from what ive heard the r/t's are faster but i dont know, do any of you guys know?
|
derrick
Dodge Dakota
8/23/2001
23:58:30
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
nostock lightnings has never hit the 13'sw the fastest they have ever gone is like 14.5
|
derrick
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
00:00:09
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
stock lightnings i mean
|
derrick
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
00:28:17
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
maybe the 2002 run 13's but the 2001 and below never did
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
00:40:10
|  RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
The Gen II Lightnings which are 5.4s with Superchargers do in fact for the most part run 13s. Here in Phoenix, when it's very hot they do run 14s if they are stock. When the temps cool off they run mid to high 13s pretty regularly. They can go a lot quicker than that if they are modded. The earlier Gen I Lightnings were NA and when they are stock they run about the same times as stock R/Ts. Of course, I haven't seen very many stock ones.... most of them are modded with superchargers - so you never know how quick they will be.
|
derrick
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
00:58:34
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
well a supercharged gen 2 lightning is stock they all come stock with a supercharger and im talking about stock lightnings no othe mods besides the supercharger
|
derrick
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
01:11:59
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
jason that truck is heavy as hell dont think he could beat a stock rt
|
OrangeCrush
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
01:14:21
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
At the track (1/8 mile) we had a stock lighting(comes supercharged)and a stock RT go at it. The lighting ran a 8.63 and the RT ran 9.89. Everyone I've talked 2 say the lightnings are the fastest truck on the road stock. But u strap on a supercharger to the 5.9 vs the 5.4 I think it would be a different story(maybe)!
|
derrick
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
01:24:23
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
thats something u got to understand u cant compare a stock RT to a stock lightning the lightning is supercharged if it wasnt SUPER CHARGED the RT could beat it easy
|
OrangeCrush
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
01:49:33
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
I would think so. A compact(biggest compact i've ever seen) vs a fullsize truck. The true test would be 2 drop the 5.4(supercharged) in a Ranger. Now we all know the Dakotas are bigger than any ranger or s-10. But its still considered a compact. So the lighter 5.4 and ranger I think would be a lot closer of comparison. That would be a close race IMO, but I think the lighter ranger(and lighter engine) would win if they were both 370/380 hp. But I don't think that will ever happen so who really knows.
|
Mar
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
09:36:58
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
The only way that derrick could build the hp needed to beat a lightning would be to change every internal component. He would need a crazy cam. Solid roller system, compression pistons. Heads with big titaninum valves. Heavy duty springs. Lightweight pushrods. High pressure oil pump. and all the regular mods like TB k&n muffler. So he would have had to take the engine out to do this. But with mods like those it wont run smooth but it will beat a lightning. But for some reason i dont belive you about beating a lightning. Lowering you truck does nothing but i think that if you had this kind of hp you would strip every gear in that 5.2 tranny.
Marty.
|
Josh
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
09:44:39
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
derrick,
Are you one fry short of a happy meal? First you say a stock Gen II lightning will not run 13s or beat an RT, then you say a Gen II non-supercharged lightning couldn't beat an RT. Then you say a supercharged RT could be a stock supercharged lightning.
What do you really mean to say?
You cannot get a non-supercharged Gen II lightning. Of course an RT can beat a non-s/c 5.4L F150. You are comparing full-size to compact truck jackazz. A 5.4L F150 could take a 5.9L Ram. Compare apples to apples, ok?
Gen I lightnings are pretty slow, maybe 15.7s stock. At the time, they were WAY faster than a 454SS or an Ram SST. When the R/T came out, Ford had to do something. They must have wanted to claim they have the fastest production pickup. They achieved their goal.
If you S/C a reg cab RT, it'd probably give the lightning a good run. But again, the RT has a larger displacement engine and less weight to push around.
|
Mar
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
13:55:32
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Josh dont take it so personal.
Oh and a F-150 5.4L Vs. 5.9 Ram
F-150 9.6 0-60
Ram 5.9 5 speed 8.7 0-60
Apples to Apples dodge still comes out on top.
