Cobalt SS vs. Dodge Ram 5.9L

12624 Views 59 Replies 20 Participants Last post by Mines_Better, Aug 3, 2006

SKiUNiT

Discussion Starter · Jul 5, 2005

My friend knows I loves the Cobalt SS. He told me last week that he was on his way home from work and at a light raced one. He drives a kinda old I believe mid-late 90's Dode Ram 5.9L truck. He claims that he smoked it. Have any of you out there that have a Cobalt SS ever raced any trucks like or that are that. If you have please reply back to me and tell me your results. Thank!

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

DigDug

· #2 · Jul 5, 2005

I doubt it. The trucks are heavy. Even the Hemi trucks are not terribly quick.

My current beater (LT1 Caprice) walks away from the Hemi trucks at all speeds and the CSS will take me fairly easily above 30MPH (from a stop <edited<, big tires, positraction, and torque overcome the weight advantage of the little car), so I think maybe the CSS was not really trying.

BuckWild

· #3 · Jul 5, 2005

I could happen...with one very good driver and one poor driver.
The specs show the dakota R/T 5.9 is no slouch even for a Pick-Up.
Its not as heavy as a Ram by any means. With some Mods...who knows
Here are the specs and review

superchevy22

· #4 · Jul 5, 2005

i dout it cuz almost any car will walk almost any truck on road. and in that case i think your friend was tellin a tale

DigDug

· #5 · Jul 5, 2005

BuckWild said:
The specs show the dakota R/T 5.9 is no slouch even for a Pick-Up.
Its not as heavy as a Ram by any means. With some Mods...who knows
QUOTE]

Yeah, but the original post was very clear about it being a Ram.

SuperSport

· #6 · Jul 5, 2005

My brother raced a 5.9L Dakota with his 5cyl Colorado pickup with no upgrades except a K&N intake and a throttle body spacer and he smoked it so I think your friend is BSing you.

BuckWild

· #7 · Jul 6, 2005

As our A/R Friend Dig Dug Pointed out the original post did say "Ram"...Thats my fault for reading the post to quickly,I'm sorry. Now about that colorado i5
Here is a Colorado Time Slip
note that he too has a K&N filter and also Custom Exhaust, no TB spacer but I figure exhaust will make up for the TB spacer.
now here is a slip for a Dakota R/T 5.9
From what I can tell It is stock. Thats a little over 1.5 sec quicker. So in light of this info your brother either has a factory freak Colorado
the likes of which have never been seen, or since he "smoked" the Dakota maybe, like Dig Dug said, the dodge was not really trying.

dazednconfused75

· #8 · Jul 6, 2005 (Edited)

I've handed a few Hemi Ram drivers their asses in my RL.

I have a Colorado 4x4 5cyl and that thing is stupid slow.

Zenkat

· #9 · Jul 7, 2005

Colorado are ridiculously slow compared to a 5.9 Dakota. GM really missed the ball on that truck, barely better than an S-10.

Now a 5.9 Ram? That engine can be opened up fairly easy. You never said what your friend had for mods on his pickup, but a shorty Ram can be pretty quick with the right mods.

I had one walk away from my Grand Cherokee 5.2L a few years back, and i had I/C/E on that jeep. Jeep ran mid/low 15's, and 0-60 in the 6.8 second range, and the Ram was obviously faster.

CoBIZZLE

· #10 · Jul 7, 2005

My buddies, HEMI Ram ran a 9.4 in the 1/8mile BONE STOCK. I've never seen a Colorado or S-10 in stock form even think about wanting to go that fast for a day!

S8ER95Z

· #11 · Jul 9, 2005

GOD I hate the fake hemi campaign.. Even the R/T Hemi equiped cars run pathetic times. GO Mercedes...er... chrysler...

BuckWild

· #12 · Jul 11, 2005 (Edited)

The fake Hemi?...or semi hemi, its all just marketing. The only people that care that they are not truely hemispherical heads are die hard hemi fans.
And they're not even That concerned about it because It puts
Dodge/Chrysler Back towards the top(meaning they are selling alot of cars/trucks and getting good press).

Daimler/Chrysler is in the business of selling cars, and if all they have
to do is slap a HEMI badge on a car or truck or have some silly
commercials to do it then that is simply great marketing.

I see you have a Z-28... here are some quotes from Vincent W. Piggins,
(He is the guy who thought up and marketed the Camaro Z-28.)

"After Ford released the Mustang, they had about two years on us before Chevrolet could get the Camaro into the 1967 product line. I felt in my activity, which deals with product promotion and how to get the most promotional mileage from a car from the performance standpoint, that we needed to develop a performance image for the Camaro that would be superior to the Mustang's."

"There wasn't any suggestion of what we were going to call this car," notes Piggins. "When it came down to having to decide, somebody just said, `Hey, it's option RPO Z-28; let's call it Z-28!' So the name just grew from there. The graphics people did things with the Z, and that's how the designation stuck. The car got its name from the actual option number."

