Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

FAST & FEROCIOUS Pickups -Please list them here,

2»

Comments

  • 2k1trd2k1trd Member Posts: 301
    I raced a R/T x-cab and pulled away from it with no probs with my S/C Tacoma.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    Yeah, I have seen about those. I was in no way including them in my comparo, hehe. Im not that stupid. They look very killer, all except that awful looking grill (eventhough it looks better on the srt than with all the cheezy chrome). Id never own a dodge, though. Don't worry, man, Im not starting anything, and Im not saying that yota would beat everything on the road (im very level headed). All I meant was for a Yota rep to get a little credit, which it deserves, don't you agree. So please don't FORGET YOTA. :) have a good one.
  • urkillingmeurkillingme Member Posts: 22
    I will have to disagree with you on the origin of the Toyota TRD supercharger. The charger itself is manufactured by an American supplier to TRD specs. If installed by the dealer, the balance of Toyota's warranty is carried over. If installed by the owner, the warranty on the charger is 1 year 12000 miles only. It is not FACTORY installed.

    There is so much more to a Lightning than a stock truck with a blower. From the 4 wheel disc brakes to the beefed up Super Duty trans and the Sterling SD rear.

    While the Toyota's have a great reputation for their auto trans, the S/C does shorten its life considerably.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    If I said factory, I was wrong. My bad, I wasn't trying to give inaccuracies. Although, I have heard of people having them installed at the halfway place (where they put on cruise, upgrade wheels/tires and that stuff). As far as the Lightning part, if I had the choice between the 2 - sure Id take the Lightning, no decision. Like I said, Im not trying to be stupid here. I was simply adding another truck to the conversation. I have no doubt that the lightning will outhandle/out... other things the s-runner. All I said was that they had better 0-60 times, which, to me, is VERY respectable. But thats about it.

    As far as the blower shortening its life -- thats the only place I disagree with you. I beg you to show some backup on this statement that doesn't deal with guys that turned the boost way up and fried their vehicle. I know so many guys with the blower, with all the respect in the world, I doubt its a debate you wanna go down with me. Even if they do shorten longevity, they will still outlast the competition 9 times out of 10.
  • urkillingmeurkillingme Member Posts: 22
    http://www.gadgetonline.com/Super.htm


    Click "short commings" and then you'll find the auto trans info.

  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    Where do you get these 0-60 times? 0-60 is such a poor measure of performance I don't know where to start. First of all there are no drag strips that give a 0-60 time, onlt aftermarket performance meters do, and they can gice .3 sec difference on the same tuck with back to back runs easy. If you are talking 0-60 in 5 sec, then that .3 margin of error is pretty significant. So if you want to talk about shorter distances then post some 1/8 mile times. Plus a 0-60 measure is a time to speed measure, with does not indicate which truck is actually leading (or winning I would say) at that 60 MPH point. You have to do a time to distance, not time to speed. This fact is proven every day at every drag strip. Two cars can leave the line with identical reaction times. One car will run a say 15.0 @ 92 MPH and right beside it another car will go 14.8 @ 90 MPH. The first car was faster at the end but still lost the race. Just looking at some direhard Toyota boards they seem to think a "stock" s-runner is mid to high 15's in the 1/4 tops, lots of truly stock R/Ts, even the club cabs, are 15.0 or better. So even using 0-60 I don't think a truck capable of a 13.5 1/4 mile pure stock (the lightning) would be a split second slower 0-60 then a 15.5 sec Toyota, or even a 14.5 sec Dakota. Finally the Mopar parts can be dealer installed with a warranty so make for a "stock" truck just as much as the Toyota does. Even without a complete stroker install there still is about any perfomance part you could think of in that catalog to bolt on a 'old school' small block Mopar. The 5.9 can make a lot more HP but it's set up for torqe as it is first and foremost a truck motor, how many other naturally aspirated, gas motors out there make 345 ft-lbs of torque?
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    Good research, but I kinda know that guy and have read a bunch of his stuff. I frequent a message board that he' always at. When someone asks him about the longevity, he says that he truly believed that was a fluke and recommends the blower to everyone that asks. He has said tons of times that if he had it to do over again, he'd buy the blower at twice the price. If I remember, he has the Generation I which did cause a few problems on earlier model trucks. Now there is a Gen II; couple that with some of the changes made to the 3.4 for 2001 models, and you have virtually no trouble. Gadget talked about the necessary Level 10 mod, fewer guys do that to the newer trucks and blowers cuz it just ain't needed.

