|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1712669
12/22/14 12:17 PM
12/22/14 12:17 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318 Manitoba, Canada
DaytonaTurbo
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
|
Quote:
Hmmm... sounds like i should just keep the Mustang...
After reading so many of your posts where you praise your mustang, I think you would be better off keeping it, unless you have some reason to want a 2wd dakota for light hauling/towing.
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: 70Cuda383]
#1712670
12/22/14 10:45 PM
12/22/14 10:45 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 733 jacksonville,FLORIDA
slammedR/T
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 733
jacksonville,FLORIDA
|
2000 model year dakotas still had the old style evap emissions stuff that is easy to by pass with a 1/4 watt 400ohm resistor. In 01-03 they went to the pump and canister style evap that is hrd to get rid of. Also the trans went to a different style range sensor that is different from 00 and older 46RE's. Lucky though sonnax makes a kit to adapt the older neutral safety switch to a 01-04 46RE case and eleminate the range sensor.
2000 Dakota R/T, 408 magnum, 727, Indy heads 1000cfm 4150 carb, 93 octane fuel. motor; 10.258 @ 132.78 200 shot; 9.262 @ 144.69 racemagnum
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1712671
12/23/14 12:36 AM
12/23/14 12:36 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes a 4.7 stick would beat an RT stock for stock, same bed/cab configuration. I say that because they're so close that a stock reg cab RT might beat a stock club cab 4.7 stick
Rt was available until 03 and was always 5.9/auto.
In 2000 or 2001 whatever year the 4.7 came in, it replaced the 5.2. I would avoid the 4.7. Not as many mods available, and you can't swap a 5.2 or 5.9 into a 4.7 truck without a total wiring and computer overhaul.
Again, i'm really not looking to build a race truck or hotrod. If i could get some longtubes and a true dual exhaust on there, maybe fix that awful factory tune, i'd be more than happy. I'd prefer the MPG ov a 4.7L over the torque ov the 5.9L any day. After driving a much-lightened big block muscle car, its not like either would be fast to me anyways...
Cool looking, cool sounding, V8 + stick (both mandatory), light as possible, simple as possible, best MPG possible. Thats the target.
Hmmm... sounds like i should just keep the Mustang...
A 4.7 is not a simple engine and not cheap/easy to fix. You can replace the complete 5.9 for the price of doing timing chains on the 4.7. A 4.7 5 speed will still need at least 3.92 gear to keep up with the 5.9 auto, 83 cubes is real hard to make up for. MPG is not really much better with the 4.7 when equiped with the same gears. No good reasons to use a 4.7 except I hear the 5.7 hemi is a bolt in replacement
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: DaytonaTurbo]
#1712672
12/23/14 07:48 AM
12/23/14 07:48 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
OP
Swears too much
|
OP
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Quote:
Hmmm... sounds like i should just keep the Mustang...
After reading so many of your posts where you praise your mustang, I think you would be better off keeping it, unless you have some reason to want a 2wd dakota for light hauling/towing.
Yeah... but then, that was the point point ov making the thread. I learned quite a bit. Thought it might be closer to what i need in a vehicle... but i guess not. Trucks, even lil mini-trucks are handy, but to be honest... i get by pretty well even with the generally useless (for hauling) Mustang. Hell... even a Fox-body hatch would be better than mine for carrying stuff. Almost bought one too (when i was shopping for this one) but a LOT ov Fox Mustangs get ripped around here... I'd never sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
|