If you wanted to spend the same amount of money on both of the trucks the R/T would be faster. The F-150 lightning is more money so with the money saved you could turn the R/T in to one hell of a truck.
|
OrangeCrush
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
14:33:30
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Apples to Apples? The stats u gave for the Ram is the 5 spd man. and for the F150 a 4 spd auto. Thats almost apples to apples but no not really.
|
Nitro
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
14:57:08
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
I raced a 5.4 f-150 in my SS/T and smoked em'. What made you thing a 5.4 is faster than the 5.9??
|
Nitro
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
15:22:13
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
I know that there are N/A Dak R/T's that beat '01 lightnings. Go to the web page.
http://8ursvt.tripod.com/8ursvt/id4.html
|
Josh
Dodge Dakota
8/24/2001
15:25:53
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Lets see here, 5.9L puts out 245hp & 335 lbs-ft
The 5.4L puts out 260 hp & 350 lbs-ft
Numbers wise, look who wins. The 5.9L has been around a while, has great potential, but too de-tuned for my likings. Although the 5.4L is an OHC motor, the hp and torque figures hit at a lower RPM. Another bonus.
I'm not taking the issue personally, just some people smoke crack before they talk, like derrick. A 5.2 5spd may be quicker than my 4.7L auto, but no way a Gen II lightning.
SST's only come in 4x2, reg cabs, right? Are you sure you raced a 4x2 reg cab 5.4L? I HIGHLY doubt you smoked it. Stock for stock, I NEED to see it to believe it.
What do you consider "smoking" anything, racing wise of course? A few hundreths or tenths, or was it stoplight racing? Until you have timeslips to prove it, it don't count in my book. Stoplights mean nothing to me in racing.
|
Mar
Dodge Dakota
8/26/2001
21:57:29
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Josh i dont care what the engine has. Its the gearing, tranny, and truck weight. I have driven a 5.4 ford and i know that a 5.9 would kill it. The 5.4 felt bulky and slow. And i know that somtimes what you think is not what the numbers say but this was a gutless truck and should not compaired to a ram which is the only full size worthy of looking at.
If fords 5.4 was so damm great they wouldn't have needed a supercharger to make it so great.
|
Confused
Dodge Dakota
8/26/2001
22:18:53
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
For your next post try "NEON RT vs MUSTANG CORBA" or"ESCORT vs VIPER" hmmmmmmmmm the Lightning = $37,000 ,Dakota R/T = $22,000
|
Josh
Dodge Dakota
8/27/2001
09:07:24
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
wow Mar, you and derrick must be close buddies. Can you guys read? Re-read my above post. I was simply stating you should not compare a 5.9L Dak to a 5.4L F150, much less weight. You can compare a 5.9L Ram to a 5.4L Ford a bit better. Both are full size trucks.
Compare a Dak to a Ranger or S10, duh of course the V8 will whip either of the two, but the stock v6 would be beat.
Like another post says, your comparing a Neon to a Mustange or a Escort to a Viper. You're not even close in comparing apples to apples.
|
Mar
Dodge Dakota
8/27/2001
10:10:12
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
The f-150 XL short bed 4WD is 4356Lb.
The dakota club cab 4wd is 4091 and thats not even the qlub cab.
THe diffrence is 265 that could be the weight of a driver or gas in the tank. Its nothing to a big truck.
THATS %100 apples to apples.
So the next time you WOW people do some damm research.
DODGE RULES.
|
Nate
Dodge Dakota
8/27/2001
11:37:51
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
What I would like to see is someone put the difference into a dakota and run it against a lightning.
ford = 37000us, I think they are like 48k or 49k up here(Canada)
dodge = 22000us, mine was 33k(canadian) loaded.
by my reckoning that is 15000 roughly to play with.
I am sure that with that you could make a dakota go a little faster than a lightning. Plus, add weight so there is no difference in mass.