    That doesn't even take into account the guys I know that have had the blower for 70k+ miles with no problems and the ones who didn't put em on until 120k who also have no problems. Sure, it might compromise a little longevity, I said that b4, but they will still outlast others. Who do you know that has tested a blown Lightning for over 100k miles? Once again, I am not trying to compare the lightning to the s-runner as trucks. I know which is better, beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I would imagine that the s-runner would go the usual 200k miles with a heavy duty tranny. Kinda funny that they couldn't just stick with what the f-150 has.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    I realize that isn't a good comparo (did I not already say that?), just one way that a little nothing of a $20k truck beats a special edition $40k truck, that people constantly talk up (not sure on the dollar amount).
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    2kitrd, what was your and his time slip? Oh thatts right you didn't get one cause you were on the street. So how do you know he was racing? What distance was the race? Do you have any mods? Was he carring a piano in the back? Sure there will be cases of a "stock" supercharged Toyota beating a stock R/T but generally their times in the 1/4 mile are .5 to 1 seconds slower.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    My point as well about the Dakota! It only costs $18,000 less if you don't want a few other options I got. (actually now there are a few more goodies standard on the 2002's and $19,000 is probably as low as you could order one).
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    For bang for the buck, my vote goes to a RC Dakota sport with the 4.7 and a 5-speed. The only other options being a 3.92 rear limited slip and the 16" wheels can be had for about $15,500 and is just as quick as an R/T (just doesn't handle or look quite as nice).
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    The prices you gave on those dodges: that is CHEAP.

    And a supercharged taco will beat a stock R/T. Ive heard it from tons of folks that have done it. But if you don't consider that a fair race, oh well. I still think its bragging rights for Yota fans.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    Well I guess its all in where you listen to the reports. I have seldom heard of a Toyota beating an R/T. Anything is possible with mods but the Toyota guys themselves admit that 15.5 is about as good as a stock s-runner is. 15.5 is about the worst club cab R/T time I have ever seen and stock CC's have run in the high 14's and regular cabs in the mid 14's, thats a good second quicker, proven over and over again by real world time slips from the tracks.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    If you want to talk mods there is a normally street driven 99 club cab dakota that has run a low 11 second 1/4 mile with common bolt on parts, looks just like any other R/T out there.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    Give me a freakin break. Sounds like Im arguing with a dodge owner. Someone once said that its stupid to argue with a knucklehead, so Im gonna take that advice and leave, you just take your CHEAP ride and be happy with the high 14 runs with a 300 pound truck with an underpowered engine the size of a boeing 747.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    I am happy, but with mid to low 14's for a Truck that costs $18,000 and will out-corner any stock pickup out there. I'm glad Dodge doesn't stress this motor form the factory, it has far more potential then any Toyota with 30 years of aftermarket support at resonable prices. I say 15.5 is good for a "stock" s-runner because that's what the s-runner guys on the big Toyota web boards say, if the s-runner owners are wrong then I'm sorry, maybe I should look for the info on the Lightning boards, LOL! I'm sure they have good stories to tell about the S-runners there. There no reason to get personal here, I'm just giving real numbers supported by real people, I'm not a knucklehead, but then some people always get emotional when presented with facts in a discusion, can I get a "ditto" on that?
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Not sure what it is about pickups that makes for this nonsense, but it's time to get away fromt he personal shots on the boards.


    Stick to the trucks please.


    image


    Just a reminder that our Town Hall chat happens on Wednesday (5-7pm Pacific/8-10 pm Eastern). This week, our topic will be:


    Automotive shopping - the online experience


    If you've bought a vehicle online or are thinking about it, stop into the chat and join in on the discussion!


