Anyone see the artical in HR concerning the DOGKOTA?

[QUADDAK]

They baselined the R/T at 191.3 HP then added Mopar Performance bolt on's and re-dyno'd. This is there conclusion.

Baseline 191.3
Cold Air +16 207
Cat Bac k -4 203
Headers 12 215
HP PCM 9 224
P5249549 Cam -10 214
"Too Little Too Late?"

Then they have another artical a few pages down about another R/T running a "sleepy" 14.85. To contrast this artical there is another artical about a supercharged GMC with a stock 5.3L 285hp that runs a 16.4 and a 15.1 after adding a supercharger (they claim 336 hp). That's BS. If 14.85 is sleepy, what is a supercharged 5.3L that only runs 15.1? That's why I don't subscribe!

I have a 2000 Quad cab with the 5.9 that runs 15.2's. Non supercharged and no where near 336 hp. Maybe I should contact them for an article.

BTW.. I saw a Dakota R/T run 12.3 at Mopar Weekend, Houston Raceway Park.

[q8740]

Hey Quad Dak.

You have the numbers kinda of mixxed up.
The mods were done one by one

so when the put on the mopar pcm
the hp went from 191-224 for a gain of 33hp.

Also I posted the same thing on the Chevy article in Hot Rod and they headlined the article with
" HOT ROD PICKUPS"

They added 3700.00 plus every oh my god part and the chevy is still a
MAJOR TURD......

It appears to be Very Bias

I think everyone on the dml and mopar.net should e mail hot S##t i mean Rod about the obvious bias on display in there Rag I mean Mag.....I keep slipping...

Just venting

Scott Q

------------------
Scott Q
00 Dakota R/T cc

[This message has been edited by Fastdak (edited October 04, 2000).]

[Deep Dak]

Those hp numbers sound too high for the MP computer. Have you checked out the Oct issue of High Performance Mopar? On page 47 they add a few bolt-ons to the 5.2 and dynoed it. Baseline: 176.9hp & 248.5 torque at the wheels. With Red Line Synthetic fluids: 186.1hp & 251.5 at the wheels. With synthetic and K&N intake kit: 193.1hp & 267.2 torque @ wheels. Synthetic, K&N intake, and Borla exhaust: 202.0hp & 264.9 torque @ wheels. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, MP computer with above mods: 200.6hp & 270.6 torque. Although hp looks like it drop a tad, the mp computer managed to produce more hp at lower rpms. Granted there is a difference between the 5.2 & 5.9, but not enough to get the MP computer to produce so much more hp. I'm not trying to argue, just putting out the info I've read.

They also ran a regular cab stock R/T @ 14.96/90.98 mph. The truck ran this in the Florida heat!

I agree, quite a few magazines & truck sites are bias toward Chevys. Some idiots, at a site I sometimes visit, claim R/Ts with mods have troubles with mid 15s. Meanwhile, they claim their stock s-10 4.3s can do better. Gotta give Chevy credit for blinding quite a few people from the TRUTH, Chevy trucks are SLOW.

[QUADDAK]

Deep Dak,

If R/T's with mods have troubles with mid 15s, I must have a unique Quad Cab with 15.2's. BTW, I am very proud of!

If you send those S-10's my way I believe I can take care to that mis-conception.

[This message has been edited by QUADDAK (edited October 05, 2000).]

[Fastdak]

Hot Rod magazine is the dog here. I have never bought one and never will because in their eyes, if it ain't Chevy, it ain't fast. The spins that they put on stories is a joke. Maybe once they become objective and unbiased, they will understand the injustice that they have done here.


BTW, I'm just a little angry about this!

------------------
94 Dakota Sport 5.2L, Magnum Performance Super Karbine 250 throttle body, 3.90 auburn LSD, K+N X-stream filtercharger, MSD 6A, Blaster Coil II, Taylor wires, MP Computer, Pacesettter headers, Dynomax supercat, Flowmaster 50, Crower 1.7 rockers, Lakewood traction bars, Hellwig sway bar, Transgo shift kit, MP valve covers, Firestone Firehawks SS20

[GS -]

I read the articles twice and was amazed how much one contradicted the other. There's a good side to this guys. If everyone new the truth about the Dodge truck performance potiential there wouldn't be enough *chivys and ferds* to whoop! However, lets not snow anyone here. Maybe Mopar needs to take a good look at the criticism and re-evaluate some of their performance products. A 60s and 70's muscle car reputation will only last so long before the truth is known and the money plays out.



