| From | Message |
Marine Tanker
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/23/2004
11:25:42
|
 Subject: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
I've seen threads where folks are saying the 4.7 is under powered. Personally I think it's a great engine for the Dakota! I've pulled trailers and blew the doors off those little hot rod rice burners with the loud mufflers. I just don't feel the 4.7 is under powered.
I'd like to hear if you are satisfied with the power of the 4.7L.
|
Justi
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/23/2004
11:42:53
|  RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
Everything is relative. It has more torque than anything in it's class and several options for vehicles in the next class up. For what 95% of all Dakota users will use the 4.7L for it's enough or more than enough. There are some people that are trying to consistantly pull 6000lb boats or 5500lb utility trailers every day, and yeah, for those people my guess is that it's a little lacking. For those of us that only pull lighter trailers (4500lb or below) or only occasionally pull those heavier trailers, it's fine.
Personally, I love my 4.7L but then I don't do a great deal of pulling (occasional pontoon boat) and most of my driving is on the roads if it's not hunting season. :)
Just my thoughts anyway...
|
deerridge
GenIII
2/23/2004
13:14:42
|  RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
A Dakota is not a turbo-deisal. It will pull almost anything the 1500 short bed trucks will pull and handle twice as good and is faster than most. Its a great little truck and fills a nitch no other truck tries too. It could be bigger, buy a Ram, it could be smaller, buy a Tacoma. Its a mid sized truck, enjoy its versitility, nothing else is like it.
Real Horsepower
|
Kowalski
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/23/2004
17:58:48
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
Mine pulls great. The biggest whiners seem to be guys who had '92-'93 318s - strongest years for that motor in a lighter truck. Easily the equal of the newer 5.2s.
|
WipLash
R/T
2/23/2004
18:58:49
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
The thing I like the most about the 4.7L Auto is it's responsiveness. It makes up for the lack in torque with extra response, quick shifting auto, lower 1st gear ratio, and a wider torque band. I was really impressed with how the RC Auto ran empty. I was very dissapointed when I hooked a light 2000lb trailer to it. If I were to hook my trailer behind my 93 and the same trailer behind my 2002 4.7L, my 93 would blow it's doors off. The thing that bothered me the most was that I could not set the cruise on the interstate doing 75mph with it in O.D. pulling a 2000lb load of furniture. It was constantly shifting out of O.D. I know you are not supposed to do that anyway, but I had no problem pulling that same trailer with 4000lbs on it at 75mph with the O.D. and the cruise on in my 93. The 93 supposedly only had 5 more ft-lbs of torque. Somethings not right there.
|
Bob Jones
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/23/2004
21:20:48
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
My boyfriend thinks the 4.7 is plenty powerful.
|
WipLash
R/T
2/23/2004
22:06:34
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
Which 4.7 are you refering to? J/K!!
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
2/23/2004
23:43:41
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
I leave my OD on pulling quite the load. It's got to be at least 2000 Lbs because my quads and camping gear got to weigh near that not counting the trailer.
Mine stays in OD most of the time and if and when it goes to 4th or 3rd it stays for a while. None of that back and forth shifting the OLD tranny's did. Mine is a 2003 and I heard they have better programming starting in that year not too mention the HO intake, larger TB etc all came stock. We may have more HP in 2003 than the previous 4.7 years. I've heard that idea anyway. Maybe they just didn't bother to re rate the motor. It's got to run somewhat diff with the HO intake and 68MM TB compared to a say 2000 with the smalled inatke and TB.
I can't wait for my HO cams to get here. Then I'll compare to my next dune trip for pulling power and MPG which has been just fine. It sure kicks the sh*t out of the new Chevy's in similar class, Tahoes, Silverado's, etc that tow along with us. And this is a MID SIZED truck.
|
WipLash
R/T
2/24/2004
00:09:23
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
My 2002 came factory with the 68mm T/B. Going up the slightest hill it would downshift. Of course, it has 3.55's. But, its a RC. You have a lot more weight than I do. Mine didn't hunt for gears, it just slowed down and then would finally downshift in order to speed back up. That's something I'm not used to. I'm on my 6th Dakota. All of them have had 5.2's and 5.9's. This is the first time I have not been able to maintain a constant speed pulling this little 16' trailer I have. I've had this trailer since 1987. Even my non-magnum 318 1989 D150 would hold a steady speed with the cruise set. My 92 went 150 miles from Texarkana to Little Rock, AR pulling over 8,000lbs and it downshift from OD to drive 3 times the whole trip. Even though it downshifted, it never failed to maintain speed. The needle stayed stuck on 65mph the entire 150 miles. It was 4wd, but it had 3.92's. I wouldn't even attempt that trip in this truck. My R/T would come closer to making the trip.