    http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/chat/newsviews.html




    PF Flyer

    Host

    Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

  • 2002svtf1502002svtf150 Member Posts: 30
    The forum name is "Fast & Ferocious Pickups"! Let's see, the 375/HP 396SS El Camino, Syclone, & Gen 2 Lightning,...yep, that about sums it up. Ahh, & as for the Dak R/T staying with the Syclone, that is sad. The Sy would be approximately 10 car lengths ahead in less than a block, Oh, & it would be pulling away....quickly. My 02 L has a pulley, a chip, & a filter kit, with a little over 1000 miles on the truck it's a 12.53 @ 108 mph vehicle. That is with nothing removed, not even the spare tire or tailgate, & on the stock F1's. The S/C Tacoma is a neat little truck, but it isn't Fast, or Ferocious. The Dakota R/T is a fine package, looks good, runs OK, but Fast?, Ferocious?, not hardly. I'm not sure the Lightning even qualifies as ferocious, but it is pretty darn fast.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    image


    Just a reminder that our Town Hall chat happens on Wednesday (5-7pm Pacific/8-10 pm Eastern). This week, our topic will be:


    Import Trucks: Can they compete with domestics?


    http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/chat/newsviews.html




    PF Flyer

    Host

    Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

  • keith24keith24 Member Posts: 93
    that its a race between the big three to see who can shoehorn the biggest baddest honkin' motor into a 1/2 ton truck & make it a "sport" truck. This is great for sales, corporate image, and the like. Its even good for consumers, if thats the kind of thing you're looking for.

    However, it doesn't matter how much HP & TORQUE your motor makes, if you can't get it to the ground! Do any of the Dodge camp out there really think that 500 hp/500ft.lbs. will hook up in a truck? I'm not trying to take a personal stab at anybody. I'm seriously asking! If Dodge can make it work without liquifing the rear tires at each go-pedal mashing, then they've acomplished something.

    One reason the Syclone & Typhoon were so quick is the fact that they were all wheel drive. There was virtually no tire spin, it'd just squat & go! Quickly!

    Does anybody remember the Dodge Warlock? Best I remember it was similiar to the Lil' Red Express, but I don't know if it was just a different appearance package, or the truck was significantly different.

    keith
  • txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    a diff. appearance pkg. It looks like they are certainly trying to do everything right on the Dodge. Heck I can "liquify" the tires on my 5.3 Sierra. My 454SS would break loose on that shiny tar that they fill cracks on the concrete roads with if I wasn't careful.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    The syclone in pure stock form could barely crack 13's on a good day (MT only got a 14.1 in their test), that won't run that far away from a R/T that can run 14.5-14.8 stock. The warlock and Little red Dodges did have a good 360 in them with lots of good performance parts form the factory but they still didn't make as much power as the current 360 in the R/T and they had to move some more weight. Contrary to popular belief around here AWD is not the best setup for the 1/4 mile. RWD beats it hands down. The syclone, WRX, and just about every other AWD platform would be faster in the 1/4 mile if they were RWD instead. Every 10 pounds of that added rotating mass of AWD costs .1 in the 1/4 mile, its equal to 100 pounds of static weight. Properly set up with some good tires and weight transfer a RWD will get all the traction it needs to get off the line. Then once moving all that AWD stuff is just a drag on the motor. It may be easier for the average Joe to stay out of trouble with AWD but it's certainly not the hot setup for the 1/4 mile. The SRT ram will not be able to handle it's 500 ft-lbs of torque, the L can't, and mt R/T can't. But that doesn't mean you just bury the throttle on the launch. It takes some finesse and once moving you can hammer it. The SRT ram is going to be a 6 speed manual and will take a good driver and some practice but then again so does the viper. The new viper is going to be running 11's right off the showroom and I bet the Ram will be in the high 12's as promised. Don't start talking mods because thats not going to get you far. There is always somebody faster. and I've seen pretty "stock" looking Dakotas run in the 11's. That's with no blower, nitros, or turbo and with a basically stock 360. Ever hear of NHRA stock class? Those trucks scream on pretty strict rules. Put $3000 in $19,000 stock R/T and you will run down stock Lightings all on the motor (no turbo, nos, or blower). Still haven't spent anywhere near what a Lightning cost. Dakotas that have enough mods to push their price into Lighting territory run mid 11's. You can't beat their bang for the buck.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    Didn't you just say "Don't start talking mods?"
    What did you do?