[This message has been edited by GS - (edited October 08, 2000).]

[GUAM SS/T]

Hey DEEPDAK, I believe I might know the "SITE" you are refering to....LOL I have been there on occasion just to toy with the chevy boys. They have repeatedly argued the question of the S-10 SS and Xtreme verses the SS/T and R/T. No matter how many facts you throw at them they always think the S-10 is quicker. Or argue that "My modified S-10 beat an SS/T, so a stock S-10 could beat an R/T" They have also said R/Ts and SS/Ts run 16and 18second times ROTFLMAO When you buy a chevy do they give you a free labotomy???

[mopartodd]

No, the labotomy is a pre-requisite to buy the chevy.

[Ramrod]

I have checked out the "S-10 site" a few times and found it quite humerous. I'm sure that it is possible to do enough to an S-10 that would make it faster than an SS/T or an R/T. The question I have is: WHY??? I have yet to find an S-10 SS or Xtreme that wanted any part of my Ram, and when I look over at them at a stoplight, they won't even look me in the eye. I'm with QUADDAK on this one. Send some of those a$$ kickin' S-10's my way!!

Jeff

------------------
98 SS/T, 2-4 drop, Gaylord's tonneau, RTT bumper cover, Reflexxion Steel cowl induction hood, painted handles and stripes, SS mirrors and grille inserts, clear tails, APC white face gauges, MP performance computer and cold air intake, R/T cam and 1.6 roller rockers, heavy duty springs, timing chain, MP cast aluminum valve covers, Taylor wires, QuickD tb, Gibson headers and dual Flowmasters with stainless tips, Transgo shift kit.

http://home.talkcity.com/ThePits/rm_...mrod98sst.html

[95redsport]

q8740 I think you have the numbers mixed up. the 33hp gain was done after the computer had time to adjust to the intake and exhaust. I thought it was weird that they made no mention of letting the computer adjust to the new cam. I think that's why the final number was so low. Mopar muscle did a similar project on a 97 318 dakota. the only differences were that they used an open air filter, 1.6 roller rocker kit, msd ignition, and redline. They came out with 50hp at the wheels. 225hp-297lb-ft at the wheels. This is on a 318. I would think a 360 would have at least 10-20hp more. The article on the gmc made me laugh. They did not say anything bad about it. It ran 15.1 supercharged!!!! give me a break. r/t is faster stock! they spent $3700+labor and it only ran 15.1....no bad comments. The prices I added up for the r/t was around $2300. Wonder what it ran in the 1/4? Did anyone else think that the prices they were stating were a little high?

[q8740]

Just went to the dyno tonight,

With mine and a buddys 00 R/Tcc

Mine was the fist to run and I have the following mods

Headers, 3" cat back, msd digtal 6, tony D t.b., K&N gen II , 1.7 roller rockers, mopar pcm

Peak rwhp 248.27

my buddys 00 R/T cc

homemade intake, mopar pcm, Tony D t.b.

peak rwhp 232.00

The TQ figures need to be caculated so I cant post them now.

But one big difference in the hp rating is between our trucks was my truck held almost all of the peak hp all the way thru the curve starting out at 248 and ending up at 240@5400 vs 232 peak and ending up at 215 @5400 on my buddys

I would atribute that to the MSD and the1.7 rollers rocker which on my seat of the pants dyno made a huge difference

Next mod the Powerdyne S/C

The dyno was a mustang dyno about a year old(very expensive) and the temp was 75 and a little humid

The business is pacific performance center and the owner said that on there web site there fourm has several post from R/T guys on mods and power gains
and power losses www.pacific-audio.com

Scott Q

------------------
Scott Q
00 Dakota R/T cc

[This message has been edited by q8740 (edited October 13, 2000).]