I took my Dakota to the track

[A.J.]

I got 15.2 in the 1/4 mile. I didn't try to shave any weight and I had 3/4 of a tank of gas. .1 second faster than my mini-van and .5 seconds slower than my Dad's turbo wagon. Some details on my truck: 5.9, 2WD, '93 exhaust manifolds & y-pipe, 3" exhaust w/Flowmaster 50 series muffler & no cat, '93 fuel system with 60 psi of fuel pressure, 5.2 computer, electric fan, 3:55 differential & no LSD, 46RH transmission, extended cab, camper shell, approximately 4000 lbs (according to the scale at the scrap yard).

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e301/thebest4/15.jpg

Me and a friend of mine racing. His Mustang is stock with 217,000 miles.

http://youtu.be/LpcJmJL8mTk

My friend stalling his car. I'm including it because it's a funny video.

http://youtu.be/hgb5ba2JPmw

A.J.

[Pat]

Nice! What year and cab is it?

I haven't raced my current '01 but a few years ago I had an '02 club cab 4.7/auto 3.55 sure grip. It did consistent mid 15's with a best of 15.47 @ 87 mph with 2.2x short times. It was all stock down to the paper air filter. Gotta love Dakotas!

[BadAssPerformance]

Nice AJ!

For comparisson... my two Daks:

Dakota 1:
92 reg cab/SB 2wd 5.2L/A518 3.55:1 15" rims went 15.20's ~ 20mpg highway
92 reg cab/SB 2wd 5.2L/A518 3.92:1 15" rims went 14.70's
92 reg cab/SB 2wd 5.2L/A518 3.92:1 17" (heavyazz) R/T rims went 15.20's

Dakota 2:
92 reg cab/SB 2wd 5.9L(Stock 5.2L SBEC-II)/A518 3.55:1 17" (heavyazz) R/T rims went 15.20's

Both had 3" or some sort... the first one had cheapo shorty headers and the second one has the good early manifolds like you have which are probably similar overall

[A.J.]

Nice! What year and cab is it?


It's a '94 extended cab.


Nice AJ!

For comparisson... my two Daks:

Dakota 1:
92 reg cab/SB 2wd 5.2L/A518 3.55:1 15" rims went 15.20's ~ 20mpg highway
92 reg cab/SB 2wd 5.2L/A518 3.92:1 15" rims went 14.70's
92 reg cab/SB 2wd 5.2L/A518 3.92:1 17" (heavyazz) R/T rims went 15.20's

Dakota 2:
92 reg cab/SB 2wd 5.9L(Stock 5.2L SBEC-II)/A518 3.55:1 17" (heavyazz) R/T rims went 15.20's

Both had 3" or some sort... the first one had cheapo shorty headers and the second one has the good early manifolds like you have which are probably similar overall

So I guess my times are about average. I had looked for stock 1/4 mile times for the Dakota before I went. I could only find the time for the '98 5.9 Dakota R/T which was 15.4. I know in '98 they had the restrictive exhaust but I didn't have any other specs on the truck (cab size, tranny, etc.). I couldn't find any times for a '94-'95 Dakota with a 318. But your 5.9 '92 with the 5.2 ECU is close to mine.

A.J.

[moparjon2007]

Hmmm, makes me want to run my Jeep for shiggles next season.
Wonder what a 95 GC 5.2L, Auto, Quadratrac AWD, sure-grip 3.55 rear would run?

[BadAssPerformance]

But your 5.9 '92 with the 5.2 ECU is close to mine.

A.J.

Well, yours is prolly 500lb heavier... although, what wheels did you have? The R/T wheels are worth 1/2 second :(


Hmmm, makes me want to run my Jeep for shiggles next season.
Wonder what a 95 GC 5.2L, Auto, Quadratrac AWD, sure-grip 3.55 rear would run?

Do eeet! :nod:

[MILKCARTON]

I wanna run mine this year, 99 R/T 5.9 all stock except for big and little Bogarts36797

[A.J.]

Well, yours is prolly 500lb heavier... although, what wheels did you have? The R/T wheels are worth 1/2 second :(


It does weigh 4000 lbs. I'm running 235/75R15 on the stock 6 lug rims. What's special about the R/T rims?

A.J.

[MILKCARTON]

It does weigh 4000 lbs. I'm running 235/75R15 on the stock 6 lug rims. What's special about the R/T rims?

A.J.


They are 17x9.5 and are HEAVY, I got 43 bucks apiece for them at the scrap yard!(they were beat to sh!t)

[BadAssPerformance]

I wanna run mine this year, 99 R/T 5.9 all stock except for big and little Bogarts36797

Looks nice on those! How light are they?


