| From | Message |
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/24/2002
20:24:14
|
 Subject: RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
I have owned a lot of Dodges and one of them was a 1998 R/T DAK. They all have the same problem. They don't have enough top end. That is why they run 15's instead of 14's. The regular cab R/T should easilly run in the high 14's, but the transmission is the problem. The 4.7L has already been tested at the track in the low 15's and that was a 4 door Dakota (Motortrend 2000). It was actually faster than the R/T. The guys saying their 4.7L 5spds are out running the R/T's are telling the truth. The 4.7L has almost as much horespower as the 5.9L and it keeps pulling through to 5000 plus RPM's. Dodge engineers have the shift points set too high for the 3.9L, 5.9L, and the 5.2L. The engine stops accelerating after 45-4800 RPM's, but it does not shift untill 5200 RPM. The truck literally lays down and quits accelerating after 4500RPM. The MOPAR PERFORMANCE computer makes the problem worse by changing the shift poits to 5500 RPM's. I documented this at the track. I ran quicker 1/4 mile times with the stock ECU than I did with the Mopar Performance ECU. If it would just go ahead and shift at 4500 RPM the truck would actually accelerate faster. It would also get better gas mileage and save wear and tear on the engine. This is a simple fix if you can reprogram the computer. They offer this stuff for Chevy's and Ford's. The best thing to do is open up the heads so they can breath and put a cam in there that will let the engine pull to 5200RPM without stalling out.
|
Big59er
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/24/2002
20:41:11
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
R/TBlue maybe the PCM varies between each year, because my experience was the total opposite. I was running a 15.3 fairly consistant maybe 5 hundredths of a second give or take from run to run but after the PCM I pulled in an extra 2 tenths of a second.
|
LI Blackdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/24/2002
21:03:48
|  V6 daks can beat mustang GTs
IP: Logged
Message:
2001 Dakota 5.9 R/T
0-60 6.5
1/4 mile 15@91 mph
2001 Lightning
0-60 5.2
1/4 13.8@ 104
lets see 250hp vs 380hp
they both weight less then 5000 lbs the lightning is like 500lbs heavier
how could an R/T possibly win in a fair race??? it makes no sense at all!!!
R/T are not what they seem to be. they just put a low reving towing engine in a dakota instead of a ram. its just like a giant V6. put a 5.7 hemi in an R/T and then maybe it will be a close race
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/24/2002
21:40:08
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
LI Blackdak, the reg. cab Dakota weighs in at under 3800lbs. The V6 version weighs only 3680lbs in the SLT automatic. I know this because I'm looking at the title on my 2001 V6 SLT right now. The 5spd V6 Sport would weigh even less. The Lightning weighs 4700lbs. It is 1000lbs heavier than the regular cab Dakota. It does not take much horsepower to make up for 1000 fewer pounds. You only need 299HP in the Dakota to equal the performance of the Lightning. Or trim some weight off the Dakota. The Dakota needs to weigh 3100lbs to equal the Lightning. Replace hood and bumper with fiberglass (250lbs). Remove spare tire (50lbs). Replace rear bumper with roll pan (50lbs). Replace those thick truck rims with some light weight racing rims (25lbs). There, now your down to 3330 lbs. All you need now is 270HP to run with a Lightning. How about a 50hp NO2 kit?
|
big_torque
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/24/2002
22:59:56
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
" You only need 299 HP in the Dakota to equal the performance of a Lightning"
Is that rear wheel HP or flywheel ?
299 flywheel only get you approx. 14.7 sec. ET
need more than that.
|
kota on 20s
GenIII
9/24/2002
23:17:24
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
299 Hp gets you better than a 14.7. a camaro has 305 hp and weighs around 3200 lbs, and runs a 13.7 ish giving the aero dynamics of the truck, it will probably be a .1 sec slower in that range
-Eric
Injection is nice, but i'd rather be blown.
5.2L, 5speed. Powerdyne SC, 50mm TB, 2bbl M-1, 1.7RR's, MSD 6BTM, ciramic JBA headers, carsound cat, dumped gibson
|
LI Blackdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/25/2002
00:19:48
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
a 5.9 V8 is heavier then a 3.9 V6 numb nuts. R/Ts weigh a lot. but even still. if its running a 15 stock its not even close to a lightning. beside that a lightning is actually tuned to be a race track unlike an R/T which is just a dak with a big engine and nice rims
|
MikeD
*R/T*
9/25/2002
09:40:51
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
LOL obviously you've never looked at the specs of an R/T its not just a dakota w/ a big engine...it does have heavy duty suspension, a sway bar, and wide tires for traction. True the engine is straight from a Ram but take the SC off the Lightning and what'd you have?....An ordinary F-150 engine, I raced an F-150 at the track and had it video taped and you can't even get me and him in the same shot. Add a SC to anything and it'll make it significantly faster than normal.
