| From | Message |
Blizzard
Unregistered
2/05/2001
12:45:47
|
 Subject: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Okay guys (and girls),
I'm a Ford man tried and true that's about to make a change and buy a '01 Dakota Quad Cab. Based on your experiences, what V8 would you recommend? the 4.7 or the 5.9L? My plan is to throw a suspension lift on (as soon as they become available) and probably 33" or 35" BFG all-terrain T/A's. I'd go with the 3.92 gears and 4 speed auto tranny. I drove a quad cab with 4.7L on Saturday and it impressed the hell out of me. I just wonder if I'd be wise to spend the extra $500 and get the 5.9L. How much will I suffer at the gas pumps too? Just looking for ideas. and you guys have all the wisdom here .. hehehe. Give a newbie some advice! Seeeeeeee ya
|
Tara
Unregistered
2/05/2001
14:01:57
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I reccomend the 4.7, but either one is awesome. My father's getting a '01 quad cab also, but i don't know wich one he is getting.
|
nextgen
GenI
2/06/2001
01:44:41
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
ONLY ONE WAY TO GO MY FRIEND, 5....NOT, GO WITH THE 4.7L, I LOVE MINE!!!!
TONY
2000 CC 4.7L SLT PLUS AUTO
Z-TUBE, CUSTOM EXHAUST
|
95DakotaV8
GenII
2/06/2001
06:57:48
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
The 5.9 (250) only makes about 15 more horsepower than the 4.7 (235). 4.7 will probably do much better on the gas plus you can do some mods to make up the horsepower.
BTW, the 4.7 is still bigger than the 4.6 that is the standard V8 in F-150s. I keep reminding a coworker that my 5.2L in my "small" truck as she refers to it, is bigger than her 4.6L in her 2000 F-150.
KJR
1995 Dakota Club Cab SLT 4x4, 5.2L, 5spd, 3.90 rear end
|
Blizzard
Unregistered
2/06/2001
07:34:05
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
OK, I hear you guys talking up the 4.7L ... but as far as gas mileage goes, Dodge is saying only 1-2 mpg different between the 4.7 and 5.9. I would think there would be more aftermarket performance parts available for the 5.9 (but I can't say for sure on that one). The 5.9L puts out more hp at a lower RPM and has better torque. My fear is that I'll lift the truck and put 33-35" tires on it and be working the *#@@ out of the motor. (Plus I still wanna be able to tear up some off-road dirt). Anyway, I've heard what you guys are sayin', I won't pass up on the 4.7L just yet. But I'm stillleaning towards the 5.9! Bigger is better, right? hehehe
unless someone out there has a 5.9L that they're not happy with. If that's the case...let me know
|
Bernd
GenIII
2/06/2001
08:27:44
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
If you're going to be running 32-33" tires, you'll need to change the differential gear to a 3.90 - 4.10:1 ratio. With 35" tires, 4.56:1.
As for the "Bigger is Better"...that's still a fact that can never be changed. With like configurations and one being bigger than the other, the bigger one will always make more power.
On the HP and TQ curves, yes...the 5.9L is a bottom-end Torque motor and would be slightly better suited for offroading. (The 4.7L is a top-end HP motor.) Have I seen a 4.7L run 13's yet...nope. But that's rather easy in a 5.9L...seen it done too many time already. ;)
Again, on the aftermarket parts, the 5.9L has much more available...from cams, heads, intake, exhaust, valvetrain, etc.
Bernd D. Ratsch
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT
Supercharged w/Nitrous
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
2/06/2001
19:57:27
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Bernd...you have to put a boat load of parts and money in a R/T to run 13's.Come on Bernd ...we have been over this before,what about the little rice burner Honda's that run 11's...them little turds haul ass with the right parts and a little money...the engine is the size of a toilet.Yes they only weigh as much as a basket full of cow shit.With the right parts,the little 4.7L will blow the door's, fender's, hood,tailgate, off the old 5.9L.(BOY DO I FEEL BETTER!)
Bob
Bob
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto.
|
Nick
Unregistered
2/07/2001
00:44:02
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Where do you live? I live in Colorado, it is generally accepted that for every thousand feet you go up you lose 5% of your power. In Denver at 5,280 feet I lose a little over 25% of my engine, at the top on Indpendence pass I lose 50%. So I recomend that you buy the bigger engine. I have a 1997 with the no longer avaliabe 5.3litre.
It has pleanty, hell in 4th gear I accelerate up any hill around. But I would go with the 5.8. In part because I love bigger engines, and they sound cooler. But because then the mere thought of not enough power when pulling Toyotas, and Fords out of the ditches during snowstomr never enters my mind. But I would get it because I like having the engine work at minimal capacity, and the 5.8 will work slightly less, thus last longer.
But I'm tired, so this may not be entirley factual.
