5.9L Dakota vs. GMC Syclone
John Griffin
Dakota. Who would win if they lined them up? I know the Syclones are
terribly fast but could they beat a 360 Dakota? Another one of my
friends has a Dodge Ram SS/T with a chip and it is running 8 seconds
flat through the 1/8 mile! My local dealership just got a yellow 5.9
Dakota. They want $23k, its too bad because I just got a '98 Mustang GT!
John Griffin
Jim Hale
John Griffin wrote in message <367B11...@almatel.net>...
As bad as I hate to say it, being a Mopar person, I think the GMC would eat
the Dakota. The GMC is all wheel drive so traction isn't a problem. The 5.2
Dakota I had w/ 3.91 gears had a real problem with traction when you stood
on it.
Jim
'98 TJ Sport, 31X10.50 BFG MT, 2" R.E. spacer lift,
Smittybuilt nerfs, Hella 500 lights
can be seen at www.jeeptj.com/yourfel2.html
paul p.
you're smoking more than just tires <grin>. Maybe you got the 1/8
mile mixed up with zero to 60 <more grins>. BTW, the 'clone will smoke
either dodge.
paul
In article <367B11...@almatel.net>, z...@almatel.net says...
T Vaeretti
> But how about GM's 'Cyclone'... I hear that model does even better
> against other vehicles than the "Syclone" does ;->
>
Never heard of that one, Jerry! It really is a Syclone. The S coming from being
an S-15.
The Typhoon was pretty cool too, but not as fast as the pickup. I believe they
were like 280hp. The prototype Syclone would do 0-60 in 4.6 or 4.9 sec so, but
I don't think the production ones ever got up to that. They only missed it by a
few tenths though.
Had to do some front-end work on one a while back and naturally had to test
drive it. I wish my conscience woulda let me really put my foot in it. Still,
it woulda given my friend's '98 Camero SS with the LS1 a heck of a scare.
I'm afraid the Dakota driver would be left scratching his/her head.
--
Tom Vaeretti
Corvallis, OR
http://www.orst.edu/~vaerettt
Spydaman
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:39:21 -0500, John Griffin <z...@almatel.net>
> wrote:
>
> The Syclone would whip the Dakota. It has better traction (All wheel
> drive) versus the Dakota 2WD, so it doesn't matter how powerful the
> Dodge is, it won't hook up as well. Also, the Syclone should be a bit
> lighter. I forget the power that the Syclone has, but I remember it
> was wicked fast - Faster than the Vettes of the time (0-60 in 4.9
> sec?). The Dakota 5.9 might be in the mid-6 sec range?.
>
> Jim S.
>
What's the price differance between the two? And what if you threw in
a Locker or Posi in the Dakota rear end? Which one would still offer
the most bang for trhe buck?
Mark Rieb
Mustang, don't mess with a Syclone or Typhoon. They will eat you alive
stock, and are easily modified for even more power. For more info check out
http://www.syty.org/.
It is tough to beat a turbocharged all-wheel drive vehicle from stoplight to
stoplight.
Mark
Spydaman wrote in message <367DCC...@shaka.com>...
T Vaeretti
> Jim Shultz wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:39:21 -0500, John Griffin <z...@almatel.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > The Syclone would whip the Dakota. It has better traction (All wheel
> > drive) versus the Dakota 2WD, so it doesn't matter how powerful the
> > Dodge is, it won't hook up as well. Also, the Syclone should be a bit
> > lighter. I forget the power that the Syclone has, but I remember it
> > was wicked fast - Faster than the Vettes of the time (0-60 in 4.9
> > sec?). The Dakota 5.9 might be in the mid-6 sec range?.
> >
> > Jim S.
> >
> What's the price differance between the two? And what if you threw in
> a Locker or Posi in the Dakota rear end? Which one would still offer
> the most bang for trhe buck?
Hmm. In '92 the Syclone was going for somewheres near $26,000. I'd imagine
you could do pretty well with a Dakota for that price. The Syclone came with
a limited slip rear (gov-loc?) and I think the Dakota, even locked up would
have some troubles. Of course, you could get a 4x4 and install Mile-Marker's
little full-time viscous coupling thing that goes on the front driveline of
a part-time 4x4, put it on the Dakota and get some pull from the front
wheels, but it still wouldn't be quite as positive as the Syclones (AWD
Astro) transfer case.
In "bang-for-the-buck" I think the Dakota wins, but in overall bang, Syclone
all the way.
Jim Shultz
wrote:
The Syclone would whip the Dakota. It has better traction (All wheel
drive) versus the Dakota 2WD, so it doesn't matter how powerful the
Dodge is, it won't hook up as well. Also, the Syclone should be a bit
lighter. I forget the power that the Syclone has, but I remember it
was wicked fast - Faster than the Vettes of the time (0-60 in 4.9
sec?). The Dakota 5.9 might be in the mid-6 sec range?.
