| From | Message |
theM_A_N
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/21/2005
22:19:42
|
 Subject: Best HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
Which is the best Ho intake to get? Dodge has the original type 53031739AC and the newer style 53013403AD ?
|
Depends
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/21/2005
23:13:51
| RE: Best HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
Depends on the year engine you're gonna put it on.
It's important info you should share if you want the best answer.
Both numbers you list are 2004 numbers. There is no "HO" intake for 2004.
|
Depends
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/21/2005
23:22:47
| RE: Best HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
Sorry. Got my lines severely crossed. Forget I even wrote that stuff.
P/N 53031739AD is the official, Jeep HO intake.
Standard engine intake:
1999: P/N 53030951
2000: P/N 53030951AB
2001: P/N 53010315AD
2002: P/N 53010315AG
HO engine intake:
2002: P/N 53031739AD
Standard and HO engine intake:
2003: P/N 53013403AB
2004: P/N 53013403AC and P/N 53013403AD
|
theM_A_N
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/22/2005
01:33:06
| RE: Best HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
Putting it on a 2002 dakota. I know they are a little different just want to know if one has much advantage over the other.
|
Android287
GenIII
6/22/2005
08:40:02
| RE: Best HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
The HO intake from a 03/04 is the best.
|
Lurkin
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/22/2005
09:32:12
| RE: Best HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
Depends on where you want to make your power. The following is my understanding (I will stay away from any discussion on if the difference is actually significant).
02 and previous standard had the longest runners, so they're best for low end power at the expense of some high-end breathing
02 HO had the shortest runners, so it's best for high-end breathing at the expense of some low-end torque
03-04 have runner lengths in between the previous two descriptions above, so it splits the high-end/low-end trade-off.
|
Pittdwag
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/22/2005
17:22:13
| RE: Best HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
I spoke with one of the 4.7 engineers on another board here is the break down:
00-02 standard 4.7 intakes have 510mm runners (the longest runners and best low end power)
02 h.o. intake and all 03+ plus intakes both have 410mm runners (better high rpm horsepower at the expense of low end torque)
The only difference between the 02 h.o. intake and the 03+ intake is that the 02 h.o. intake was a little more expensive to make and has slighlty smoother runners, amounting to a very slight horsepower increase over the later h.o. intakes (like 3 to 4 hp).
|
Gaston
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/22/2005
17:59:18
| RE: Best HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
So for a spacer to have any real affect on low end power, it would have to be between the intake and the head?
|
ricardcapecod
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/22/2005
18:30:34
| RE: Best HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
When i replaced the intake, i did the cams too.
My choice was the 2002 model. At that time i thought it was a little shorter than the 03 model, but i did not care about shifting the power up a bit.
The fact is that i lost some torque between idle and 1500 rpm, even w/ the HO cam.
The compensation comes from 1800 to 6000 rpm, specially noticeably beyond 4500 rpm, w/ lots of xtra torque from arond 2200 to 5000.
I have other mods like Gibson headers and single 3 in from the cat, 68 fastman TB, K&N FIPK2, no fan, 180* Tstat, jet2 chip, soon to be replaced by Leash flash etc, etc.
My Dak is a 2000 SLT plus, CC, 2WD, 5 manual, 3.92 LSD, 4.7 eng, w/ the 255/65/15 tires,(around 28 in), w/ 107000 miles and absolutelly the best as it has ever been.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
6/23/2005
23:43:07
| RE: Best HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
I'd be curious to try making my own intake some day. I'd be interested in maybe buying an old stock one just to look at it and to match ports up, etc.
My idea for an intake would be a dual plane (dual length) where a butterfly thingie would open the SHORT runners at certain RPM's and use the LONG narrow runners for lower RPM's for the shear grunt.
I know Nissan does this with their 3.5 V6 and I had thought of it before.
It would take some time to do I guess. But nothing some grinding and welding couldn't handle. I'd also be curious to use a sequential TWO BARREL Throttle Body as well. I bet you could regain some grunt on these 4.7's (not that the 4.7 is probably not the most rounded power band already) beyond what is there and unleash some HP above 4K RPM's!
If I could go with a turbo I'd say forget the trouble and it wouldn't matter as much. But for a N/A engine, I think it would be very noticable!
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
