| From | Message |
phil magill
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/22/2004
19:49:45
|
 Subject: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
i have '01 R/T, jet performance chip, k&n cold air, raven exhaust, no cats, and 275/40/17 tires. has anyone with a similar setup raced a mustang gt? no one has "played" with me yet, so i don't know how i'd compare to the gt. can i run with it? would i get it? would i lose? anyone know!? thanks
|
islander
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/22/2004
21:04:07
|  RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
i ran a late model one when i had stock exhaust..m1..pcm..kn gen2.
i'd edge ahead when he would shift and then he would pull on me..towards the top end he was slowly getting the best of me.
I put the true duals and headers on since then.
|
midnightmagic
GenIII
1/22/2004
22:11:00
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
i have a 2000 4.7 cc auto 2wd,stock for stock the 98 and lower yrs i have beaten (except cobras) from a stop i can take a 99-up gt till bout 40 then they catch up but at 60 i can lock it down and hold it till speedlimiter. as long as you get good traction you should be able to hold him off. i know have 68mm fastman intake and exhaust but have yet to get "tested" by one. i have a small vid of my speedo from a stop to speed limiter run, i can email it, with spin my 0-30 is like instantaneous, well you can see the vid if ya like:)
You gotta ask yourself one question...That Thing Got A HEMI???
|
yea right
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/23/2004
09:53:12
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
Everybody roll their pants legs up.
C'mone, even the older 4.6 stangs will beat a cc auto 4.7. Output is almost identical yet the stangs weigh about 600-800 lbs less than a cc dak. Do the math. As for hanging with a 99up gt, BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 99+ are capable of high 13's stock. Your saying a 15 second truck can hang with a 13 second car? Even a RC 4.7 5spd 2wd 3.92 isn't going to come close to a 99+ gt. Get real dude.
If anybody has ever beaten any model stang gt with a stock cc auto 4.7 dak, then the stang was either running on 7 cly.'s or wasn't racing back.
|
93 lover
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/23/2004
10:07:46
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
I had a 93 cc 5.2 the truck ran a 14.76 stock. On the street I would kill them all from light to light(cobras too), but 1/4 mile they got me. The truck had lsd and 3.55 gears and meaty tires. I put reg cab 6 cyl rear springs on it, and it hooked awesome. Spin, but no smoke. I think with 3.92's I might have been even, or maybe in front at the end of the 1/4. If they would have hooked up, they may have got me from light to light also, but thats where my extra weight came in.
|
midnightmagic
GenIII
1/23/2004
12:09:13
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
i should have prolly mentioned that i have 4.10 posi also. racing on the track and on the street is to totally different things, you can have a 13 sec car get beat by a 16 sec car, when the traction factor of a track is taken away ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!
You gotta ask yourself one question...That Thing Got A HEMI???
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
1/23/2004
18:07:36
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
99' mustangs are not high 13 second cars... not even the cobras. Those were the ones that all got recalled because of the wrong motor output. Those late model mustangs only weigh about 50-100 lbs lighter than a regular cab dakota. They arent as light as you think they are.
|
hell ya
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/23/2004
19:59:04
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
thank you intense....I've been telling people that these cars were way slower than people think. I've raced a lot of them, and still dont know what the tail lights look like.
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
1/23/2004
20:08:55
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
well most of these people that post on this forum dont even know what a christmas tree at the track looks like... they only read it in "Car and Driver" and "Motor Trend", and because their professional drivers can hit those times, every damn car with that Name, Motor, or even COLOR can run that time. My buddies LS1 that i beat could only run a 14.00... his car wasnt slow... its just the real world! And he beats his buddies 99 Cobra all the time.
|
yea right
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/24/2004
11:25:35
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
Go to stangnet.com and read some posts, most stock 99+ run low 14s but a good driver can get one into the 13's.
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
1/24/2004
11:38:38
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
how many of those mustangs on stangnet.com are still stock.
i doubt any of them go to that site to talk about how stock their mustang is. 99 year model wasnt as powerful as the '00+. I know the 00' and newer can hit 13s.
The chief editor of GM Hightech Performance has run 12.9s any every LS1 F-body produced, showroom new.... now do you think that every F-body owner can do that?
frock no
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/24/2004
21:35:35
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey 93Lover,
I'm with you all the way. I've had every year Dakota except 96, 97, 99, 2003 and I can vouch for you that 1993 was the best year. I never got beat by a mustang GT in that truck. NEVER!!!
