| From | Message |
Slimy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
02:54:33
|
 Subject: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
Is there much of a difference between a 4.7 and a 5.2L? Im looking at a truck with a 4.7 but I want a truck with some power. Should I wait untill I find a 5.2
|
hmmm
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
04:50:53
|  RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
I've had a truck with the 5.2 and I think it's a great motor, kind of the workhorse Mopar motor. If I ould find a truck with a 5.2 I'd trade my current 3.9 in a heart beat.
That said, I would also get a 4.7 in a heart beat. It's a more modern, more up to date engine and it is capable of making some respectable numbers.
IMHO I would lean slightly to the 4.7 but I've never had one.
|
WS-1500
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
08:30:45
|  RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
Have an '03 Durango with the 4.7 and it seems to be a really good engine. Lots of power and runs smoothly. Haven't heard of any inherent durability/reliability problems.
|
Hammerdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
09:57:48
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
I've got the 4.7 in my 2001 QC 4x4.
Even with all that extra weight (compared to a 2wd regular cab) the 4.7 has plenty of power to keep me happy.
Enough guts to break loose and smoke the stock Goodyears at will.
That's with a 3.55 rear end. You'll get even more low end grunt with the 3.92 in the rear.
I have no experience with th 5.2 engine but love the 4.7.
|
kowalski
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
10:11:44
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
Not much power difference, but 4.7 still makes power at the upper rpms where the 5.2 is dropping and the lighter reciprocating weight should spin up faster - so no need to wait for a 5.2.
|
jmagsho
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
10:24:29
|  RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
I have an '01 RC with a 4.7, 5 speed, and 3.92 gears. This truck is a blast to drive, and has plenty of power. I opted for the 4.7 because of the known issues with the 5.2 and 5.9 engines (belly pan gaskets, mostly), and the fact that it made comparable power numbers and was better on gas...
|
abnscout
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
10:56:18
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree with everybody on here, I have a 2003 4x4 club cab with the 4.7 in it and love it. the truck has plenty of power, easily be able to haul or tow over the trucks rating. If you are going to get one though, try to get the limited slip, helps with the power.
|
5.2 now
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
13:51:44
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
I had a 2000 with 4.7, It was stronger than my stock 5.2, but with no more than a k&n intake, the 318 was faster. I went with the 5.2 because it has an internal cam, and pushrods, and is more reliable (im my opinion) than an over head cam motor.
|
01Motorsport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
14:54:15
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
I put 217K on a '92 5.2, currently 72K on a '01 4.7. Love 'em both. 5.2 slightly better on low end, 4.7 smoother, spins up easy. 5.2 was auto 3:55, 4.7 is manual 3:92. '92-'93 were still the best 5.2's, IMHO.
|
Wil Hannes
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
18:12:25
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
Owned 99 CC 5.2V8 2/wd 3.55 LSD Automatic. Now have 04 CC 4.7V8 2/wd 3.55 LSD Automatic. I cannot believe the differemce. The 4.7 will light the tires, and goes like "##%$%"! I love this truck. GO FOR THE 4.7!!!
|
janesy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
18:52:57
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
i guess it depends on if you want cruising power, or torque for towing. If your looking for a good highway cruiser grab a 4.7. But if you want a more muscle truck to hot rod get a 5.2.
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
19:13:54
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
Wil,
The 99 5.2L is a dog compared to the new 4.7L, but for those of us that have owned the 92-93 5.2L Daks there's no comparison. The 5.2L is definately better. All you need to make the 94-99 5.2L's as good or better than the old 5.2's is a set of headers and a cam. You can even go to a bone yard and pick up a set of 92-93 exhaust manifolds if your budget is too tight to purchase headers. The mopar performance cam is only like $150.00. For less than $500.00 I can take any stock 5.2L and have it blowing the doors off even the 4.7LHO. Although, I do like the 4.7L. It's a very good engine. I'm going back to the old school for a while until somebody starts making some aftermarket goodies for the 4.7L. This engine has been out since 99 and you still can't find any aftermarket parts it.
Lets see:
MP computer.....$200.00
MP 268cam.......$150.00
92-93 manifols...$50.00
Total............$400.00
Take the the left over 100 and buy a cold air kit.