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
2/07/2001
03:53:06
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Ok you guy's, you got me,"I give".As Bernd said in the past...what about John Force etc.they all got big one's.I got some egg on my face!Nick I live in OH.I still take a 4.7 over a 5.9 any day.What's up with this...the new Ram's are going to have 4.7L 240 HP.?????
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto.
|
Bernd
GenIII
2/07/2001
08:45:59
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Bob...i'm not going to get into any more unnecessary "debates" on the cubic inch and HP issue...but there's just no way to get around the displacement factor. Sorry...that's just the way it is.
Power to weight is a major factor in e.t's so as I said...build two engines with LIKE modifications and the larger one will ALWAYS make more power.
As for spending lots of money to get an R/T into the 13's...that's not true. Define "Boat Load of money" on the mods and then show me how the little ricers get into the 11's. They spend quite a bit of money themselves.
The 4.7L is a good running engine and so is the 5.9L. It sounds like you're leaning toward the "4x4" scheme so I would suggest that you stick with the 5.9L for that...that's IF you're planning on a lot of offroading. If you're just looking for the occastional offroad romp and would like to squeeze as much mileage out of it as possible (and the 4x4's do get mell mileage anyway), stick with the 4.7L.
Bernd D. Ratsch
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT
Supercharged w/Nitrous
|
Nick
Unregistered
2/07/2001
09:34:56
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Ok lets look at it this way.
Go to your dealer, and pick up the little red catolog. Turn to page 17 and look at the toorque.
Now torque is good while offroading, and towing. Since you have decided on the Quad cab, you will be carrying people around most likley?
Well say you and 4 buds decide to go camping, and its a reasonably tough road. Add in the weight of your camping gear, and with all your weight, that additional torque, will get you up that hill.
Of course this is simply based on the notion that My best friends Toyota failed with a smaller engine going up a hill, with some of my football buds. Granted my 5.2 litre V-8 did it eaisley with them in the bed laughing at poor Toyota boy. But with all your offroad mods, you are thinking of, this is the eaisest to do.
And I would advise against the lift, as it will wear your bushings and bearing quicker. And 32's fit great on mine. With no lift.
Bottom line is turn on your engine, if it sends chills down your spine, thats the right one. If not make it bigger, and if that fails screw with the exhast pipes.
|
Bernd
GenIII
2/07/2001
10:20:13
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
On the lift kits...they won't hurt you if it's done right. (Suspension and Steering geometry is a big factor on that.)
Bernd D. Ratsch
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT
Supercharged w/Nitrous
|
Blizzard
Unregistered
2/07/2001
10:54:32
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I'm taking all of these factors into consideration .... but right now I'm still leaning Bernd's way. Call it a guy thing, but I can't help but think that the 360 will perform better. I can't say that I'll be hard-core offroading all the time, but I wanna know that when I get into a tight spot I'll have the extra power to get out! As far as lift kits go, I think the only people that have problems with lifts are the ones that don't install them right. I've had a Superlift 6" suspension on my F150 for several years and it's held up justttttt fine. Only problem with buying a new Dakota is that nobody has lift kits available yet. I for sure want to be able to run at LEAST 33" tires, probably 35". I hate having to look up at other trucks.
Soooooo based on that, I think the 5.9L with 3.92 gears will push the tires along better and longer than the 4.7. But, again, I'm just from the school that bigger is better. Dunno how much difference in gas mileage I'd see either, as Dodge rates the 5.9 as only being 1-2 mpg less than the 4.7 (for what THAT's worth. We all know you can't take the posted gas mileage as law. So who knows....but I still like the beefiness of the 360.
BTW - I'm one step closer to buying a Dodge. Made up the for sale sign for the F150 last night. Just didn't have the heart to put it in the truck just yet ... hehehe
|
Jim Forsyth
Unregistered
2/07/2001
13:18:39
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I just bought a 2001 Quad with 4.7, 4X4,automatic,and 3.92 gears. This motor is better than my 5.2 or my 5.9 . It just sounds different! Lets not forget that it is almost 200 lbs lighter than a 5.9 . This makes the handling of the Quad very different than the other Dakotas. My RPM at 60mph is 2300 with 3.92 gears.
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
2/07/2001
19:19:56
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Bernd Bernd Bernd... you didn't read my second post very well did you.
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto.
|
Blizzard
Unregistered
2/07/2001
19:36:39
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, I'm making steps toward a dakota.....listed my pickup on autotrader.com tonight....hard to part with it, cuz I've had it for 8 years....but I've done all I can do to it and it's time to start over again!! haha
As soon as it sells I'm gonna have the local dodge dealer find me a quad cab dakota.....
keep your finners crossed for me!
Thanks for all the help in my decision making process!
|
Bernd
GenIII
2/07/2001
23:31:19
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Tara made the second post.
