Jump to content

Penske to Dodge?

General Lee 01

By General Lee 01
in The Off-Topic Bar

Recommended Posts

MountaineerTom Senior Enthusiast

MountaineerTom

Posted
Posted

From jayski.com

--------------------

Penske to Dodge? on Wednesday's ESPN2's RPM2 Night. Robin Miller mentioned to look for Penske Racing(#'s 02,2,12) to go to Dodge in NASCAR for 2002. But back in Jan 2000, it was announced that Penske had signed with Ford to run the manufacturer thru 2002(8-16-2001)

Elwood Senior Enthusiast

Elwood

Posted
Posted

I really hope this is true.  I am a huge Rusty Wallace fan, I liked him when he drove a Pontiac and I hated that he went to Ford, but I still root for him.  I would love to see him running a Dodge.  I rather see him in a Chevy, but Dodge is pretty good too.  Man, I hope this is true.

Kansas Kid Senior Enthusiast

Kansas Kid

Posted
Posted

I kind of like Rusty, but I hope he stays with the Ford camp.  I really don't care for Dodge at all.  I'm also afraid to see what Penske could do with that Dodge motor, because that thing was designed from the ground up as a race motor, unlike the other makes.

General Lee 01 Senior Enthusiast

General Lee 01

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Let me put on my flame-retardant suit first.....

 

Ok, here we go. :biggrin:

 

I agree w/ Kansas Kid here.

I kind of like Rusty Wallace and I kind of dis-like Dodge.

1. Their cars are ugly.

2. Their cars are un-proven so far this year and the season's just about 34 of the way through.

And another point. IMO it would be a bad move for Penske to move their newest gun, Ryan Newman to such an un-proven manufactuer afterall the success they've had w/ this one. Since he won today (in-case anyone missed the Busch race today, Ryan Newman won), who knows what might've happened if he were driving a Dodge.

If a Dodge Wins a WC race before this year's over, I'll re-tract this statement. Until then, Dodge Sucks!

MountaineerTom Senior Enthusiast

MountaineerTom

Posted
Posted
Quote: from General Lee 01 on 10:55 pm on Aug. 18, 2001

Their cars are ugly.

 

I don't know about that, I think they look pretty good.  I'd also rather have a Dodge than a F_rd.

Jpshostr Senior Enthusiast

Jpshostr

Posted
Posted

General, I don't know if Dodge is quite ready to be written off as unproven.  I had slight thoughts of that earlier, but after being given a personal tour of two Dodge shops (Bill Davis and Petty Enterprises) I can honestly say that they will be doing real good real soon.  I didn't really expect them to be doing as well as they have been doing.  Sure they haven't won yet, but they have been competitive.  You must also keep in mind that from the beginning Dodge's main focus for the first year was to have a good showing at Daytona and worry about the rest of the tracks later.  I fully expect them to be in the hunt for a win next year and for many years to come.  One must also remember that the teams themselves are also going through a transition.  A Dodge has different traits than a Pontiac, and over time the teams are learning those different characteristics.

Kansas Kid is right in saying that the motor is made from the ground up for racing.  I saw engines in every stage from block to complete build, every piece was made for racing.  The block has a full water jacket around every cylinder, among other things.  

Guest Friz

Guest Friz

Posted
Posted

I guess it is true to say that they are unproven. All teams go through new bodystyles periodically, but Mopar has to prove engines as well.

But new teams always have growing pains, new bodies change shape from race to race, and team members move around a bit. All this to create the "Perfect Raceteam". I am actually pleasantly surprised that Dodge pulled off a win at all this year. I figured this whole season would basically be a test for the teams.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      I hope to high heaven this is wrong. My Chevy farm trucks frame is lasting way longer than a newer Nissan Titan XD I got for a steal, and it only pulls trailers. A decade younger and it's frame is already way rustier than the waxed Chevy I drive across longs and ditches. Also, hasn't Ford been having tones of troubles with rusted frames? 
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      Batteries don’t always show signs of a few years ago my vehicle started fine in the morning and took me to work. After work the battery was completely dead and I needed a jump. No, I didn’t leave anything on and the battery was only a couple months old. It was replaced under warranty. 
    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      AFM is confirmed in the Corvette engine, so I'm assuming the higher volume trucks will get it as well
    • NDKoze
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By NDKoze · Posted

      If his battery was that bad I would think it would have been showing signs before this that were ignored. Stinks that it happened the way it did in rush hour traffic, but this seems like a pretty fringe scenario. I don't mind it that bad and never turn it off. The only slight annoyance for me is the slight delay between brake to gas, but I have gotten used to it and figure if it can save a little gas why not.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant. What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.” I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly. So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself. A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like: - new vs historical - active vs stored - repeated vs one-time - duration of the event - whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom - whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc. - whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority. For example: Misfire event: Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs. Oil-pressure event: Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison. Communication event: Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated. Voltage/reset event: Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first. That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system. I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom. For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be: - which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first - whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition - whether fuel trims were already moving - whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time - whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version. OBD is much easier for the average owner: - easier install - easier removal - inside the cabin - easier phone connection - easier data download - easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters. The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product. Maybe the split is: - OBD/DLC version for most consumers - ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get - shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem. Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality. Not “here are 50 parameters.” More like: “Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.” or “Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.” or “Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.” That is a much better way to think about the report.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...