Now do you think that when Chevrolet started putting motors other than the 302 in the Z-28 that some people were upset? Do you think someone went
to the executives and said, "we can't call this the Z-28 anymore, it has a different motor than the original option code." If someone did say that I'm sure the Exec. said "Hell no that Z-28 name Is selling cars! Not only are we not changing it we're gonna plaster it all over those cars. print it, put it on TV, and slap it on hats and T-shirts. so when people hear or see Z-28 they're gonna think...High Performance Camaro."

Kinda like when Dodge Plasters HEMI all over everything ...It's Just Good Marketing.

I know this is a long post, to guy who would never buy a Dodge/Chrysler or heaven forbid a Mercedes, even if they made a 500 horsepower pony car for
$30,000. I just wanted to make a point.

See less See more

SuperSport

· #13 · Jul 11, 2005

For a 5.9L engine I'm not impressed, and maybe my brother just walked his ass because the dude in the Dakota sucked at racing or just a fckn pussy. My Monte Carlo SS is only 5.0 and I can gaurantee my car weighs just as much as a Dakota R/T and I have smoked R/T's on many occassions so Like I said im not impressed.

BuckWild

· #14 · Jul 11, 2005

I'm not trying to impress you SuperSport. I just wanted to back up my statement that a 5.9L beating an SS/SC or a Colorado is at the very least...possable. Now, as far as that guarantee you offered, a 1985 SS Monte Carlo weighs in at a svelt 3,385 Lbs and The Dakota R/T at piggish 3,850 Lbs!
But since you guarantee it, then you must have lead rims or sandbags in the trunk.

I know you said you have a 5.0 (which by the way is truly 4.88 Liters) And the 360 is really 5.77 liters so 5.9 can be misleading. Since the 2.4 liter Ecotec is putting out 170 HP, which consequently is the same as a the stock 1985 Monte SS, and is half the displacement as the 305. Then you should be not "impressed" with the 305 as well.

Maybe I can clear up some internet terms of measurment while im at it.
Here are some terms people use to describe a race and a definition of what it means in real life.

Half-a-car ======== Dead Even
Car Length ======= won by a bumper
Walked ========== passed a 55mph car in the fast lane running 70mph
Smoked ========== left the stop light at full throttle with wheels spinning
Raped ===========won by half-a-car

Car length also equals the length of an original mini cooper

See less See more

phxSS

· #15 · Jul 12, 2005

lol buckwild

DigDug

· #16 · Jul 12, 2005

BuckWild said:
I'm not trying to impress you SuperSport....
I know you said you have a 5.0 (which by the way is truly 4.88 Liters) And the 360 is really 5.77 liters so 5.9 can be misleading. Since the 2.4 liter Ecotec is putting out 170 HP, which consequently is the same as a the stock 1985 Monte SS, and is half the displacement as the 305. Then you should be not "impressed" with the 305 as well.

Well, just to clear up a few facts, the 305 CID L69 engine in the MCSS is a 190 horse, 240 torque motor and converting 305 cubic inches to liters rounds off to 5.00, not 4.88 (298 CID), the 5.9 would go to 360.04 cubes. (5.77 would be 352 cid)

I do agree, however that a stock MCSS would have a hard time with a Dakota 5.9. They were not that quick or fast.

BuckWild

· #17 · Jul 12, 2005

DigDug you are a stickler. But here is what I found :180 HP @ 4800 RPM (flywheel) 225 ft/lbs @ 3200 RPM. on a stock L69 H/O in the 84-88 MC/SS. As far as the Displacement your right, 4.99 liters and 5.89 liters respectivley.
Forgive my incorrect calculations.

Me = General Math 10
DigDug = MIT grad (or something close) Mr. Engineer

Plus it was dark and I was using a solar calculator...

It boils down to this though. SuperSport Is not impressed with a 5.9L puting out 250 HP simply because it's not a Chevrolet.
I mean a 2.4L Eco putting out nearly as much HP as the L69, with half the displacement...Thats impressive.

I hope all my numbers are right this time...DigDug?

305= 3.736 bore 3.480 stroke
?•bore2•stroke•8/61.023=liters right?

See less See more

SuperSport

· #18 · Jul 13, 2005 (Edited)

No I am not impressed because it is slow as balls, say what ever you want about the monte. But with the setup I am running now a Dakota R/T would be hardpressed to even come close. Dont try to break down mathmatics and try to explain things crayon style. Wow you have the internet and you can look things up, I'm about as impressed with your knowledge as am with the Dakota R/T. An yes I may be a little biased when it comes to anything other then chevy, but I sure as hell dont need someone to explain to me about my own car. Maybe you need to read my mods in my sig and then add on the fact that My AC has been ripped out along with my smog pump and pollution controls that rob all my HP or the fact I am running a completly different geared 700r4 Camaro transmission VS the stock monte 200 4r. I have an estimated 250 HP as of right now, but I am sure you have a more accurate estimation so lay it on me.

SuperSport

· #19 · Jul 13, 2005

See less See more

GoofyGuy

· #20 · Jul 13, 2005

I have a Redline. I mess with cars all the damn time. I got owned by a gmc 2500 diesel. It beat me 3 frigin times. I launched as best as possible without killing the tires but still it galloped away in a black cloud.

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.