~Mike~
Get In...Sit Down...Shutup...& Hangon
|
Big59er
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/25/2002
12:50:54
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
When is the last time you've seen a guy rebuild an old dodge challenger and put a 3.9 in it?
Iv seen plenty of rebuilt mopars with 318's 426 Wedge'es and Hemi's and you guessed it the Magnum 360. Never any with a 3.7 or a 3.9 for some reason.
What im getting from this is that the Mopar V6 is essentially a more effiecient engine than the 360 power wise?? Some souped up V6'es could be the acception to the rule but in a truck... Call me narrow sighted but I dont see the advantage.
Ill have more to add when I return from class so stay tuned.
|
Big59er
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/25/2002
21:58:45
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
my own personal opinion the only thing that seperates the R/T from the Lightening handle'ing wise a nice set of bilstiens and maybe slightly stiffer springs of some sort. Other than that a blower/stroker or hell that KRC setup from what I'v been here'ing. Set of sticky tires of course.
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/25/2002
22:18:21
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
LI BLACKDAK, I never said a V6 weighed the same as the V8. Where did you learn read? I said the V6 reg-cab weighs 3680 lbs and that the regular cab Dakota in general weighs less than 3800lbs. The V8 automatic weighs about 100lbs more than the V6 automatic. Depending on wich V8 you have. The 4.7L V8 weighs almost the same as the 3.9L V6.
Add 100 lbs to 3680 and you have 3780. Even with that extra weight, it will still out run the Lightning through the slalom. Lighter is better. A perfect example of this is the Plymouth/Chrysler Prowler. This car weighs around 2800lbs and it runs a 14.4 sec 1/4 mile (Motor Trend, July, 1998). The engine is a 3.5L V6 with 253HP. That is exactly what Car-N-Driver said the Lightning runs (14.4 sec, 1999, Car-N-Driver). The Lightning weighs 1800 lbs more than the Prowler and has 130 more horespower, but can't out run it or out handle it.
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/25/2002
22:42:30
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, Big59er, I don't know how you got that I ever insinuated that the V6 was more efficient or better than a V8. I don't recall saying any of that. But since you brought it up it is possible. The GMC Cyclone will blow the doors off the Lightning or the Dakota. Really, 380 HP on a blown 330CI engine isn't much to brag about. Dodge is making 215HP with only a 122CI turbocharged engine in the Neon. Acura is making 200HP with 122CI with no superchargers or turbos!
|
LI Blackdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
00:54:25
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
01 lightning runs a 13.8
it only has like 8psi too
funny how the 5.4 mustang cobra R had 385 NA hp also funny how the 03 SVT cobra is a supercharged 4.6 with 390 hp for the same price as the lightning too
|
LI Blackdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
01:04:38
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
the 03 R/T is like body kitted. it doesnt look that great. nice how u can get leather in CC and RC now though. But R/T either needs to lose weight and get a 4.7 HO or get a 5.7 hemi cause as it stands now its just too weak and guzzles way to much gas for what it is. most new import V6s will take out an R/T (3.5 altima, maxima, 350z, 3.2 cl/tl type S, V6 accord, G35, I35)
american cars are produing way too little hp per litre.
like
dodge 5.9 V8 = 250 hp
dodge 3.9 V6 175
GM 4.3 V6 180-190
Ford 4.6 V8 260
Mercedes 3.2 V6 215
4.2 V8 275
nissan 3.5 245, 255, 260, 287
acura 3.5 V6 225, 260, 290
honda 3.0 V6 240
|
Tom Slick
GenII
9/26/2002
01:06:30
|  RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
The old Shelby 2.2L Turbo II's put out 224 hp back in the 80's...
Later!
Tom "Slick"
96 Dakota Sport 5.2 RC SB
|
LI Blackdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
02:29:47
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
s2000 240 hp 2.0 litre NA
120 hp per litre
that means 2 cylinders from the s2000 engine would have more hp then a civic
toyotas 1.8 180 hp isnt bad either
just remember viper is 8.3 litres if the viper was efficent as an s2000 it would have 996 hp
(i know, it would be a lot harder to do that, not impossible though, look at ferraris(3.6 395 hp))
|
Big59er
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
13:09:49
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
No R/T I got that mostly from Llblack.
R/TBlues you neednt waste your breath on the Syclone I know plenty about it... I also know the reason the turbo set ups in the Syclones/Typhoons didnt function as cool as the Grand National set up is because they were running Mitsubishi turbo's rather than the T4 Garrets that the GN used.
"Syclones" arent any better off than the R/T's are as far as actual numbers go too. While I have heard of a couple ten second cyclones here or there the quickest one iv seen first hand ran 12.2 and that was with NOS, on top of the fact it was already turbocharged/IC'ed.