I made my own for $50.00 back in 1993. A 97Dak with a 5.2L will caost half as much as a 2000 with the 4.7L. They both look the same.
|
slimy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
20:31:47
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
thanks everybody for the info it helps out a lot
|
Ian
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
21:54:30
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
"For less than $500.00 I can take any stock 5.2L and have it blowing the doors off even the 4.7LHO"
Gotta call the b.s. flag on this one.
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
22:48:26
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
IAN,
Have you ever owned a 93 5.2L Dak? I have. It ran 14.9's all day with an occasional 14.7. The 94-99's won't do that. With a simple cam and exhaust swap you can make the 94's and up faster than the 93's. Since your the expert at B.S. here I assume you have owned and tweaked both the 92-93's and the 94thru99 5.2L's? I have. Is it B.S. that a 97 5.2L can be found for half the price of a 2000 4.7L? Is it B.S. that aftermarket parts are readily available for the 5.2L and not the 4.7L? Is it B.S. that a set of headers can be purchased for the 5.2L for $280.00 vs. the $580.00 for a set on the 4.7L? I'm stating the facts here. The 93-99 5.2L was rated at 230hp and 300ftlb of torque. The 4.7L is rated at 230hp and 295ftlb of torque. Is that B.S. also? Is it B.S that you can purchase intakes, heads, camshafts, rocker arms, pushrods, transmission upgrades all day long for the 5.2L and you have to settle for parts off a Jeep or have something special made for the 4.7L?
I'm sorry, but the only B.S. here is the fact that DC hasn't stepped up and offered some bolt-on goodies to increase the HP of the 4.7L. They've been making this engine for 6 years now. The 5.2L Magnum engine had only been in production 3 years when they started offering the R/T package that you could purchase and build an R/T. They were offering performance PCM's 2 years after the first Magnum engine was built. They are selling 4 times as many trucks today as they did back then. That's B.S. Enthusiest like myself are going to start loosing interest and go to a different brand/make/model if they don't hurry up and start offering some bolt on aftermarket goodies. I just sold my 2002SLT 4.7L.
|
Ian
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
23:07:37
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
who's talkin bout the regular 4.7, you said the h.o. 4.7...don't change your argument when your position is weak..the real comparison which you conveniently avoided is the h.o.'s 265hp and 325lbs of torque compared to the 5.2's 230hp and 300lbs of torque...$500 later you're tellin me your sitting at over 265hp and 325lbs of torque...maybe close but thats pushing it, however give me $500 for the h.o. and the 5.2 is not "definately better" as you say. BTW-the 4.7 has way more products out for it than you give credit...maybe no mopar pcm but we got flashes, heads, tb's, camshafts, intakes, intake manifolds, ross pistons, superchargers, take your pick. Get your head out of your azz and realize the 4.7 mightily trumps the 5.2....especially the H.O. version!!!!!!!!
|
Wal
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
23:11:35
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
Glad to read about the old vs. new 5.2l. I sold my 1992 with 175,000mi on it and bought a 99 with 90K on her. While the new truck is grossly heavier and slower, the motor just doesn't feel as strong as my old truck. The RH trans also shifted WAY better then the RE trans too, IMHO.
So I'm thinking Transgo kit, cam, roller rockers, and older manifolds. Hmm... :-)
Will using the performance cam require using premium fuel and/or will it upset my OEM computer and throw a code? I'm looking to do this on the cheap and I don't want to make headaches.
Whatta ya think, Blues? :-)
Wal
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
23:26:02
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
IAN,
That's my arguement exactly. The parts to modify the 5.2L are readily available. The 4.7LHO isn't available on the Dakota. Remember my comment about having to use parts off a Jeep? It would cost about the same to convert a 4.7L to the 4.7LHO as it would to install the MP-PCM and cam w/93 exhaust manifolds. Then when your budget allows, you can install the alluminum heads, intake, headers, TB, etc... on the 5.2L. There's no arguement here. The 5.2L makes the same power the 4.7L makes for about half the cost. For what it will cost to have a set of 4.7L heads specially ported and bigger valves you could upgrade every component on the top end of the 5.2L and be making way more HP.
