Me vs 2 mini trucks
11-08-2003, 03:38 AM
#1
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Windsor
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me vs 2 mini trucks
Just because ford makes a lightning and dodge comes with a hemi do the little guys think they have something.
Lauzon Parkway is a nice government built drag strip 3 and 4 lanes wide,
For some reason a Ranger and a Dakota (faked R/T) decide to surround me (ford left dodge right). I wanted to take off on thes guys for fun. Then they started creeping up when the other direction turned yellow.
Green says go, I think the ford was just messin around (or it was plain slow?) but i saw a V8 on the quarter of the dodge till about 40 kms, then he earned his spot back there with his ford mini truck buddy.
Is it possible for a ram and a blue ovel to wear out my rearveiw mirror?
Lauzon Parkway is a nice government built drag strip 3 and 4 lanes wide,
For some reason a Ranger and a Dakota (faked R/T) decide to surround me (ford left dodge right). I wanted to take off on thes guys for fun. Then they started creeping up when the other direction turned yellow.
Green says go, I think the ford was just messin around (or it was plain slow?) but i saw a V8 on the quarter of the dodge till about 40 kms, then he earned his spot back there with his ford mini truck buddy.
Is it possible for a ram and a blue ovel to wear out my rearveiw mirror?
11-08-2003, 04:35 AM
#4
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 15,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An 8 could make 'em fast if they
A. Weren't geared like a truck (pulling power, not speed)
and
2. If they had any weight on the drive wheels to get what power they do have to the ground.
A. Weren't geared like a truck (pulling power, not speed)
and
2. If they had any weight on the drive wheels to get what power they do have to the ground.
11-08-2003, 11:42 AM
#5
Senior Member
Certified GM nut
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ab,ca
Posts: 1,963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nothing to do with weight on the wheels, aslong as they take the take-offs easy...
the dakota v8s are just plain shitty, an *-10 with a 4.3 is better combo.
the dakota v8s are just plain shitty, an *-10 with a 4.3 is better combo.
11-08-2003, 12:27 PM
#6
Senior Member
Certified GM nut
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Saginaw, MI
Posts: 1,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1992 trofeo
nothing to do with weight on the wheels, aslong as they take the take-offs easy...
the dakota v8s are just plain shitty, an *-10 with a 4.3 is better combo.
the dakota v8s are just plain shitty, an *-10 with a 4.3 is better combo.
what makes it a better combo? im curious to hear your thoughts on this.
11-08-2003, 01:12 PM
#7
Senior Member
Certified GM nut
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ab,ca
Posts: 1,963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ive already been told about no about this (see SRX/XLR)
but here we go..
A small cheap single cab/4.3 95 sonoma is very powerful/light 195hp/250 3,000lbs
A small cheap single cab dakota is different.. even the big 5.2 engine had 180hp/240lbs of torque.
.
a 2.5-liter 4-cylinder, a 3.9-liter V6, and 5.2- (pre-1997)
4cylind? hardly can move the 3400lb truck.. 100hp/ 130torque
3.9 this was an ok package, 160hp/ 220 torqe
5.2 this engine.. well with lots of dodges, didnt come out on top. I had descent torque but not too much go, and only avalible on the bigger models.
even after 97 -newer body style. they introduced the 5.9 which was only r/t and bigger models. (crew cabs 4,200lb, and the single cabs gained 300lbs.. to 3,670...)
but here we go..
A small cheap single cab/4.3 95 sonoma is very powerful/light 195hp/250 3,000lbs
A small cheap single cab dakota is different.. even the big 5.2 engine had 180hp/240lbs of torque.
.
a 2.5-liter 4-cylinder, a 3.9-liter V6, and 5.2- (pre-1997)
4cylind? hardly can move the 3400lb truck.. 100hp/ 130torque
3.9 this was an ok package, 160hp/ 220 torqe
5.2 this engine.. well with lots of dodges, didnt come out on top. I had descent torque but not too much go, and only avalible on the bigger models.
even after 97 -newer body style. they introduced the 5.9 which was only r/t and bigger models. (crew cabs 4,200lb, and the single cabs gained 300lbs.. to 3,670...)
11-10-2003, 03:58 PM
#8
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Salina, KS
Posts: 5,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1992 trofeo
nothing to do with weight on the wheels, aslong as they take the take-offs easy...
the dakota v8s are just plain shitty, an *-10 with a 4.3 is better combo.
the dakota v8s are just plain shitty, an *-10 with a 4.3 is better combo.
11-10-2003, 04:48 PM
#9
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Windsor
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1992 trofeo
nothing to do with weight on the wheels, aslong as they take the take-offs easy...
the dakota v8s are just plain shitty, an *-10 with a 4.3 is better combo.
the dakota v8s are just plain shitty, an *-10 with a 4.3 is better combo.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BillBoost37
Your Ride: GM Pictures & Videos
7
07-17-2005 12:27 AM