Jim S.
>I know a guy that has a GMC Syclone and another guy that has a 5.9 R/T
Jerry Bransford
But how about GM's 'Cyclone'... I hear that model does even better
against other vehicles than the "Syclone" does ;->
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL KC6TAY C.A.P.
The Zen Hotdog... make me one with everything!
LimX
wrote:
>Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
>> But how about GM's 'Cyclone'... I hear that model does even better
>> against other vehicles than the "Syclone" does ;->
>>
>
>Never heard of that one, Jerry! It really is a Syclone. The S coming from being
>an S-15.
>
>The Typhoon was pretty cool too, but not as fast as the pickup. I believe they
>were like 280hp. The prototype Syclone would do 0-60 in 4.6 or 4.9 sec so, but
>I don't think the production ones ever got up to that. They only missed it by a
>few tenths though.
>
>Had to do some front-end work on one a while back and naturally had to test
>drive it. I wish my conscience woulda let me really put my foot in it. Still,
>it woulda given my friend's '98 Camero SS with the LS1 a heck of a scare.
>
>I'm afraid the Dakota driver would be left scratching his/her head.
>
>--
>Tom Vaeretti
>Corvallis, OR
>http://www.orst.edu/~vaerettt
>
>
So how about the Ford f150 lightning??
Coby Hughey
new one. However, the Lightning was easier to modify inexpensively and make
serious power; much more so than the typhoon/syclone class. And while
AWD is really nice for launching, it's not everything; I've beat them at the
dragstrip in 2wd with a lot more weight than they were carrying.
In article <367dcb1b...@netnews.Worldnet.att.net>, mm...@usa.net
says...
Jerry Bransford
>
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> > But how about GM's 'Cyclone'... I hear that model does even better
> > against other vehicles than the "Syclone" does ;->
> >
>
> Never heard of that one, Jerry! It really is a Syclone. The S coming from being
> an S-15.
Oops... Mea Culpa LOL! I thought I remembered it being spelled Cyclone
in some magazine. Syclone... no kidding <g>!
barry
> Dakota. Who would win if they lined them up? I know the Syclones are
> terribly fast but could they beat a 360 Dakota? Another one of my
> friends has a Dodge Ram SS/T with a chip and it is running 8 seconds
> flat through the 1/8 mile! My local dealership just got a yellow 5.9
> Dakota. They want $23k, its too bad because I just got a '98 Mustang GT!
>
> John Griffin
>
Syclone will destroy a 5.9 RT.I wanted one of the Typhoon's bad,but
got a Jeep GC instead.I drove the Syclone twice,once at about 1,000
miles,then again about 10K later,after being chipped and a few other mods
that ran about $1000 total,and it was awesome!After the mods,it would
haze the tires at launch,then hook up violently,and shoot forward.I
really wanted one after that,but...
I still see it around,it's been modded even more,and he says it runs a
lot better than even the time I drove it.I wanted to drive it again,but
it had a problem with the transfer case,and he was waiting,and hoping it
would hold together until the parts arrived..
Barry
Coby Hughey
says...
>
>Unless you are driving a *heavily* modified truck or even a Camaro or
>Mustang, don't mess with a Syclone or Typhoon. They will eat you alive
>stock, and are easily modified for even more power. For more info check out
>http://www.syty.org/.
>
>It is tough to beat a turbocharged all-wheel drive vehicle from stoplight to
>stoplight.
>
It's easy if they don't understand how to make the turbo spool up for the launch.
Turbo's don't really launch all that well, compared to the instant gratification of
big cubic inches or superchargers(esp roots type). They are pretty quick
though.
>Mark
>
>Spydaman wrote in message <367DCC...@shaka.com>...
>>Jim Shultz wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:39:21 -0500, John Griffin <z...@almatel.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Syclone would whip the Dakota. It has better traction (All wheel
>>> drive) versus the Dakota 2WD, so it doesn't matter how powerful the
>>> Dodge is, it won't hook up as well. Also, the Syclone should be a bit
>>> lighter. I forget the power that the Syclone has, but I remember it
>>> was wicked fast - Faster than the Vettes of the time (0-60 in 4.9
>>> sec?). The Dakota 5.9 might be in the mid-6 sec range?.
>>>
>>> Jim S.
>>>
Jim
modifications. My pick is the clone.
--
--Jim
---------------------------------
Disclaimer: My views are my own and not necessarily the
same as my ass.
Jim Shultz
Hughey) wrote:
>>It is tough to beat a turbocharged all-wheel drive vehicle from stoplight to
>>stoplight.
>>
>
>It's easy if they don't understand how to make the turbo spool up for the launch.
>Turbo's don't really launch all that well, compared to the instant gratification of
>big cubic inches or superchargers(esp roots type). They are pretty quick
>though.