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/26/2004
00:17:36
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
Wal,
The 26? (I think it's a 268) cam is compatible with the MP PCM. It is supposed to work in conjunction with the single plane intake and the MP (mopar performance) headers. The PCM is around $250.00. I had one for a 93 and a 95, but that wouldn't help you with a 99. You definately will need the MP PCM. That would be the first thing I would get. Everything else can go on as you get the funds. I just found out recently myself that the exhaust manifolds on the 94's-up are smaller than the 92-93's. The 93 had the largest cam of all the 5.2L mags. I know that for a fact.If you did nothing but find a 93 in the bone yard and swapped out the exhaust and cam you would be way ahead of the 4.7L. Dodge lies on their HP figures. If you plug in the 1/4 times I made with my 93 into the hp equation (before I made the cam swap), it was making 250hp. After the cam swap it was making 270hp. All it had was the cam, PCM, and a gibson cat-back. I never had it dynoed. The equation method will give you a rough estimate on HP. You have to know your tire size, gear ratio, weight, and then put in your trap speeds/times and it kicks out a hp number. Seeing the times that the 265hp 4.7L HO's are clicking off I would say that 270HP is a very reasonable HP figure for the 5.2L with the cam, PCM, and exhaust upgrades. The RC4.7L weighs just under 3800lbs. My 93CC 5.2L weighed 3700. So, 260-280Hp can be easily obtained with a $500.00 investment. Drop another $1000.00 for TB, intake, and headers and you easily have over 300HP. I never got to do the later because I totaled it shortly after I made the cam, PCM, and exhaust swap. I made upgrades to the 95 with very dismal results. I did not swap cams on the 95 and at the time I was not aware that there was any difference in exhaust manifolds. Had I known then what I know today I would have kept my 95. I traded it for a RAM with a 360. It actually ran just as good as the 95DAK5.2L. I still had a need for speed that the Ram wouldn't satisfy so I traded it for a new/used 95 Eagle Talon AWD TSI Turbo 5spd.
I had it for 2 years and a drunk pulled out in front of me and totaled it. By that time the new Daks were out and they announced there would be a 98R/T. I got a red 98 R/T. Now I have a 2000R/T. I just sold my 2002SLT 4.7L. So I have had all the different Dakotas and Rams with every engine except the new Hemi and 3.7L. I prefer the 5.2L.
As long as it is taking DC to come out with some HP bolt ons for the 4.7L they probably won't have anything for the Hemi in the next 20 years. The 4.7L does rev faster due to it's lighter reciprocating mass. It has higher compression due to the aluminum heads. For another $1,200.00 you can bolt on a set of aluminum heads on the 5.2L. Those heads running about 9.8-10:1 I believe. That would most definately require 93oct. The MP PCM requires that anyway. Those heads with the other mods already bolted on will put you in Hemi territory. Of course the usual high flow cats, cold air intake, 3923 plugs, k&N filter will add a couple of more ponies. If all you want to do is beat a 4.7L just go with the PCM, cam, 93exhaust, and maybe a cold air induction. Oh, don't forget the 93oct. I can tell you from experience that the PCM won't help you much without the other mods to go with it. So don't be dissapointed when your 1/4 times don't go up when you swap PCM's.
|
Wal
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/26/2004
00:41:28
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
Cool reply! Thanks for all the details; advice SAVED!
I treat my truck...well.. like a truck. I load it, tow with it, stomp on it, 4 wheel with it, cruise with it - you name it! When I get a few $ ahead I plan on following most of your advice. I'm not looking to set the world on fire, but I'd drop a grand to put some spunk in the girl :-)
I don't want to make her require hi-test though. It's bad enough feeding this pig 87, haha. My MPG isn't something to brag about :-( I'm thinking OPEC's Christmas card was the first hint.
I'm just looking for some simple realistic real-world gains. I like the old 5.2l and it's low revving torquey heavy feel. It's the way a truck should be. As far as trying to really run fast, I don't bother with trucks. Too many wheels on 'em to be fast ;-) 4cyl litre+ bikes are more fun for that.
Thanks again for the info!
Wal
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/26/2004
03:27:31
| RE: 4.7 or 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
Wal,
If driveability is your main goal I would just find a 93 and rob the exhaust of it (manifolds). Then either install a high-flow cat or remove yours. An air-Raid cold air kit and a flowmaster would liven her up. I would still consider the mildest of the Mopar Performance MPI (multi point injected) cams. There is one that's milder than the 268. It was the first one they came out with. I don't remember the specs, but they claimed it would increase your top-end HP without hurting your interstate cruising gas mileage. It was barley bigger than the stock cam. I believe the duration was almost identical to the stock 93 cam but it had a lot more lift. I'd have to find my old catalog.
If nothing else, just rob one out of a 93. It's better than what you got. You could probably get one from a bone yard for a song and a dance.
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
