New "King" of Performance Trucks...

so what did both trucks run in the 1/4?

did the dodge even make it into the 13s?
BW
 
12.5 for the Lightning & 13.9 from the Dodge... he was claiming to have missed second according to the L owner. There is a post on srtforums.com about this, the Mopar boys are whining worse than your stereotypical Mustang guy. :)

Doug C.
 
i read all of that thread, and most of that board-

what MPH do they trap? im not impressed with those dodge trucks, only 430 hp to the rear wheels with a stick shift? :rolleyes:

it was funny reading them bicker, dodge guys were saying that they would eventually start wooping the lightnings when they put the juice on the dodges :rolleyes: 650HP to do what? run high 11s MAYBE?
BW
 
actually a 5000lbs truck that CAN trap at 107mph is pretty impressive...a crappy driver notwithstanding. (provided the limited nature of the vehicle and the fact that I have never seen one at the track leaves me to use Motor Trend as the source of the trap speed...which btw ET @ 13.1 as well)

Second if your not impressed with 430hp from a stick? Why do you say that? Can you only fathom that parrasitic losses occur from the tranny? Is that how simple minded turbobuick guys are?

First off, 430hp is only a 17% drivetrain loss...perfectly inline with normal driveline losses for an manual trans. Actually I've would have expected more considering the relative mass of the vehicles driveline...things like a heavier driveshaft feeding into the notoriously strong and heavy ring and pinion that GM guys have wet dreams about (and the smart ones actually use in their own cars) with heavy axles spinning very wide (again read HEAVY) 22 inch rims with stiff sidewalled tires (hmmm....maybe that makes it , shall we say HEAVY?) before it hits the roller...17% is actually pretty damn good. Suggest to me that the motor might actually be making a few more unadvertised ponies than what it's rated for.

Also "lightly" modded lightnings don't run mid 12's....lightly modded ones that include pulley swaps and other simple stuff generally run low 13's, trapping in the 104 range...

However wasted my efforts are to enlighten those neanderthalic criegthens that tend to want to exist in a world in which they think there car brand is the end all to everything (which is sadly high in turbobuickdom) I felt it was my civic duty anyways to try. St peter is making a mark in the "good" column for me (though probably with reservations ;) )
 
nice lightning, but i don't see where this is a real test at all, when mods come into play, its all out the window when comparing the two, much less slicks verses radials, both are badass trucks and id take a lightning any day, but i got to give dodge props for building it.
 
However wasted my efforts are to enlighten those neanderthalic criegthens that tend to want to exist in a world in which they think there car brand is the end all to everything (which is sadly high in turbobuickdom) I felt it was my civic duty anyways to try. St peter is making a mark in the "good" column for me (though probably with reservations )

Is that how simple minded turbobuick guys are?

I appreciate your opinion on the matter but why do you have to come in somebody else's house and post crap like this. It is possible to share your opinion without the animosity you feel for the turbobuick community. This is Turbobuick.com so of course were gonna be high on TB's and low on much of anything else. Anyway thanks for sharing with us the performance potential of the dodge truck. I'm sure we will all sell our buicks and run out an get one now as we are so high on mopar products here. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by uglyvaliant
Also "lightly" modded lightnings don't run mid 12's....lightly modded ones that include pulley swaps and other simple stuff generally run low 13's, trapping in the 104 range...

BLAH..BLAH..BLAH.. you are WRONG!
Stock L's run low 13's, lightly modded L's run mid 12's..
http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=426387&referrerid=22907

I know of other threads but with your statment below you don't deserve any more effort from me.

Originally posted by uglyvaliant
However wasted my efforts are to enlighten those neanderthalic criegthens that tend to want to exist in a world in which they think there car brand is the end all to everything (which is sadly high in turbobuickdom) I felt it was my civic duty anyways to try. St peter is making a mark in the "good" column for me (though probably with reservations ;) )

With a statement like that you lost all hope of any respect.

ks
 
Originally posted by uglyvaliant
actually a 5000lbs truck that CAN trap at 107mph is pretty impressive...the fact that I have never seen one at the track leaves me to use Motor Trend as the source of the trap speed...which btw ET @ 13.1 as well)

show me a real world at the track video, and not a professional driver at a prepped track!

Originally posted by uglyvaliant

Second if your not impressed with 430hp from a stick? Why do you say that? Can you only fathom that parrasitic losses occur from the tranny? Is that how simple minded turbobuick guys are?
for 50,000 dollars, NO WAY!!! my dodge cummins CAN put that to the ground and twice the torque!!!

Originally posted by uglyvaliant

First off, 430hp is only a 17% drivetrain loss...perfectly inline with normal driveline losses for an manual trans.
actually its more like 13.5%

Originally posted by uglyvaliant

Also "lightly" modded lightnings don't run mid 12's....lightly modded ones that include pulley swaps and other simple stuff generally run low 13's, trapping in the 104 range...

i guess you read that in a magazine?