They are 17x9.5 and are HEAVY, I got 43 bucks apiece for them at the scrap yard!(they were beat to sh!t)

^^^ THIS Now granted I run 255's up front and 275's in back, but those are HEAVY!

[turbovanman²]

Nice, and damn, your truck weighs 300 lbs more than my van, :wow1:

[BadAssPerformance]

Nice, and damn, your truck weighs 300 lbs more than my van, :wow1:

LOL, that means my Dak (3550lb w/o driver) weights less than your van? WTF!?

[MILKCARTON]

I never weighed them, but bogart's are supposed to be one of the lightest made, and not for street use, I have around 15k miles on them. 4" and 10", 325-50-15 555 nittos on the back

[turbovanman²]

LOL, that means my Dak (3550lb w/o driver) weights less than your van? WTF!?

Yeah, or close, the 3700 was with me in it, I weigh 175, lol.

[spyder]

I bought a Solar Yellow R/T Club cab new in '99 , I really miss that truck (not the mileage) . Went 15.31 @ 91 stock , without tryin' very hard......mighty slow by todays standards .

[Vigo]

This is great info to me! I just picked up a 5.9 and am starting the swap into a 96 dakota extended cab auto 3.55 (even using a 5.2 computer..) next week! Although, our truck (currently 3.9 and no camper) weighs right at 3700 on scrap scales.

[BadAssPerformance]

What trans are you using? The 5.2L swap to the 5.9L I kept all the 5.2L trans stuff but had to modify the 5.9L flex plate to mount to the 5.2L lockup converter...

[A.J.]

What trans are you using? The 5.2L swap to the 5.9L I kept all the 5.2L trans stuff but had to modify the 5.9L flex plate to mount to the 5.2L lockup converter...

Depends on what year the flex plate is from but he'll definitely need the 5.9 plate with the weights. My '98 plate didn't need any modifying.

A.J.

[Vigo]

Im reusing the a500 that's in there. I'll modify the flex plate. I hadnt looked closely to see whether the weights were on the flexplate or if i need to add them to the converter but im aware of the issue. I'll find out in a few days.

[Mopar318]

Dakota's are really fun. My daily driver dakota had a paxton supercharger on a bone stock 140k mile 318 with just a M1 Intake a 52MM throttle body. I also had a locker. Best time was 12.8 on 26 inch ET streets.

[roachjuice]

I wanna run mine this year, 99 R/T 5.9 all stock except for big and little Bogarts36797

That's a good looking Dakota.

[MILKCARTON]

That's a good looking Dakota.


Thanx, I have alot of parts for it, fresh set of heads, new m1 intake, polished mopar magnum valve covers, and almost everything to do a rear mount turbo kit on it, that was my plan, I have a t67 t3 garret with both .63 and .82 hot sides for it. everything is for sale :-)

[blk86trbo]

It was fun to hear your buddies giving Rick a hard time about stalling the Mustang haha

[Vigo]

So AJ, how does this compare to your expectations or guesses?

[A.J.]

I honestly thought I was going to do worse than 15.2. Street tires at the track suck balls. With the '98 Dakota R/T getting 15.4 I thought I'd be in the 16's. My consistency at the track sucks. My Dad's is awesome, he's usually within .1 to .2 seconds (usually .1) with his times and I'm all over the board. For example, that night my times in order were: 15.72, 15.76, 15.27, 15.94, 16.60, 15.63, 15.55, 15.78, 15.43, 15.39. I gave up on trying to beat 15.2 and decided to just watch everyone else. I'm glad I did because I would have missed Rick stalling on the line which made the night. We have such an awesome time at the track.

A.J.

[Vigo]

Sounds awesome. I just ran slicks for the first time and i dont know if i can ever make myself do without again.. (fwd, anyway..).

The crappy thing about slicks on the dakota though is that since it uses such an oddball pattern you'd either have to have a dedicated set or mount/dismount every time you wanted to use them. Almost all of my other cars (including the 87 dakota) are either 5x100/5x114.3 which can be served by 1 set of dual bolt pattern wheels.

Anyway, thanks for the further motivation for my swap! I will start to pull the 3.9 tomorrow. :)

[A.J.]

Since my Dakota is my shop/race track support truck I'm not going to run it again unless I get a LSD rear end for it. I just wanted to know what it would do so there is no way I'm going to buy slicks for it.

