| From | Message |
Antifun
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/03/2004
16:20:06
|
 Subject: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
I was looking over the spec's on a stock 92' 5.2L which suprisingly are almost identicle to the new stock r/t's specs and are 600lbs lighter. Now i know that these trucks aren't tuned for racing, but i would think the larger engine would produce greater figures. I think its the potential the 360's hold which makes them great. However, When i'm at a stop next to an r/t, i dont even waste my time anymore. We have to come to reallity that stock r/t's just aren't what we all think they are.
92' 5.2L LE w/jardine-thorley headers, flomaster catback exhaust, k&n open air element, 50mm billet throttle body, M1 2barrel intake manifold, 6A MSD ignition w/ 8.5mm wires, mopar performance PCM w/ venom control module, crower 1.7 roller rockers.
|
01Motorsport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/03/2004
17:45:09
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
The extra 50ft/lbs of torque from the 360/5.9 helped make up the weight penalty, but the '92-'93 5.2 RC's are probably still the quickest Daks in stock trim.
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/03/2004
19:37:28
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
Yeah, you would think things would have gotten better instead of worse over the last 12 years. We have gone backwards as far as performance is concerned. My 1993 5.2L CC auto weighed 400lbs lighter than my R/T. My 1992 4x4 5.2L CC auto weighed the same as my R/T.
|
01Motorsport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/06/2004
09:32:43
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
A GenIII 4.7 RC 5-speed weighs 3759 lbs. My current '01 runs about the same as the '92 5.2 3:55 auto I had, but most of credit goes to the rear wheel hp from the manual tranny and 3:92 gear. I believe a RC R/T weighs 3880 lbs.
|
ticats
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/06/2004
11:00:57
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
My 97 CC race weight is 3,950 lb (no spare, tailgate on, bed liner, 3/8 tank, no driver). The 97 5.2L can be modded to break into the 13s with a normally aspirated motor even when compromising on the mod selections to pass a clean air test, equal or not tighter than the CA tests. The Gen IIs do certainly have a weight advantage and a bit better drag coefficient than the Gen IIIs.
ticats, ontario, canada.
97 Dak CC Sport, 5.2L, 44RE w transo, 4.56 SG, 4,120 lb race weight w driver, 13.98 @ 99.85 .
|
93rules
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/07/2004
20:18:09
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
No R/T will be a stock 93 5.2L-anything.
|
antifun
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/09/2004
16:59:47
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
well its too bad nobody likes the body style. I'm fixing up my 92', sucks that the only value it will hold is my own.
|
Gen2
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/10/2004
19:51:42
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
The Gen2's were the best looking Daks, best running Daks, and the longest lasting Daks.
|
EBL
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/11/2004
12:48:27
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
Both styles can be performers.
A while ago I was picking somebody up at a chevy dealership when one of the salespeople asked if I would sell him (not the dealership) my 92.
Many people love the Gen II style. Many love the Gen III. Its a matter of personal taste.
|
luvmeR/T
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/11/2004
14:37:51
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
not to step on anyones toes,but who buys an r/t and keeps it stock?ive seen many a lightly modded r/t stomp the crap out of modded gen II and III daks.it annoys me when people compare what they have to a stock r/t.and i know youre comparing the 92-93 to an r/t stock for stock,but if youre gonna play around with your ride,why would you leave it stock?i just have full exhaust on my r/t and i havent found any non r/t daks around here that will hang with me.not trying to brag,just stating my experience.the potential of the 5.9 in the r/t is what made it so appealing to me,as we speak im stock piling all sorts of goodies for when the warranty runs out.im not trying to hate on any daks,not even the ugly ones,but when you start comparing them bolt on for bolt on,you see the 5.9 pulls away from gen IIs,5.2s,and 4.7s.not trying to start a flame war,just telling you what ive seen.i dont really car anyway,all i care about is making mine a lightning killer,i have penis envy over the factory supercharger!
|
janesy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/11/2004
15:38:57
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
bolt on for bolt on your still going to get walked, unless you take off your box. for the 300lb difference.
