| From | Message |
OntarioDak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/14/2002
16:44:36
|
 Subject: 98 vs 99 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Did anyone else read the MT artile called american muscle or somthing that had a 99 r/t that ran almost 16 seconds in the 1/4 mile..they compared that to a 98 that ran 15.3
is there a reason for this..i though the r/t hasn't changed from 98-00
|
Drew
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/14/2002
22:23:09
| RE: 98 vs 99 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
The '99, from what i hear, was a bad year for dodge. i sure am glad i have the '98!!
|
e
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/15/2002
07:06:32
| RE: 98 vs 99 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Any particular reason it was considered a bad year? I've got a '99 w/51k+ mi. No probs.
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/15/2002
10:44:18
| RE: 98 vs 99 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
There is no bad year. There are no big differences that would change performance that much. I saw a road test of a 98 CC that ran a 15.1. It's all about the track, the weather that day, and the driver. There could easilly be some difference in performance from one truck to the next but the average of all 98's is going to be very close to the average of all 99's and so on. When R/T owners talk aboput the best year R/T it's often just an inside joke because there are no real differences (at least that can't be overcome). The 98,99, and 2000 models have an easier time getting smog legal parts directly from Mopar but that's about it.
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