As for the Typhoon... You might as well think about souping up a 4.0 Inline 6 in a wrangler. Both of those vehicles weigh 4700+ lbs.
That figures Ll Blackdak that a V6 guy would souly concentrate on HP alone. You speak of cars that have 240 hp V6'es and yet might be lucky to produce over 180 lbs of torque.
Blackdak have you ever seen them run any faster than high 14's though? And im not talking about those Import Nationals they have on ESPN where every other car that pulls up to the line blows metal chunks out over the track. The difference between a 10 second civic and a 10 second camaro is the fact that you dont have to rebuild the engine everytime you run the camaro.
|
Big59er
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
13:09:51
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
No R/T I got that mostly from Llblack.
R/TBlues you neednt waste your breath on the Syclone I know plenty about it... I also know the reason the turbo set ups in the Syclones/Typhoons didnt function as cool as the Grand National set up is because they were running Mitsubishi turbo's rather than the T4 Garrets that the GN used.
"Syclones" arent any better off than the R/T's are as far as actual numbers go too. While I have heard of a couple ten second cyclones here or there the quickest one iv seen first hand ran 12.2 and that was with NOS, on top of the fact it was already turbocharged/IC'ed.
As for the Typhoon... You might as well think about souping up a 4.0 Inline 6 in a wrangler. Both of those vehicles weigh 4700+ lbs.
That figures Ll Blackdak that a V6 guy would souly concentrate on HP alone. You speak of cars that have 240 hp V6'es and yet might be lucky to produce over 180 lbs of torque.
Blackdak have you ever seen them run any faster than high 14's though? And im not talking about those Import Nationals they have on ESPN where every other car that pulls up to the line blows metal chunks out over the track. The difference between a 10 second civic and a 10 second camaro is the fact that you dont have to rebuild the engine everytime you run the camaro.
|
Jack Landston
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
13:26:17
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
Just remember though with ferrari's your talking about very tiny OHC V8's with extremely high comrepssion ratio's.
Its funny how the japaneese make a big deal out of there V-tech technology. Ferrari has had there own form of "V-tech", which is much much more efficient, since the late 50's early 60's.
This whole conversation in general is rather silly. You guys are comparing 2 totally different types of engines, Pushrods and OHC's. Thats like comparing a gasoline engine to an electric powered engine. Of course the combustion engine is going to produce more power than a simple charge.
|
Demon Dakota
DakotaEnthusiast
9/26/2002
13:55:28
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
Actually Big59er, here are the numbers for some of those engines;
Altima:
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 6.3 sec.
Braking Distance: 125 ft.
Base Number of Cylinders: 6
Base Engine Size: 3.5 liters
Base Engine Type: V6
Horsepower: 240 hp
Max Horsepower: 5800 rpm
Torque: 246 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 4400 rpm
Drive Type: FWD
Turning Circle: 38.7 ft.
Acura TL-S:
Base Number of Cylinders: 6
Base Engine Size: 3.2 liters
Base Engine Type: V6
Horsepower: 260 hp
Max Horsepower: 6100 rpm
Torque: 232 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 3500 rpm
Drive Type: FWD
Turning Circle: 39.7 ft.
Honda Accord EX-V6:
Base Number of Cylinders: 6
Base Engine Size: 3 liters
Base Engine Type: V6
Horsepower: 240 hp
Max Horsepower: 6250 rpm
Torque: 212 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 5000 rpm
Drive Type: FWD
Turning Circle: 36.9 ft.
They all produce over 180 TQ rather easily.
|
MnMeLiTe
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
13:57:34
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
just my two cents...
Although I would like to say I've beaten a lighting...I haven't. I've got a 2000 CC R/T with exhaust, intake, TB, rollpan, tonneau cover, and 3 10's in the back seat, with me driving 175 lbs of pure rock solid muscle baby.. lol J/K. Anyway I raced a lightning 4 times. twice on the highway, and twice off the line. And i'm really getting sick of seeing the back of a lousy F-150 with a blower. Don't even ask about the highway race. I topped out at 117 MPH and he was still kickin it in front of me going at least 125-130.
And off the line.... Considering R/T's don't have much grip, it still wasn't very close. Both times I had the lightning by about 50 feet and then all I hear is a whistle fly by... As much as I hate to say, the lightnings are faster. However take out that damn SC and then we'll race...
Just my two cents...