|
Kowalski
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/24/2004
16:53:14
|  RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
See what I mean ? Admittedly, mine is lightly modded, but I pull 4000 - 5000 lbs and I think it pulls great - hear compliments from the people I camp with running 350s and diesels - they can't pull from me, if anything I can run from them. 3.55 gears.
|
WipLash
R/T
2/24/2004
20:31:48
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
Your definition up pulling fine and my definition may be different. After owning 6 V8-Dakotas the 2002 4.7L was the worse one I've owned for towing. The interstate where I live is relatively flat. I've never had to turn my OD off pulling a trailer before. I was very shocked at the fact that this truck ran so good empty and was a total piece of sh!t pulling a trailer. It helped me make up my mind which truck I was keeping. I had originally planned to sell my R/T. I purchased an extended warranty for the 2000R/T and sold the 2002 4.7L.
|
McyMike
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/25/2004
13:09:43
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
I pulled at 1800 lb trailer loaded with 4 full dress motorcycles and 4 adults to Daytona last year with my 04 QC 4X4 (estimating towing about 5000lbs plus). The truck handled the tow well. Tracked straight. There was a lot of downshifting going on (3.55 gears) and you really had to anticipate stopping. Gas mileage was a whopping 7.5 mpg at 70 mph.
Mike
|
WipLash
R/T
2/25/2004
13:29:39
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
I admit that my 2002 tracked very straight while pulling a trailer. It drove terrible unloaded. The ass end was constantly dancing back and forth on this rutted section of I40 I drive on. When I put the trailer behind it the thing drove perfect. GO FIGURE! But, like you said, it was constantly changing gears and the brakes were way over stressed. I had to really anticipate my stops. I guess if I had never owned a 5.2L or a 5.9L I would have paid no attention to the lack of torque. It still pulled better than a Silverado.
|
Kowalski
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/25/2004
15:50:06
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
Towing that kind of weight you should have trailer brakes - mine brakes well with the trailer brakes. Kind of funny how I think the 4.7 tows great hauling twice the weight on hills; while Whip Lash thinks it doesn't tow well on flats. Lowering the pressure in your rear tires will help control that bouncing around when empty, the stock shocks aren't well tuned for an empty truck - that's why it handled better with the trailer.
|
WipLash
R/T
2/25/2004
19:04:32
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
Like I said, had I never owned a 5.2 or 5.9L Dakota, I would probably think like eveybody else that the 4.7L tows great. I've got 13 years of towing experience with the 5.2L. I expected the 4.7L to at least be able to pull the same trailer with half the load as the 5.2 and not have to keep changing gears in order to maintain speed. It even had to drop down into drive just to pull the trailer empty several times. It drove fine and it accelerated fine. It seems like the peak torque of the 5.2L is about 1000RPMs lower than the 4.7L. At 75mph the 5.2L is in it's "SWEET SPOT" for torque RPM's around 2300. The 4.7L seems to like 3000RPM's which would require a 4.11 rear end at 75mph.
On a possitive note, it still pulled better than a Silverado. Since my company has all Chevy's, I get to pull a trailer from time to time with them. My 93 CC 5.2L w/3.55 gears would tow a trailer better than the Silverados with 5.7L engine. They were constantly having to shift down also. They also wouldn't maintain speed.
|
Justi
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/25/2004
19:51:09
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
Just my .02 but it sounds to me wiplash that maybe your problem is more with the transmission than with the motor. Electronic or not it is difficult to make an auto transmission that performs well both empty and loaded down. Usually there'll be a little give and take. Mine is absolutely outstanding running empty but yes, a tad too shifty perhaps when towing. I've had vehicles that towed well but would be way up into the RPM's under normal conditions when empty. Gearing, etc, obviously.