I know a Lightning is faster than an R/T, ive seen it at the strip and ive been beat. But dollar wise, the Dak is the weapon of choice, and the best value hands down. Besides, its a Dodge and that is all that matters......no matter how fast a lightning is, it is still a ford.
Im tired of hearing the whole dodge vs. whoever, its old and has no point. I get earfulls everytime I pick my dad up from work. He just happens to work at a ford only performance store, and after seeing the people coming in to buy parts and listening to them trash my truck, not knowing its mine, im glad im not part of the blue oval boys.
A ride is a ride, its doesnt matter what other people think and it matters even less what ford owners think.
but thats just my .02 cents worth
|
Josh
Dodge Dakota
8/27/2001
12:35:16
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Mar,
WOW
I can do as much "damm" research as I want. I work for a Ford dealer. I drive a Dakota vs. a Ranger because of the engine (V8) and carrying capacity (wider box). I can research and waste my time with you all I wish.
Read my point: It's unfair and retarded to compare a Dakota to a full size...ITS NOT A FULL SIZE TRUCK! Is a compact or midsize and should be compared to the same, i.e. Ranger, S10...
IS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
I drive a Dakota because hands down, its a great truck for the $$$ the 4.7L will outrun any other compact or midsize truck, stock for stock.
You must have some deep hick pride to want to fight and argue about such a stupid topic.
Learn to read and comprehend my point and maybe you'll understand, then again, probably not.
|
Mar
Dodge Dakota
8/27/2001
13:52:56
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Learn to make a point!
First you state that a ram cant beat a F-150 then you state that the dakota is not Apples to Apples with them even though they weigh the same and have simular engines. I dont care what the insurance companys class them under. And all the Ford and chevy guys compair there silverados and F-150s to them so why cant we. Its not like the dakota has some unfair advantage overthem. ITS just a better truck and i suppose thats why you drive one. So dont freak out at people. I just dont agree that its unfair to compair the dak to the ford.
|
Josh
Dodge Dakota
8/27/2001
14:17:13
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Mar,
Chill out. Can a Dak tow or haul as much as a full-size ram or F150? I said a F150 can beat ram, spec for spec, apples-to-apples.
F150 weights more than a Dak. You said so yourself.
My dakota fits in my garage, got me to run high 14s, gets average 18 mpg, and has enough towing and hauling capacity for my small motorcycle trailer and the schit I bring with for racing.
Given a choice for full size, i'd take a Ford over a Ram, then a Ram over a Chevy, and all 3 over the Toyota.
I bought a Dak because its FASTER than a stock F150, which we (both you and I) know and agreed on, plus it was cheaper, fits in the garage, ect. The F150 has advantages (mentioned above) that I do not need. The Daks a great truck, but the F150 isn't the best selling pickup for no reason, year-after-year etc.
|
Nitro
Dodge Dakota
8/27/2001
17:26:51
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
My idea of smoking someone is passing while under WOT. I had followed him a few miles to get a good line up and I was behind him at first and he started that revving of his engine so I decided to follow him to see what he had and well I found out that he did'nt have enough.
|
wtf???
Dodge Dakota
8/28/2001
00:07:04
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
"Lightning = $37,000 ,Dakota R/T = $22,000"
wow, what idiot would pay that much when you can find an 01 on the lot for 28-30k?? the STICKER price is only 32K
dayum
on the comment that no stock Gen II L would hit the 13's, well, car and driver drove an 01 to 13.8.... guess that isn't the "13's" you were talking about?
there is no point of comparing the R/T to the Lightning. The L is an SVT special production vehicle only available at SVT dealers. The R/T is simply a appearance/performance package, and includes, what, 5hp over stock 5.9? The L has a SC on it for Godsake!
|
kraw
Dodge Dakota
8/28/2001
00:17:54
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
also have to keep in mind that a simple K&N filter and superchip will add upto if not more than 30hp! That drops the L way down low in the 13's
|
kota on 20s
Dodge Dakota
8/28/2001
02:37:03
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
i feel sorry for the poor guy the bought a lighting for 38k!
i agree with kraw, JUST a filter, and chip the "L" is in the 12's. and add a torque converter to that and its 12's all day!