|
antifun
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/12/2004
11:55:13
|  RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
luvmeR/T, if you read my original post, i state that i think its the potential the R/T's hold which make them a great truck. Im not saying its a crappy truck, just a bid overpriced and definately overestimated. I bought my 92' 2 years ago for $5,000.00. It had 68,000 miles on the 318, all stock. I've invested about $4,500 in suspension/performance upgrades, as well as replacing warn out parts and what not. So my truck cost me less than $10,000. If you bought a brand new R/T and did this, you'd be well over 30,000. Why would you buy a brand new car for a toy, unless you just got that kind of money to throw around. Btw i havent found and R/T let alone any street car that could touch me, unless it is raining
|
luvmeR/T
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/12/2004
12:37:56
|  RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
antifun,you havent found an r/t,let alone any streetcar that can touch you?what does your truck run in the 1/4,or even top end?ever raced a charged r/t?buddy of mine spent about 4500 on charger and exhaust,do you think you can run with that?and do you think you can beat LS-1's?seems to me your truck might run low 14s,and most of the streetcars around here would eat you alive!so unless your truck was really done up before you bought it,and you just added to it,i doubt youre all that fast.
and r/t's werent really all that overpriced for new trucks.most ive seen the last few years were early 20ks.thats really not that bad.i bought mine,a 2002 cc that had 2000miles on it(dealership driven)for 17k.and i see alot of 98&99 r/ts going for 8k or 9k.so to me your 92 seems a little over priced.
and yeah,i'll admit,r/t's are over estimated,but not by me or anyone i know who drives them.just by people i see out in public or at stoplights,there always like "badass!i bet that truck hauls balls,"like it could kill an ss or a cobra or something.i just laugh when people are like that,and i do like the attention my truck gets.but i knew my r/t wasnt going to be really fast when i bought it,just knew it had the potential to be.and lets see,with the exhaust i have,the roller rockers,intake,TB,ignition,that arent on yet,and the charger thats in the near future(about a year),it will be!
|
Question...
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/12/2004
13:30:42
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
Did the older 5.2's have torque management?
|
WipLash
R/T
2/12/2004
13:31:05
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
luvmeR/T,
Mine is still stock. I haven't had the need to make it any faster than it already is. When I start having Chevies and Fords beat me everyday I will make an upgrade to the cam and/or the rockers and a PCM. I'm not worried about beating Camaros or Mustangs even though I have beat a few Mustangs. Especially the 5spd GT's. I know they could kick my ass, but the thing is they panic everytime I jump off the line in front of them and they loose grip when they dump the clutch. It's pretty damn funny to see them get really pissed off when I beat them red-light to red-light. Until the competition gets stiffer, I'm going to keep mine stock.
|
antifun
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/12/2004
13:44:44
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
where do you live LuvmeR/T. The most impressive car i have beaten is a 2000 Z28. Not to much performance wise where i live, just alot of rice burners. And yes, i have taken my truck to gateway raceway and ran the quarter 13.68 on street tires. So im guessing high 13's on the street. Seems to me you might have a while till that waranty runs out before your truck will be any fast.
|
luvemeR/T
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/12/2004
15:40:17
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
i live in west texas,and around here,bigger is better.there are two strips within 100 miles of my town,one here,and something like 15 within 200 miles.so lots of performance around here.there are four guys that i talk to on a regular basis that have proven 10et cars that they drive on the street on a pretty normal basis.13.6s would be moderately impresive around here for a truck.too many damn 67-72 chevys runnin around here with big blocks!
and im getting pretty close to the warranty anyway.too many visits to my girlfriend going to school in dallas,i guess.and i will be entering the police academy here in april,so a charger will be on the way within the year,probably paxton or maybe kenne bell.so no,wont be too long now.
and wiplash,its good that youre happy beating the stock chevy, ford and other dodge trucks.im not.its no fun racing them,and i dont anymore.im striving to go after the "almighty" lightnings,ss,gt,cobra,and all that jazz.this is all just a big game and hobby to me,and i want to see how far i can push it.its kinda like me with my guns,why would i settle for a rusty "saturday night special" when i could have a colt .45?its all fun and games.
|
Christopher
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/12/2004
18:29:02
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
When i get this, when i get that, i'm gonna beat this , i'm gonna beat that. sounds like pipe dreams to me. I think everyone on this or any other performance site is always about a year away from a supercharger. stop blowin smoke until you have the thing, then you can talk bad.
|
EBL
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/12/2004
20:30:26
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
antifun,
What mods have you done?
|
Dakota52318
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/12/2004
22:09:50
| RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
My 4x4, long bed 92 runs 15.7@89mph That was b4 I put the electric fan on it, havent been back to the track since then. It weighs in at 4350 with me in it (150).
|
HAHA
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/13/2004
14:16:26
|  RE: old 5.2L vs R/T's
IP: Logged
Message:
LMAO, So true Christopher.
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
