Forums
Forum Tools
|
 |
15:58:03 - 04/19/2024
General Dakota Board
| From | Message |
03 QC Sport +
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/17/2007
22:20:58
|
 Subject: RE: dakota r/t = embarassment
IP: Logged
Message:
brianj
Why do they have the Nascar Truck series?
I have an idea, they could have them all tow a loaded trailer and 800 pounds in the bed.
|
Shatto
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/18/2007
11:40:02
| RE: dakota r/t = embarassment
IP: Logged
Message:
"Why do they have the Nascar Truck series?"
So a bunch of hill billies can stand around and get drunk and BS each other about which brand is better, as if it really matters a flying fukk.
|
03 QC Sport +
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/18/2007
16:20:22
| RE: dakota r/t = embarassment
IP: Logged
Message:
Shatto
That sounds pretty much like any sport in existence doesn't it????
|
.boB
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/19/2007
00:47:53
| RE: dakota r/t = embarassment
IP: Logged
Message:
>> It's cleaner than pretty much every 60's muscle car ever built (except the Daytona Charger and Superbird and a very few others), and in the same weight class as the larger ones, maybe a smidge more. <<
There's some truth in that. But.... this isn't 1968. This is the new millenium, and those old cars from the 60's just can't cut it.
A couple of years ago one of the mags did a comparison between a new Mustang GT and '68 Shelby. Back in '68, the Shelby was a top contender. Some would say it was the King. There wasn't much out of the box that could beat it in any venue - street, drags, and road course.
The new GT had a 4.6L motor - dual overhead cams, but still an emissions small block. 5 speed stick, EFI, yada, yada, yada.
The Shelby had 7.0L big block, a true torque monster of the day. 4 speed stick, front disc brakes, etc. Car was all rebuilt to factory specs, just like you would buy it from your local Ford dealer.
The results? The new GT just spanked the Shelby in every performance catagory - acceleration, braking, cornering. The Shelby certainly looked better, though. Given the two choices, I'd take the Shelby in a heart beat.
So, what's the point? The point is you can't say the Dakota R/T is a muscle car because some of the specs are comparable to a car built 30-40 years ago. Imagine if they used that argument in an advertisement. Would you rush down to the local Dodge dealer if you saw an ad that said the new R/T is as good as a '68 Charger? I wouldn't.
The original poster was complaining about the poor 0-60 times for his R/T. "7 flat in a reg cab. what the hell were they thinking". That's less than a second slower than a '68 charger with a 426 Hemi. Less than a second. And yet, today it's considered to be poor. Our expectations for a muscle machine are considerably higher today than they were 30-40 years ago. That's because those expectations are often met. Look at a new Mustang 'vert. Bone stock 0-60 is 5.1 sec! Compare that to the monster Hemi at 6.4 sec.
Compared to a 40 year old muscle car, the R/T isn't that far off the mark. It won't win any races, but it's not a slouch. But compared to anything built in the same year, it's a dog.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/19/2007
23:04:08
| RE: dakota r/t = embarassment
IP: Logged
Message:
Wrong? Not, not really in as much as the comparison info on two Mustangs, just missing my point. Build the oldster Mustang with equal tech, especially the tires, and the results change. So what. A lesser vehicle can turn in results that look better than older types just because of the better grip. Can you imagine getting a Dakota to hook up with 7-inch polyglass tires(bias-ply = non-radials)???
On the tech issue, the '68 Hemi Road Runner (Car and Driver Car of the Year) was clocked at 13.5 at 105mph (on 7-inch polyglass tires made of pencil-eraser rubber). With 9-inch slicks (of equally ancient rubber) it was a 12-second car. Hence, my comment on tire tech.
Now, I didn't say the Dakota was a muscle car. I did comment on it being an excellent building platform just like the 60's muscle car, with the same basic mechanical components and layout, better aerodynamics, similar weight. It's the closest thing to a 60's muscle car that was being offered at the time. As for me, given a choice, I'd take a stock 318-powered '69 Charger over any Dakota. Then I'd start tweaking.
|
| | <<Original Post <<Previous Page P 2 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
|
