| From | Message |
gregGuy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/25/2004
19:50:43
|
 Subject: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
97 dakota sport v8 5.2 with intake vrs 93 camaro 3.4 v6.
any ideas on wether or not the dakota could take the
camaro in the 1/4 mile.
also both are automatic.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
2/25/2004
20:09:52
| RE: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
Stock to stock I hope you could easily take him.
I wouldn't fear that car with my QC 4X4
|
01RT-BC
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/25/2004
21:14:04
| RE: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
Before I bought my Dak which was after my Lude, I had a 1.8l NA VW Golf and I could beat a V6 Camaro. Your dak should easily take it, those things are slow as hell.
|
WipLash
R/T
2/25/2004
21:28:10
| RE: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
3.4l? I thought the V6 Camaros where 3.8L. The Hipo 3.8L is not a bad engine. Especially if it's a 5spd and he has the right gears. Back when I was racing my 93 Dak 5.2L a friend of mine had a GS Reagal with the HO 3.8L and that thing ran good. I still would kick his ass, but I was in a 93 5.2L and he was in a Regal. The 97 is much slower than a 93 and a Camaro is much faster than a Regal. I wouldn't bet on it.... The 97 5.2L is aroung a 16.5 truck. My friend in his Regal could run upper 15's.
Isn't the 3.4 the base Grand Prix engine? I think all base Camaros come with 3.8's. I'd ask him to pop the hood to look at the sticker on his radiator core support.
|
Grayson
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/25/2004
22:56:12
|  RE: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
I had a 95 3.4L camaro, that's what I traded in for the quad cab. 1993 to 1995 had the 3.4L engines. 1995.5 camaros had the 3.8s, and that was the standard v6 until 2002. The 3.4 in the camaro was a dog. The 3.8 with a 5 speed could be very worthy if the driver knows how to drive. He might also have the Y87 special package that was supposed to drive up sales, which was the addition of 3.42 gears, 4 wheel disk brakes,and freer flowing, dual exit exhaust.
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
2/26/2004
07:12:15
| RE: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
yeah the camaro use to have the 2.8 and 3.4 for V6 motors. They werent rated that high at all... between 150-170 depending on year/motor. I had a 180 hp 3.4 in my alero and i beat a few V8 dakotas in it but it also weighed a lot less than any camaro.
|
ZenDak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/26/2004
07:56:33
| RE: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
You would hopefully stomp him.
|
99 dakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/26/2004
08:37:09
| RE: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
you should kill him my 99 4x4 cc sport 5.2L 5 speed ran a 15.6 stock the auto is proubly a bit slower though. I have a blown pleanum gasket and I killed a 305 rs camaro on the highway and out of the tollbooth. My bosses daughter has a 94 camaro with a 3.4 and a 5 speed he says its a dog. I beleive its a diff 3.4 than the grand prix and grand am but I'm pretty sure the grand am and grand prix are lighter. I raced a grand prix with my 5.0L capri at the strip and he ran a 14.5 with the interior striped out. I lost because of wheelspin and running on 7 cyl had a bad plug wire
|
Grayson
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/27/2004
23:36:38
| RE: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
Could never quite figure it out . . . GM could squeeze a 350 cubic inch hunk of metal under that hood, yet they never put the 4.3L engine in there for the v6 option.
|
WipLash
R/T
2/28/2004
01:19:52
| RE: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
They never put the 4.3L in the Camaro becuase they knew that most Camaro owners would drive the hell out of it. I've seen too many 4.3L S-10s grenade when driven hard day after day. It's a junk engine. The 3.8L handles the high revs much better than the 4.3L. So, they made the 3.8L the high reving car engine and the 4.3L the low reving high torque truck engine.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
2/28/2004
12:32:00
| RE: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
The 4.3 and high revs don't go together LOL! The 4.3 IS a truck/Astro Van engine.
Now to get this straight, the 3.8 FWD is not being used in the RWD platform now adays is it?
Last I paid any attention (in the 80's) the 3.8's in the RWD were BUICK RWD V6's. They were in Camero's, Firebirds, Monte Carlo's, Cutlass Supreme, etc. The Buick V6 was like a Buick 350 with two cyclinders cut off. You can identify them easily because they have the oil pump EXTERNAL on the front timing chain cover! The FWD 3.8 has an INTERNAL oil pump. The RWD 3.8's were dogs EXCEPT in the Buick Grand National which had a turbo charged 3.8 which tore some a$$!
The FWD 3.8 V6 like in the NEWER Buicks (which was out since the mid 80's) was a lot more peppy to drive. They started Supercharging some of them in the early 90's I believe. There are some Buick Park Avenues that have Supercharged FWD V6's that have NO S/C badging! My sisters father in law has one. It's NICE. The Regal and Boneville SSC can come the same way. They usually will sport the SUPERCHARGED badging on the trunk lid.
Now they put them in the Pontiac GTP. 240HP.
I actually have a supercharger from one of those engines. I was going to use the ROOTS supercharger section on another V6 (as I have seen done) but I got rid of that car before I did it.
I am just wondering if they were using FWD engines re configured for RWD (3.4) or is it just the same displacement? You can't always compare the engines from FWD to RWD because it's not always the same engine. I'm curious now to what they are.
|
Nick
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/28/2004
14:43:26
| RE: camaro vs dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
You should be able to beat him. I have a friend with a 93' Camarvo V6 thats slightly modded. I'm in a farily stock 99 R/T. No competition. I dunno if his was a 3.4 or a 3.8... but I suspect the results would have been the same. Your 5.2 should beat him.
I'm not a chevy guy, but that 4.3 is not a bad engine. I had one in my Astro van and it pulled damn hard for a v6. I beat a 4 cylender mustang with it. Pretty funny when you think about it.
-Nick
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