    I think you're huffing and puffing. I don't believe a stock R/T will even stay in the same time zone as a Lightning or Syclone.
  • 2002svtf1502002svtf150 Member Posts: 30
    I'm pretty sure the SRT will arrive with an automatic trannie. The 6 speed would be a fun diversion, but I doubt it will materialize. When it does arrive it will be a mid to low 13 second truck, forget about it being in the 12's. Daks do offer decent bang for the buck as you have stated, it's simply not enough bang to interest me. All the faster stock 360 RT's I've seen have been mid 15 second trucks, & a couple in the 16's due to driver ineptness. The Syclone I owned in the late 90's was a 13.4 second truck in stock trim, amazingly close to my Lightning when it was stock. The NHRA stock class trucks are far from stock. They do have very strict guidelines, but blueprinting a stock engine alone can bring significant gains in power. Don't confuse NHRA Stock with showroom stock. BTW, there are several "Hot" Dakotas in my area but the 2 fastest Dodge trucks are modded Rams. One of these Rams is a 4WD with a blower & nitrous that runs in the very low 13's. I have a '70 440/6 Pack Super Bee, so I'm partial to Mopars myself, but none of the Dodge trucks I've met have been a threat to my L.
  • txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    and reread my Truck mags, but to the best of my recollection I haven't seen any tests of R/Ts with numbers that low. As a matter of fact a year or so ago in what I think was Sport Truck of the yr. testing the QC Dakota with 4.7 was faster than R/T and regular cab short bed GM 5.3. I also saw an article specifically about how the 5.9 doesn't show much improvement with the normal low-buck mods that we all do. IE: mufflers, air filters, chips/modules. But regardless of what you do to a truck it all comes down to traction, or lack of it.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    You have to be carful which magazines you go buy as not all opf them actually run at the drag strip using timing lights. Also some magazines correct their times which means they may never have got the times they publish. High Performance Mopar tested a showroom stock 98 Club Cab back in their september 98 issue. They ran at a real track and posted their exact times as shown on the score board. There were no tricks and the motor wasd not even fully broken in. It was a rainy morning and a humid afternoon when their first pass was a 15.113 @ 88.9 MPH. The worst they ever got was a 15.25. This was with the Club Cab which is a good 300 pounds heavier and usually .3 sec slower then a regular cab. On a better day that CC would have been easilly in the 14's and a similar RC could be mid 14's. Hot Rod magazine was the one that did the test on the mods. They added a Cam and it didn't make more power. The cam works with certain mods but not all, and now there are a lot more choices so you can pick something more taylored to your appliction rather then just bolting something in there and expecting the best. Most chips (mainly Jet) are worthless on the R/T as well, but up until the 2001 model Mopar made a chip that does really work well, advances timing, rasises rev limiter and shift points, and removes top speed limiter. Mufflers don't help much because the factory one is a good 3" mandel bent system with a nice factory muffler. Replacing the exhaust manifolds and most importantly the Y pipe will help a lot, and a good cold air kit is essential. If you don't do some reasearch before you start throwing parts on an R/T then you will get stung, there are a few simple tricks that you really need to do to make sure the mods will help. The 4.7 Daktoa tested by sport truck was almost as fast as the R/T they said and they don't talk about what conditions were like with both tests. Unless they tests were done on the same day at the same track then it coul easilly throw times off by a full sec. in either direction.
  • lariat1lariat1 Member Posts: 461
    finally someone else that knows the effect of rotating weight. I have found that the easiest way to get more power out of any truck is to rip the crank driven an off the engine and install a set of electric fans. I dont know what the exact Hp gain is but it is a noticable difference. I was told that it can gain around 5 rear wheel Hp.
    Another thing is about throttle control, I learned long ago that the best times can be achieved by mashing the throttle about halfway down to get moving then get on it after about a half second after the truck starts to move, it prevents the rear wheels from putting on a smoke show.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    Actually on Dakota R/T's 2000 and newer they have both an electric and pully driven clutch fan. Many people pull off the clutch fan and gain quite a bit, I'd say more then 5 HP as they pick up a good .1 in the 1/4 mile, even more if you also swap in a short belt to bypass the A/C and power steering. .2 or .3 is pretty good for a $8 mod. Some owners do go buy an extra electric fan for about $80 for some insurance, but some are doing good with just the one factory electric. Probably depends on where you live and if you have to idle in standing traffic a lot.
  • 2002svtf1502002svtf150 Member Posts: 30
    Having a Mopar magazine getting the fast times in a Dakota, that's predictable. And even they didn't get into the 14's. You stated "it could have been into the 14's", well yeah, but it wasn't. 5.9 Dak's are 15 second trucks as I said earlier.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    4x4s that run in the 14s consistently. When they use a 4hi start, close to 14.6.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    The average club cab is about a 15.1 but the average regular cab is well into the 14's. The road tests are always of the club cabs. The Lightning is a regular cab and so is the syclone so it would be fair to use the times of a regular cab R/T as well. Many other magazines would have taken that 15.1 that High Performance Mopar got and corrected it to 14.9 because of the high humidity and temperature. Car and driver who got a 13.8 on a 2001 Lightning is one of the sources that do such a correction. Did they actually make a Lightning go 13.8? No, they probably ran something in the 14's and "corrected" their time for consistancy. They also seldom do the tests on a regular dragstrip with timing lights. It's not that uncommon to see the newer supercharged lightnings running in the 14's, on those same days is when you see the RC R/T's running in the 15's. I have no gross misconception that a R/T is as fast as the current Lightning (faster then the older Lighting though) or even as fast as the Syclone. But it does cost less and has more potential IMO as it is not boosted from the factory. I'd say pretty fair times for a pure stock Lighting would be mid to high 13's, for a syclone high 13's to 14 flat, and for a R/T (regular cab mind you) mid to high 14's. So a Lightning costs a least $11,000 more and that buys you a full second in the 1/4 mile. That's a pretty expensive second.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    The best example would be of two identical cars, trucks whatever with the only difference being one is RWD and one is AWD. there just isn't any I can think of off hand but lets try this one. In 98 the Jeep Grand Cherokee 5.9 limited had the identical drivetrain as in a Dakota R/T. It was AWD and pretty close to the same overall weight as a Dakota R/T but was a good 1/2 second slower in the 1/4 mile. With the R/T traction is a problem even stock, where the Jeep is just a stomp and steer kind of thing. The Jeep may get a 2.3 or 2.4 60 foot time compared to a 2.4 or 2.5 for the Dakota so it does have a slight advantage on the shortest race imaginable, but before even 60 MPH rolls around that advantage has evaporated. If you were comparing FWD to AWD then the horrible traction a FWD experiences may never make up the gap on a AWD, but with some good rubber a RWD will always be king of the 1/4 mile. I am a fan of AWD, don't get me wrong, but the 1/4 mile is not where they shine.
  • mullins87mullins87 Member Posts: 959
    Back in the late 80's, Motorcyclist magazine did a comparison involving identical motorcycles. I don't remember exactly what tests they did, but I think they did 1/4 mile, 0-60, 45-75, etc... They added 100 pounds to each bike, but they did it in different ways. The first bike, they simply strapped a 100 pound weight to the rear of the bike. The second bike, they added the 100 pound weight to one end of the crankshaft. With the same rider going through the same tests, the first bike smoked the second bike everytime. I don't remember the particular numbers, but there was a rather large difference.

