| From | Message |
LI Blackdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/23/2002
02:07:32
|
 Subject: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
0-60 1/4
2001 Dodge Dakota 5.9 R/T 6.5 15@91
1999 Dodge Dakota 5.9 R/T 7.7 16@86 Automatic
1998 Dodge Dakota 5.9 R/T 7 15.4@89
seems only pre 2001 r/ts are slow 6.5 0-60 sounds ok to me
|
HSKR
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/23/2002
17:58:06
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
Where did you get those numbers from?? Were they all ran on the same track the same day with no mods to any vehicle and comparable mileage on each engine??
|
drtswinger
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/23/2002
18:04:48
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
That cant be right, my 99'r/t stock ran a 14.8 at a local 1/4 mile strip.
|
oetkenjc
R/T
3/23/2002
18:35:39
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
erm...
jonathan
Best Run: .520rt, 2.138 60foot, 15.041secs @ 89.44mph
PCM, 160 degree Tstat, Nitto 450's, Darkfury's homemade SS Grill (www.chimptopia.com/pimptopia/grille.html)
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/23/2002
21:54:42
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
I've always trusted this test in High Performance Mopar. They tested at a real 1/4 track (not a g-tech or 5th wheel), did not correct times, and still got a 15.1 on a 98 CC R/T. That was pure showroom stock with low miles on the motor on a humid, rainy Florida track during a break in the weather. You just don't know with some of the oter magazines what exactly they are doing with their times. Some correct the times to a standard, other don't. None of them hardly ever talk about conditions of the track which can easilly turn a heavy hitter in to pussycat. I just also trust the Mopar magazines at giving the Mopars an honest effort at getting a good time, some of the other magazines seem to be a little biased, or uncaring against the Dodges.
|
LI Blackdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/23/2002
23:18:41
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
http://www.car-stats.com/
|
Chopperman
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/24/2002
00:06:17
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
I ran a 15.2 in my 00 CC R/T. My 0-60 was 6.7. That was on a humid 80 degree day after driving it 60 miles so the engine was hot too. Another thing too supposidly the 2001's and up have better headers or something like that I cant remember exactly what it is so dont hold me to that. So its not that the older ones are slower because they were just junkers. Its because, like any other engine, as time progresses, technology progresses as well... which the end result is ussually better gas milage or a quicker vehicle.
|
Mark Crisler
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2002
20:23:09
|  RE: r/t too slow?? Drinks GAS too!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Well I'm glad to see some honest R/T owners. Best bet is to get the PCM reflashed back to pre-warranty. Dodge recalled the R/T for what they called an smog reason, but truth is it was from tranny shreading. Mike at HYTECH PERFORMANCE in Phoenix can reflash your PCM to "OH mY" status like my so called P*S*Y 4.7 that can do better slips than a 2002 stock R/T in a heavier 4 door. CUBES ARE GREAT BUT BRAINS RATE!!!!
|
oz
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
12:55:24
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
You all realize that from one engine to another built the same day on the same shift there can be a 20 hp difference in power? This is because of manufacturing variations more than anything... how do the intake to head gaskets line up? how much core shift was there in the head or intake casting? is the header gasket perfectly aligned? I've seen people who run 'stock' classes gain 30 hp when they tore apart and 'blue printed' the engine and rebuilt it the way it should have bee built (ideally). Not to say that the workers that build the production engines do a bad job, I am just saying that if you make sure every last gasket, etc is perfect you will be rewarded with more hp.
I personally would be surprised if 2 perfectly stock trucks ran within .5 second of each other... It's all luck of the draw... JMO
ps: I understand some of the Ram's come with some funky pcm programming that makes them more environmentally friendly (and slower)... luck of the draw.
|
MikeD
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
13:30:16
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
If DC would stop makin the R/T like the average joe blow off the street thats gonna drive it to work and back and thats it...then they would have a killer package. The R/T isn't that much faster than the 4.7...yeah I can see why they'd make the 4.7 an average truck cuz it looks average, has average tires, average suspension. But the R/T supposedly comes w/ heavy duty suspension, sway bar, fat tires, bigger motor. I mean if they're gonna do this they've gotta know that people that buy em are gonna hotrod em and should make em that way!! 10hp difference than a 4.7...WTF is that?!? If your gonna make a racing truck MAKE ONE!!
|
Demon-Xanth
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
13:42:27
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
I'd have to agree with that, Dodge should kick the R/T kit up a notch or three. Hell, make it give the Mustang some competition now that GM's going out of that arena (I personally will mourn the loss). They should give the R/T a 6 speed dammit!
While I love the 4.7+5 speed combo for being a sleeper kit, sometimes you just want people to know that something's special.
|
R/Truck
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
13:57:50
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
R/T was just a marketing tool for Dodge, and it worked great. People bought them cause there cool and they handled great. Who said just because it has R/T written on it that it should have 500 HP? Do you really think Dodge would/could have sold so many, if they beefed them up and raised the sales price another $5000?