Eric
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
8/28/2001
11:08:40
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
I feel sorry for somebody who pays $22,000 for an R/T. I could have bought a basic 2001 R/T for $17,000 new or a laoded up club cab for $21,500. If I wanted to run Lightnings I'd have bought the $17,000 truck. I just finished reading up on an old Mopar Muscle buildup of a 94 Dakota 318 automatic that they ran 13.25 @ 107 MPH with the MP headers, cam, valve springs, a vortech supercharger, MSD boost controller, Fairbanks converter, and shift kit, and MT sportsman tires. Their truck ran 15.87 stock and weighed 3800 pounds when it ran the 13.25. I'm sure the money they invested in the Dakota was well under the price of even an old Lightning.
|
derrick
Dodge Dakota
8/30/2001
01:47:10
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
i never said lowering my truck made it faster idiot i just said my truck was lowered and i can beat a stock 2001 lightning i have the race on video i have more than full exhaust , headers , K&N kit and jet 2 chip i also have underdrive pulleys flometrics TB digital msd ignition , electric fan and new gears ive raced more than that 1 lightning and still have no problems beating them i cannot beat the new lightnings but dont have any problems with the 2000 and below models it is not uncommon here to see a RT beat a lightning
|
kota on 20s
Dodge Dakota
8/30/2001
01:58:12
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
derrick, i see you have underdrive pullies. did you notice any power increase with them? i was thinking of getting the crank pulley but dont know if its worth the money. would you recomend them?
Eric
|
derrick
Dodge Dakota
8/30/2001
02:00:06
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
JOSH just shut the hell up dont get so offended that i can beat a lightning dude there not the fastest trucks if u like them so much go to the lightning discussion board and brag about them u wont do any good here.
|
derrick
Dodge Dakota
8/30/2001
02:04:57
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Well kota u wont gain a big boost off them every little bit does help but it was just another bolt on i could add so i put them in. if u want a big boost in performance i would not recomend them. you will not gain that much
|
kota on 20s
Dodge Dakota
8/30/2001
02:08:47
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
thanks for saving me some cash. mabe ill do it when i cant do anymore.
Eric
|
josh
Dodge Dakota
8/30/2001
11:55:47
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
derrick,
you're a jack azz. 2000 and below Lightnings? Do you know anything about these trucks?
You are saying, your 5.2L 5 speed can beat a 5.4L supercharged lightning?
|
MARK CRISLER
Dodge Dakota
9/21/2001
01:17:55
|  RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
OKAY IF IT'S TRUCK VS TRUCK. 2001 DAKOTA R/T VS. 2001 LIGHTING (250 HP VS 385HP) FORD WINS. IF IT IS $40,000 THAN I COULD BUILD A PLAIN DAKOTA SPORT TO STOMP A LIGHTING... HELL I'D DO IT WITH A 4.7 QUAD CAB TO MAKE THE WEIGHT ISSUE FAIR.
|
Robert
Dodge Dakota
9/21/2001
09:11:00
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Oh derrick... simpleton derrick,
The s/c Ford Lightning IS the fastest production truck out right now. Your Dakota could not, did not and will not beat one.
You seem to be confusing yourself. In the same post, you stated you could beat a 2001... then later (same post) you state you can only beat 2000 a below. Make up your mind! Of course, we all now the truth.
|
DakGuy
Dodge Dakota
9/21/2001
09:27:56
| RE: Lightning vs. Dakota R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
You guys kill me with these arguments about an R/T when thats not even the fastest truck dodge makes. You should be talking about the 00'/01' 4.7L that you can put $1000 into and beat any stock litning on the road. The GenI lightnings are a prety good race for an R/T but the GenII,...well that more like a slaughter than a race.By the way my 01' 4.7L ran 14.9 @ 91mph absolutely BONE stock. Thats faster than any stock R/T or even a lightly modified R/T.
|
| | <<Previous Page P 2 Next Page>> |