I wish I could say the same for this piece of sh!t 2000R/T I have now that won't even run a 15.0.
My 1993cc 5.2L auto would click off 14.9's all day. Best time was 14.7. Like you said 0-30 was instantaious. In 45mph traffic I could pull out between cars as close as 4 car links from each other and the car I pulled out in front of would never have to hit their brakes. That truck ruled Red-Light to Red-Light! The RC4.7L with 3.92 gears
is almost as good.
|
357S10
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
20:15:17
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
I know a guy with a 2000 mustang gt and we weighed his car and it was like 3350 lbs without a driver compared to my truck, short box S10 at 3058lbs, with overdrive tranny and sbc
|
R/T Slayer
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/26/2004
08:57:12
|  RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
I got a 2001 GT. The only thing I have done is put an H-pipe and a K&N generation II induction kit on and I hung with a 2002 SS w/ LS1 and complete SLP package. I have also slayed many dodge fanatics with there R/T's. I can tell you from experience they look/sound great but they ain't touchin me and mine. Oh yeah, a hemi ain't nuthin and wont ever be nuthin. Get a real truck, I'd suggest a Ford Lightning. Now that truck will run my stang in the ground! Ford has thigs held down, GET OVER IT.
|
BIGTYMER
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/26/2004
09:54:52
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
If a hemi aint nothing I know someone with a hemi challenger that would be more than happy to take the victory, your pride, and a pink slip all at the same time. And your GT won't outrun an SS especially one with a "full" SLP package.
Everyone says this and that, start posting links to your track slips...
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
1/26/2004
10:22:29
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
does he know what a full "SLP package" is?
stock f-bodies are faster than stock lightnings..
hemi's arent dodges performance truck... dodge has one in the way of 500 hp and ten cylinders
|
litng klr
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/26/2004
13:00:28
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
My name is my lic plate# I am sure it speaks for itself, so if yout want to race me with your g/t lets go.
|
R/T Slayer
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/26/2004
18:27:28
|  RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
Anyone with a R/T that lives anywhere remotly close to NC and wants to race post it and meet me! Unless its had drastic change done to it, IT WONT TOUCH ME! And what year lightning you talkin bout klr? Also a 99+ GT IS a high 13 car, EVEN the cobras! The boys you guys been racing must cant drive. And another thing, I didn't say i beat that SS I said I hung with him, and alot of people saw it! Knowing how to drive makes a heck of a difference. And Bigtymer,how much money has been spent on that hemi? It had better be alot, Ive seen old 327's run them in the ground, also Id be proud to see my 281ci run with a 383ci or 440ci!
|
Waltherone
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/26/2004
18:35:44
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
I haven't found a problem with an automatic 4.7L yet. I thought we'd already settled the myth that the 4.7L is only fast with the manual..guess not?
|
Waltherone
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/26/2004
18:41:25
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
Oh, but by the way, a LONG time ago, when I had just gotten the 3.92 gears and LSD in the rearend, I ran a 99 GT from a 5mph roll up to 60, and he put a car, car and a half on me at most. Back then, in street trim, I was in the 15.1 area. Helluva 13 second car that was....
Fact of the matter is, not everyone can drive. Have you (R/T Slayer) taken that car to the track? If not, stop trying to argue when the only thing you have to compare to is your "hanging with" an SS, who for all we know might be a worse driver than my mom.
|
JC
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/26/2004
18:44:57
| RE: R/T vs. GT
IP: Logged
Message:
Let's talk about Lightnings for a second. In my opinion, they are a fabulous truck. They look good and perform even better. Remember though, they are still a Ford and being that I have had nothing but bad luck with Ford products, I'll pass no matter how much I'd like to own one.
The big problem I have had when looking at used Lightnings is the price. They were more than double the price of my R/T with nearly everything being the same (price, year, miles). Naturally the performance of the L is greater than the R/T but when it comes to bang for your buck, I couldn't pass on the R/T. Any truck that can run high 14's to low 15's and even faster with a few mods is a great truck.
If Ford made a reliable product, perhaps a Lightning would be in my driveway. Thank god I don't live by "what if's".
In regards to a MGT with the H pipe and K&N injection kit hanging with a Camaro SS with the SLP package, I'd have to see it to believe it. With two able bodies drivers, the MGT would be a brief speck in the mirror. As much as I like the MGT, I am not naive enough to think it will pose a threat to a SS. Perhaps 0-60 the MGT can hang but as the speeds progress, you lose badly.
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