I think what people really want is a limited production truck that cost $30,000 that can blow the doors off everything. Then we wouldn't have so much bickering on who is the fastest.
|
MikeD
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
18:03:26
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
I'm not sayin an R/T should have 500hp I'm just sayin if they're makin a race truck don't make it only 10hp more than the standard V8. If you really want people to buy em make em as much HP as a stock Firebird or soemthin at least over 300hp!!
|
psychoRT
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
18:42:04
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
ok for starters does anyone know what R/T means, noooooooooooooooooo! its not RACE/TRUCK, it is Road and Track.
The handling on the truck is superb in the years they made r/ts they have smoked z 28's on the skidpad to me the r/t is a perfect starting point of somone that dosnt want a fu%king mommy bought me this bad ass car sh$t(aka lightning).
You get 3.92 gears (excellent in my book for a street rod, 9 1/4 12 bolt rear end can take alot of punishment(camaros have a fu%king rearend made of glass ask any chevy guy), handling out the ass, bad ass looks, big motor with limitless power potinal (so yall 4.7 boys can get more hp then us and have more bolt ons ummmmmmmmmmmmm no!), So inturn the r/t is a all around bad ass truck with a super or a shot of juice will smoke a lighning!
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
20:11:13
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
It's also all about the torque difference. Torque is the only thing you feel and the R/T has 10 ft-lbs more then the standard 360, and 50 ft-lbs more then the 4.7! The 5.2 and the 5.9 magnums used to both make 230 HP, but the difference was the 360 made a bunch more torque and with a 4000-4500 pound truck you need all the torque you can get. The 4.7 is a huge bargin, but the R/T is still a killer deal. You can get them brand new for under $19,000 (in 2001 you could get them as low a $17,000 new) Even a basic Mustang GT will set you back more then the R/T plus the "Lighting killer" package from KRC costs, and it makes that R/T run low 13's. It's a great price, a great starter package, and a lot more deserving of the R/T name then everything currently offered by Dodge Except the Viper. Actually a lot of the R/Ts from the late 60's early 70's in their standard forms (no Hemis, and super track packs) could not run a high 14 sec 1/4 mile in pure stock trim like a R/T Dakota can.
|
MikeD
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
09:33:40
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
Dude I'm not an idiot, I know R/T means Road & Track gimme a break. I'm just sayin w/ the big motor and heavy duty suspenion they intended it to be a truck people drag race not your ordinary truck and I'm just sayin they should get the full potential out of it w/ a bigger cam, already M-1 installed on it, already has roller rockers, a big throttle body, headers, etc. They just restrict it too much.
|
blackhead
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
09:46:38
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
I always thought it was race technology jut me
but it seems better then road and track
|
psychoRT
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
10:44:28
|  RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
I'm not calling anyone a idoit!
Just saying look at the whole picture, all they did was take the ram engine and slap it in the dakota, what is the ram known for hmmmmmmmmmmmmm towing.
and they upped the suspension, 4.7 is a little bit more hp per cube but that is new tech vs old tech, r/t motors are really made to be carb. thus the 300 or 360 hp crate motors with carb.
I love my truck and with a little nitrous and a few boltones its easyly in the 12's
There is a dude here in dallas with just a few mods and juice and he is in 12.0 maybe 11.9 last i heard.
|
Demon-Xanth
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
16:17:38
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
Funny, I always thought officially R/T ment "Rapid Transit" (historically at least)
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
20:14:21
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
Rapid Transit was a Plymouth marketing thing where they toured some show cars around the country. They were all Plymouths, and the Rapid transit ads were only for Plymouth. Plymouth never made a R/T it was always a Dodge thing, I don't know why people tryed to apply the Plymouth's advertising slogans to the Dodge R/Ts, even back in the 60's the Dodge R/T stood for Road/Track.
|
Brad
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
20:24:51
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
Yeah the Dodge's of that era were called the Scat Pak. And for the numbers of those trucks orginally posted, doesn't surprise me. It takes a lot of skill to get a truck to hook up properly. I rarely get mine to. I'd like to see the 60 foot times of those runs.
|
Demon-Xanth
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
23:35:52
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
I stand corrected, thanks Hersbird
|
dodge
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/10/2003
10:21:40
| roll pan
IP: Logged
Message:
Is 400$ too much for a roll pan that is painted and installed. (Fiberglass not steel)
|
ZenDak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/10/2003
10:40:03
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
'01 CC 4.7 auto 3.55 rear (9 1/4) - yesterday she ran a 15.2 / 15.4 / 15.4 according to my TAZZO that is,,,but very consistent w/my buds GTech. Pretty good I thought.
Just intake, and exhuast. Weeeeeeee. Getting gears soon.
|
LI Blackdak..
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/10/2003
11:12:12
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
what is with the reviving old posts thing
|
NOSDART68
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/10/2003
23:12:22
| RE: r/t too slow??
IP: Logged
Message:
My friend's 02 rt has ran a best of 15.7 in the quarter. That is the absolute best it will run!!! He tried like 20 times last summer. I think it should be running a little faster than that.
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