It's an Automatic for christ sakes!!! How could you not win at the
stoplight??? All it takes is to stand on it and let off the brakes.
You can't touch them. Period.
Carroll
turbo-engine is how to spool the turbo up. If you don't you either quit
racing or lose a lot of money to people who did learn.
Coby Hughey wrote in message <75lrol$46...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>...
>In article <OKEfizJL#GA.242@upnetnews03>, mtbac...@email.msn.com
>says...
>>
>>Unless you are driving a *heavily* modified truck or even a Camaro or
>>Mustang, don't mess with a Syclone or Typhoon. They will eat you alive
>>stock, and are easily modified for even more power. For more info check
out
>>http://www.syty.org/.
>>
to
>>stoplight.
>>
>
>It's easy if they don't understand how to make the turbo spool up for the
launch.
>Turbo's don't really launch all that well, compared to the instant
gratification of
>big cubic inches or superchargers(esp roots type). They are pretty quick
>though.
>
>
>
Coby Hughey
says...
>
>
>It's an Automatic for christ sakes!!! How could you not win at the
>stoplight??? All it takes is to stand on it and let off the brakes.
>You can't touch them. Period.
Period? Guess I better get back into that wayback machine and take back them
stoplight victories I got in my old bronco in 2wd. I've beat 'em more than once.
They're quick, but the way you talk, they're untouchable. They're far from
untouchable.
Robert Eberhardt
0-60 time around 4.9 seconds. I have seen un-modified Syclones run in the
low 14 seconds in the 1/4 mile, slightly modified ones will get into the
13s. The last test I read of a 360, regular cab 2WD Dakota put it at 7.2
seconds 0-60 and 15.2 seconds in the 1/4 mile. It wouldn't be much of a
contest, unless the Syclone driver fell asleep.
Robert
John Griffin wrote in message <367B11...@almatel.net>...
Robert Eberhardt
seen any times for the newest one though, so I don't know if it's available
yet.
Robert
LimX wrote in message <367dcb1b...@netnews.Worldnet.att.net>...
>On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 20:12:00 -0800, T Vaeretti <vaer...@ucs.orst.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>Jerry Bransford wrote:
>>
>>> But how about GM's 'Cyclone'... I hear that model does even better
>>> against other vehicles than the "Syclone" does ;->
>>>
>>
>>Never heard of that one, Jerry! It really is a Syclone. The S coming from
being
>>an S-15.
>>
Robert Eberhardt
too light in the back end. I had a traction lock in my 3.55 axle equipped
'94 4.0L Ranger. It just gave me two black strips when I accelerated quickly
instead of one. It will help a little on the initial launch only. Once it
gets moving, it's of no benefit.
Robert
Steven Reiter
isn't running 8 flats in the 1/8th mile. I have a timeslip from my last run
at Ennis in my Mitsubishi Galant VR4 that ran a 12.52@108 and it only ran a
7.986 in the 1/8th mile.
No f*cking way.
I used to have a Syclone. No other production truck stands a chance against
one.
Steve Reiter
Lewisville, TX
kutc...@smtp.cl.trw.com
Spydaman <spydama...@shaka.com> wrote:
> > The Syclone would whip the Dakota. It has better traction (All wheel
> > drive) versus the Dakota 2WD, so it doesn't matter how powerful the
> > Dodge is, it won't hook up as well. Also, the Syclone should be a bit
> > lighter. I forget the power that the Syclone has, but I remember it
> > was wicked fast - Faster than the Vettes of the time (0-60 in 4.9
> > sec?). The Dakota 5.9 might be in the mid-6 sec range?.
> What's the price differance between the two? And what if you threw in
> a Locker or Posi in the Dakota rear end? Which one would still offer
> the most bang for trhe buck?
New (in '91), the Syclone was $25,500. However, they didn't sell real well
initially and I even know of a fellow that bought a _new_ Syclone for $16,900
from the dealer (huge "incentive" for GM to get rid of them). Nowadays, the
Syclone's used prices vary. A nice Syclone w/ under 20k miles will cost
$18,000-$23,000 still; an average shape Sy with 20k-80k miles will be
$13-18k, and even Syclones with 100k+ miles are still over the $10k range.
That is, unless its seen a really bad life & has been beaten pretty hard.
There's still good deals that can be found, though, and I'm sure that there
will be exceptions to the outline that I mentioned above.
Unfortunately, I don't know what the cost of the Dakota R/T is...
And, to answer more of the original portion of this thread; I have _tried_ to
stoplight race a Dakota R/T Clubcab once last fall. I unknowingly pulled up
next to him at a red light (until I noticed!), but when the light turned
green, he didn't give the spirited Dakota much throttle at all... Ah well...
Regards,
Mike Kutchey
mku...@misi.net
'91 Syclone 1/4 in 12.81.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own