BW
 
I appreciate your opinion on the matter but why do you have to come in somebody else's house and post crap like this. It is possible to share your opinion without the animosity you feel for the turbobuick community. This is Turbobuick.com so of course were gonna be high on TB's and low on much of anything else. Anyway thanks for sharing with us the performance potential of the dodge truck.

The "Is this how simpleminded turbobuick guys are" quote is quite simply a challenge to those who should know when facts are incorrect or distorted it should be corrected...ignorance breeds more ignorance (eprosecution exhibit "A" LOCATED HERE) If someone post an inaccuarcy and it is not corrected by other more enlightended members (read: everyone but KEVINS) then it of course reflects poorly of the rest of the board.

My appologies that the rheotorical nature of the question was so well disguised that you didn't recognize it.
I'm sure we will all sell our buicks and run out an get one now as we are so high on mopar p
roducts here
WTF? that's the lamest attempt at sarcasm I've ever seen. Ricers come up with better stuff.
BLAH..BLAH..BLAH.. you are WRONG!
Stock L's run low 13's, lightly modded L's run mid 12's...
Really? every stock one I've ever seen has run low 14's to the at best high 13's. Every individual I know (4-5 in my area) with a "lightly modded" runs low 13's (understand as I do, that "lightly modded" may have a different definition to a modern, evolved human being such as myself than to the prehistoric neanderthal crieghtons that refers to himself as KEVINS)

With a statement like that you lost all hope of any respect.
Oh no! I'll never get any respect from some guys who post on a board about how much he loves his buick! Where ever will I make it in life?
 
actually its more like 13.5%
There! right there! You don't know squat about how a car loses power through the drivetrain. Wasted effort d@mmit! I spent two d@mn minutes of my life trying to explain to mungo here a higher comcept grounded in mechanical engineering when I could have much rather been staring at a blank wall and gotten more done.

WASTE OF MY TIME!! :mad:
 
Originally posted by uglyvaliant
There! right there! You don't know squat about how a car loses power through the drivetrain. Wasted effort d@mmit! I spent two d@mn minutes of my life trying to explain to mungo here a higher comcept grounded in mechanical engineering when I could have much rather been staring at a blank wall and gotten more done.

WASTE OF MY TIME!! :mad:

NO STUPID, the dodge only looses closer to 13.5% instead of what you stated 17%

500HP x .135= 67.5-500= 432REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER AT THE DYNO!!!!

so, either the truck puts out more than 500 HP, or has less than 17% drivetrain loss

BW
 
Actually I've would have expected more considering the relative mass of the vehicles driveline...things like a heavier driveshaft feeding into the notoriously strong and heavy ring and pinion that GM guys have wet dreams about (and the smart ones actually use in their own cars)

i dont know of to many gm guys using mopar rear ends. most of the guys i know are either using a gm rear end or a ford 9"
 
Originally posted by uglyvaliant
I spent two d@mn minutes of my life trying to explain to mungo here a higher comcept grounded in mechanical engineering when I could have much rather been staring at a blank wall and gotten more done.

Bwahhaa.. Mechanical what??? You may be a troll but you are funny!!:D:D:D

Originally posted by uglyvaliant
WASTE OF MY TIME!! :mad:

..and yet you continue to ramble...:confused: :confused:

Maybe your friends should start reading www.Corral.net then they can also prove you wrong too...bwahhaahaa... I crack myself up..:D

ks:cool:
 
Originally posted by uglyvaliant
..neanderthal crieghtons that refers to himself as KEVINS
Congrats!!! You must have learned a new word this week? This is the 2nd time you have used "neanderthal crieghtons" or a variant of it today. Our little boy is growing up to be quite the young man now... I'm so proud!!:D:D

To all TB.com members: The new Word For The Day is: "neanderthal crieghtons" as posted by Mr Ugly...

Carry on gentleman, you to Uglyvaliant.

ks:cool:
 
Originally posted by 87blackbuick
i dont know of to many gm guys using mopar rear ends. most of the guys i know are either using a gm rear end or a ford 9"
Check out the guys whose rear's are hung by leaf springs...when they run really big power you have two choices 1)ford 9" or the one mopars use 2) Dana 60's.
 
Originally posted by KEVINS
Congrats!!! You must have learned a new word this week? This is the 2nd time you have used "neanderthal crieghtons" or a variant of it today. Our little boy is growing up to be quite the young man now... I'm so proud
I'm glad your proud. It's another good deed by me I guess;)

I'm just calling you what you are. The question is, if not "neanderthalic crieghton", then what should I call you? I don't call a horse a "dog", so I wouldn't call you anything but a "neanderthalic crieghton". Another concept that is beyond you? :confused:

now boys, lets see if he can count how many times i've used the term "neanderthal crieghton" this time? :D
 
Hey mopar troll. Next time you come on here and try to sound ultra-educated, and high and mighty, you might want to run a spell check on your post. Usually, this is not nessecary for most of us in here, but your stuff looks like it was written by a 5th grade dropout who just got done watching a Dr. Who. rerun. Well, at least most 5th graders can copy directly from a magazine. Now get yourself to bed, its a school night.
 
Top