Bernd D. Ratsch
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT
Supercharged w/Nitrous
|
50
GenIII
2/08/2001
00:30:10
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Blizzard,
Go with the 5.9. It has all the torque you will need. The 4.7 is a great highway motor but the 5.9 will be a better "work" motor. If You are going to start putting things on the motor like most of us, all bets are off. If you want to do some wrench turning buy a 3.9 and copy Bernd's ride. Nice combo of light motor with plenty of power.
As for the 11 sec. rice burners, somebody is comparing apples to oranges (or maybe apples to rice). We ought to stick to Dakotas.
Wayne
'99 5.2
Wayne Van Metre
|
Bernd
GenIII
2/08/2001
00:43:36
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Hehehehe...yeah, ol'Bob got in on his "Rice Boy can Run 11's" thing again. ;)
Apples to Rice...I like that!
Bernd D. Ratsch
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT
Supercharged w/Nitrous
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
2/08/2001
03:54:09
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Bla Bla---Bird's of a feather flock to gather.The 5.9 is history...go with the 4.7 it has all the tork you will ever need ,plus it don't use as much gas.
Bob
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto.
|
50
GenIII
2/08/2001
04:09:52
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Bob,
Birds flock to gather what? I thought they flock "together"......and what is a "tork"?
Anyway you better check your MPG figures. We have a 5.2 auto, an R/T, and a 5.2 w/5 speed at my house. 4.7's w/auto are claiming about the same mpg as my 5.2 auto. They are running the same times at the track too. The R/T with it's 5.9 is very close in mpg to my 5.2 but the 5.2 w/5 speed is better on gas and faster than all of them.
Hang in there, Bob. You got a good motor but it ain't THAT much better.
Wayne Van Metre
'99 5.2/auto/3.55 ls
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
2/08/2001
04:19:03
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Got me..I just got out of bed,got to go to work..I will steady on my spelling to Day.I'LL BE BACK.
Bob
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto.
|
50
GenIII
2/08/2001
04:24:16
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Bob,
Have a good day.:-)
4.7,5.9 just don't buy no F**D.
Wayne Van Metre
'99 5.2/auto/3.55 ls
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
2/08/2001
14:47:56
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Hay 50...I love FORD's.I'm a FORD man from waaaay back.Love them there RANGER's...own a 5.0 MUSTANG.I was having a good day,in-tell I read your post. HeHeHeHe
Bob
PS-I spelled way wrong.
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto.
|
Nick
DakotaEnthusiast
2/08/2001
19:10:58
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
If you go with the Ford its not a matter of engines, its a matter of which towing company. Well unless I'm in the area my Dakota will pull you out.
*Reserved*
For Picture of my Mud Marine
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
2/08/2001
19:56:54
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Hay Nick--BITE ME...I suppose you own a 4x4 with 58" tire's and a 12" left with 3.9 power and a moonshine jug in the bed.FORD sell's more truck's than Chevy or Dodge.Nick, the only thing you can pull of mine, would be my finger.
Bob
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto. (OHIO)
|
50
GenIII
2/12/2001
08:46:29
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey Bob,
You ought to consider going to fordsbesus.com or something like that. It would be a more friendly environment.
BTW/ before this Dakota, I owned 4 Rangers. They were pretty good except for the last one. It was "possessed". I named it Linda Blair.
Incidentally, they sell more Fords because they wear out faster.
Wayne Van Metre
'99 5.2/auto/3.55 ls
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
2/12/2001
15:11:38
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Wayne-Bla Bla Bla
Bob
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto. #9
|
Nick
DakotaEnthusiast
2/12/2001
19:17:49
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I don't really relay on what others say about Rangers, and their relibilitty. One of my football buds has one, and its pretty new, but the darn thing is being repaired so much, that he bought a bus pass.
1997 Dodge Dakota Sport 5.2-V-8
Duel Exhaust, Growler Mufflers
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
2/12/2001
20:02:02
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Nick are you related to Wayne.
Bob
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto. #9
|
Russ
GenIII
2/12/2001
20:40:18
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Bob I dented my Dak up a little driving where I should not,its at body shop and insurance co. rented me a 01 ford f150 4x4 5.4 triton.Though not as quick as my dak it is really quite fast!I am not sure what the horsepower is on them and I dont know diff ratio,but I know it does not have l-slip.Its a pretty decent truck but I want my dak back!!
PS-I asked for a lightning and rental people just laughed
2000 CC SLT 4X4 4.7 L-SLIP AUTO 3.55
|
Nick
DakotaEnthusiast
2/12/2001
22:17:32
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
No I'm not. I'm just loyal to companies who treat me well.
1997 Dodge Dakota Sport 5.2-V-8
Duel Exhaust, Growler Mufflers
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
2/13/2001
04:13:55
| RE: 2001 Dakota: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Russ..Ford makes a good truck,that's why so many people buy them.Asking for a Lighting to rent HeHeHe [I would ask the same thing]
Bob
PS-I love my 4.7 Dak
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto. #9
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