Mike
|
Big59er
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
14:48:54
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
Yeah and out of all of those cars you just mentioned look how long it takes to hit its max torque/horse power? Acura TL-S is the only close to decent car you just mentioned judging by the numbers and even then thats just what little torque it has at 3500 rpms. It had best be thankful for its weight.
|
big_torque
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
17:03:08
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
I love it when people say, " Take the SC off the Lightning and we`ll race." Well , duh ,of course you would win then . No Lighting owner is gonna disassemble his engine to make it "fair". The L came with the SC. Thats part of what you pay 30K for.
Thats like saying , "well , I have a 6 cyl so you gotta pull 2 spark plugs out of yer 8 cyl , then we`ll race" (shaking head with grin).
Lightnings kill R/Ts. I hate it but its fact. So lets all share what we can do to our trucks to even the score.
Isn`t that what we are all here for ?
my 3 cents
|
MikeD
*R/T*
9/26/2002
17:45:39
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
I thought I've shared with ya'll what we can do to kill them...I had my truck put together similar to the Lightning Killer Package (before he had that kit put together) and KRC is right on the money w/ their combo. I've taken a stock Lightning on a naturally aspirated engine.
Click on my pic to see all the mods and I've still beatin a SC R/T so sometimes SCing isn't always the way to go. :)
Oh and if I ever want to SC or put nitrous on it my engine will already be prepped for it. Unlike someone that just straps on a SC on a stock engine expecting lots of power.
~Mike~
Get In...Sit Down...Shutup...& Hangon
|
LI Blackdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
19:07:14
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
those cars all have more torque and way more hp then the bigger, thirstier V6. and dont eve tell me that a dak wouldnt be faster with one of those engines because 5000 lb ML320 is faster(then a V6 dak) with a 215 hp 3.2 V6.
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
19:31:32
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree with you MikeD. Chevy has been making 300 plus horsepower for years now with their 350 PUSH ROD ENGINE. Open up the heads on the R/T and do a complete rework of the intake and exhaust system and you will make over 300hp without a super charger. Then you will really be able to brag. I don't need $5000.00 to spend on a supercharger. It would would be nice to have one, but I rather do engine upgrades than bolt ons. Hell, Dodge sells a carborated 360CI crate motor that cranks out 380HP! If the carborated crate motor can crank out 380hp then I believe the fuel injected 360 could be modified easily to do the same.
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
20:06:31
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
LI Blackdak, I wouldn't go as far as saying the Lightning is tuned for racing. If I was going to buy something to race, it would at least have rack-n-pinion steering. You can easily bolt a supercharger onto a Dakota, but unless you own a a fab-shop that specializes in suspension upgrades you are going to have a very hard time putting a rack-n-pinion in a Lightning. The 03 DAKs have 4-wheel disc brakes now also. I've driven a Lighting, they are not as precise on turn-in as the Dakota and you constantly have to adjust the wheel through the turns. The R/T stays right where you put the wheel and you don't have to keep making adjustments. That is probably why the Dakota is faster through the slalom than the Lightning. The driver can actually control the R/T through the turns better because it has better feedback through the steering and responds quicker to the steering adjustments. TECHNOLOGY RULES! That's why I rather do internal upgrades to the engine than put a supercharger on there. Superchargers make up the technology gap as far as making horsepower is concerned, but the rest of the truck has to be as good as the engine. Steering gear boxes are for antiques with bias ply tires, not 380HP machines built today. Of course, Ford just got rid of the TWIN-I-BEAM suspension about 4 years ago. That was 50's technology there.
|
paysonbadboy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
21:29:27
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
Still. A supercharger will get you probably the most horsepower for the money and something you could do in one afternoon to a nearly stock engine.
So don't bag on the SC's. Because as much as you put into your engine, a supercharger will always make it faster. Sometimes alot! Just make sure your compression isn't too high first.
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
22:07:04
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
I don't know. The last supercharger kit I priced was from Shelby Interprises and for a complete base kit for my R/T was going to cost me $5,500.00. That included everything. An intercooler was going to cost extra. I don't remember the exact amount, but it seemed like I was going to have to shell out over $6,500.00 for the the kit w/intercooler. That kit included the computer and the camshaft and heads/exchanged. I think that kit with intercooler was good for 400+HP. I only need 300-330hp to stomp any stock Lightning. I can do that for under $5,000.00. Forced air induction is definately the easiest way to make more power. There is definately more low end and mid range with the supercharger. My ego would be that much greater if I beat a Lightning with a normally asperated Dakota.
|
Big59er
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
23:10:06
| RE: 5.9 r/t vs lightning YAH!
IP: Logged
Message:
Well R/TBlues as far as your input on the crate 360 goes I cant argue with you on that, I'v used the 380hp (almost an equal ammount of torque btw) 360 defence many times against LT1 owners.
As far as SC'ed vs N/A on the R/T goes... going N/A your engine will deffinatly be much easier to maintain thats for sure.
|
| | <<Previous Page P 5 Next Page>> |