I run drag radials at the track (loaners from a friend) so I know what you mean about never going back. Slicks are on the way. My Dad and I are going halves on a set to use between my van and his wagon.

A customer of mine has a '94 Dakota just like mine but a stock 5.2. What a POS (performance wise) compared to mine with all my mods. 5.9 is the only way to go.

A.J.

[Mopar318]

Since my Dakota is my shop/race track support truck I'm not going to run it again unless I get a LSD rear end for it. I just wanted to know what it would do so there is no way I'm going to buy slicks for it.

I run drag radials at the track (loaners from a friend) so I know what you mean about never going back. Slicks are on the way. My Dad and I are going halves on a set to use between my van and his wagon.

A customer of mine has a '94 Dakota just like mine but a stock 5.2. What a POS (performance wise) compared to mine with all my mods. 5.9 is the only way to go.

A.J.

That is sorta like the 2.2 vs 2.5 debate.

I really liked my 5.2, and wither its a 5.2 or 5.9 they both will handle the same amount of power. 5.2's are alot happier with boost and RPM especially in a light striper 2nd gen.

[shadow88]

That is sorta like the 2.2 vs 2.5 debate.

I really liked my 5.2, and wither its a 5.2 or 5.9 they both will handle the same amount of power. 5.2's are alot happier with boost and RPM especially in a light striper 2nd gen.

I would think the overall power potential on the 360 would be greater due to the increased bore and stroke. Niether of them are known as high revving engines, but I can see the shorter stroke being an advantage in that aspect.

[MILKCARTON]

I have seen junkyard 360's, non magnums run high tens in 3600 pounds cars at 6000' alt. with 10 psi from a tiny p600b procharger

[Vigo]

For mine, i figure if not boosting (at least yet), why not get as much torque as you can? I know what a stock 96 5.2 truck runs like and it's borderline not worth the swap, while 5.9 borderline is. Considering they're the same basic price and exactly the same difficulty to swap, why not go 360?

If the original 3.9 was still in perfect condition, neither swap would be worth it compared to a turbo, but it's flat wore out.. so a lot of little things add up to 360 for me.

[A.J.]

That is sorta like the 2.2 vs 2.5 debate.

I really liked my 5.2, and wither its a 5.2 or 5.9 they both will handle the same amount of power. 5.2's are alot happier with boost and RPM especially in a light striper 2nd gen.

My customer's truck is stock with the crappy small exhaust manifolds, exhaust, and the fan clutch. I'm sure if he had the same mods as me it would be more comparable. Since it's a shop truck that's gonna tow and I had to replace the engine anyways, I wanted more "bolt-in" power. If I didn't have to replace the engine, I'm sure I'd be just as happy with the 318.

A.J.

[Vigo]

I need to get exhaust manifolds since my swap donor didnt have them.. and you've got me considering spending the extra effort to find the 92 manifolds. 92 only or 92-93?

[A.J.]

I need to get exhaust manifolds since my swap donor didnt have them.. and you've got me considering spending the extra effort to find the 92 manifolds. 92 only or 92-93?

'92'-93 manifolds AND Y-pipe. You can't use the '94+ Y-pipe because the '92-'93 manifolds are bigger. Check out: http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?62186-Need-help-picking-a-muffler-for-my-Dakota for some details.

A.J.

[Mopar318]

92-93 also got the larger exhaust. Y-pipe is 1" bigger than 94+ trucks. Exhaust is 3" vs 2.5". Computers also have a little more built in timing. Later trucks where supposed to have more truck like power. (Lower power band, less power) Makes no sense to me.

[Vigo]

Well i have to use an obd2 computer one way or another for my 96. Im hoping to get a 96 or 97 computer if i can find one at the jyards. Considering flashing it to the MP cal if possible..havent looked into that much.

[JDAWG]

Sounds awesome. I just ran slicks for the first time and i dont know if i can ever make myself do without again.. (fwd, anyway..).

The crappy thing about slicks on the dakota though is that since it uses such an oddball pattern you'd either have to have a dedicated set or mount/dismount every time you wanted to use them. Almost all of my other cars (including the 87 dakota) are either 5x100/5x114.3 which can be served by 1 set of dual bolt pattern wheels.

Anyway, thanks for the further motivation for my swap! I will start to pull the 3.9 tomorrow. :)

swap the rear axle for an early one and all you have to do to the front is swap rotors (first gen only)

[Vigo]

But im trying to set a record for most miles without checking the diff fluid! Currently 245k.

But seriously.. i could do that. I guess i should figure out what ratios were common in the 1st gens.. Im assuming 4 cyl ones have something that's about right.