Personally, I don't tow often and 90% of my time in the Dakota QC is spend driving without a heavy load (unless you call a treestand and a 150lb deer on a lucky day a heavy load) so I'm quite pleased with mine. If it shifts a little soon when under heavy load I kick off the OD, which is geared pretty damn high anyway so it makes sense..
Like I said, just my .02 but there it is all the same...
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
2/25/2004
20:03:04
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
Didn't hey change the transmission program starting in 2003???
Mine is a 2003 QC 4X4 3.55, etc. I leave it in OD or it SUCKS gas. In OD it seems to drop into that 4th gear we are supposed to have and mine seems to stay there for a while. I don;t get much of the back and forth shifting like older transmissions did.
However, I do notice that the CRUISE CONTROL will let the speed drop a few MPH before it gives it enough throttle then when it does speed up it overshoots by 1 or even 2 MPH. It does this frequently and maybe that is what WipLash is noticing as well?
I also agree with Kowalski. The guys with me don't seem to be able to keep up with me, even on the BIG hills! One of the trucks is a 2500 Cummins (stock) with a 5 speed manual. Of course his top speed seems to be 90 or so. According to him. He does pull one or so more quads than me on a 4 foot longer trailer and one more axle. But I STILL figured he would out pull me until we went on the first trip and I past HIM on the hills! The Chevy Tahoe's and the likes don't even catch me. 80MPH is no problem for my Dak pulling the trailer. I'm very happy. I got near 13 MPG on our last trip from Phoenix to Yuma.
|
WipLash
R/T
2/25/2004
21:17:29
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
Nope! The problem is definately NOT the transmission. The only reason the truck had to downshift was because it COULD NOT MAINTAIN SPEED. Therefore, it had to downshift. Otherwise the truck would have kept slowing down. It did that anyway, but it would have been much worse had the transmission not shifted down.
The only reason transmissions "hunt" back an forth is because the engine lacks the troque to maintain speed.
|
lilreddakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/25/2004
23:38:10
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
I have owned my Dakota since April 4 2000, it was an aniversary present. It is a club cab sport with 1850lb payload last year for that payload option, it is a 4x4 with the tire and handling group which give's me 31x10.5x15 to roll on I have 3:55 with a limited slip in the back, my ordomiter currently reads 89500 miles it is my dailer driver, adn also fills in as my hunting rig and our vacation vehicle. I have over the past four years added a three inch exhuast with a two stage flow master. I replaced the stock shocks with Monroe reflex's I tryed 33x9.50x15 BFGs but threw the computer off and eat gas. I also tried the jet chip it was great goin down the freeway but out on the trail it eat gas like my dog takes to a pizza. I removed it and am back to stock. I have owned small blocks most of my car owning history. Two 318's, one in a 68 Satelite, the other in a 69 Baracuda, I have also owned one 360 in a 79 Ramcharger, They dont compare to my lilred. Seat of your pants acceleration and bam warp speed I dont think the 4.7 is under powered in any way at all
|
Justi
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/26/2004
00:35:10
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
Wiplash, the only reason a vehicle shifts down in an auto tranny is because it needs a larger gear to maintain that speed. So, I guess my QUESTION is, what is the final ratio in top gear on these new supposedly 6 speed auto trannys compared to the high gear in your old 5.2? If the gears are higher in the new 545RFE then it would make perfect sense that the truck shifts more. But me personally, as I've stated, don't have a problem.
Again personally though, if I were to have a need to frequently haul 6000lb plus, I wouldn't have bought a Dakota. Not necessarily a wise idea to buy a truck and plan to push it to max payload consistantly. Can it do it? Sure. But it's never good to operate anything at the edge of it's limits. vehicles, stereo's, guns, whatever... Just my opinion...
|
deerridge
GenIII
2/26/2004
12:51:19
| RE: 4.7L Under Powered!?
IP: Logged
Message:
I max tow with mine on a regular basis, but I cut the overdrive off and don't go over 65 anyway. Let your gears do the work like they are designed to do. Mine will pull a pretty steep grade without down shifting unloaded. If it is loaded it should shift down and you should too with a manuel. The ninety's Silverado 350 4x4, (5spd., 3.41rear) had 210hp and 300bls of torque. I put 160000 on mine over 12 years and it never pulled as good as my Dakota 4.7 AWD or as smoothly.
Real Horsepower
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