    I know the subjects of this discussion are off topic, but the relevance is not. The RWD vs. AWD or 4WD is essentially the same as the motorcycle test. If you can get a RWD truck to hook-up, it will beat the same truck with AWD or 4WD everytime.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    That 4x4 gives a little better times when the vehicle has an EXTREME problem with the tires hooking up. I have seen several times slips of 4x4 trucks, where the 4hi runs were up to .5 seconds faster, honestly.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    I saw the same conclusion from Tom (tbyrnemotorsports.com) on Silverado, actually got quicker 1/4 mile times putting the 4x4 system in Autotrac. If tires didn't slip, it stayed in 2wd, but if it did, Autotrac engaged the front transfer case. Would be about the same result just putting it in 4hi probably.
  • txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    That's what I've noticed in all the hop-up articles I've read on trucks. I assume because of the weight and lack of aerodynamics, it takes a lot of $$$ to make much improvement in 1/4 mi. times. But then a few 1/10s of a second is a lot.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    I would agree that runnning a 4x4 in 4hi could be faster then running the same truck in 2wd mode because you've already taken the big hit on rotating mass, you might as well make some of it help you with traction at the start. Even if the front axle is disengaged you still have to accelerate it and the transfer case. You just end up doing it through the ground and the front tires rater then directly off the motor, either way ultimately it's added mass that has to rotate. My point is that that same truck in a purely 2wd version will beat the 4x4 version everytime.
This discussion has been closed.