| From | Message |
287alltheway
Unregistered
1/25/2001
03:18:31
|
 Subject: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Just my opinion and some simple calculations in the debate over which engine is better....the 5.9L is rated at 250 HP @ 360 CI which means .69 HP per CI....not to shabby, BUT WAIT THERES MORE...the 4.7L is rated at 235 HP @ 287 CI which means .81 HP per CI....
I don't know boys and girls that 4.7L seems a little bit more powerful than the 5.9L
|
95DakotaV8
GenII
1/25/2001
07:06:46
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Keep in mind, the Detroit home office does not think that the American public will tinker with their vehicles so they offer the 5.9 for those that don't want make modifications.
Look at Bernd's truck, he has a V6 making V8 power but DC executives intended the V6 to be more economical, etc.
KJR
1995 Dakota Club Cab SLT 4x4, 5.2L, 5spd, 3.90 rear end
|
Bernd
GenIII
1/25/2001
09:04:08
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Just remember, the 5.9L (aka: 360) has a huge bounty of aftermarket Go-Fast Goodies. Not to forget that there's about 30Hp to be gained in a simple head "clean-up". The 360 is still a workhorse engine...lots of torque where you need it (down at the bottom end of the power curve).
On my truck...yup, 250HP/330TQ (at the crank) and still getting 17-18mpg with all of the modifications.
Bernd D. Ratsch
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT
Supercharged w/Nitrous
|
Bernd
GenIII
1/25/2001
16:09:36
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
hehehe... Going by those calculations:
239CID @ 250HP = 1.046 HP per Cubic Inch. ;)
Bernd D. Ratsch
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT
Supercharged w/Nitrous
|
nextgen
GenI
1/26/2001
01:32:44
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
You know Bernd i think the 440 was the last DC engine to get over 1HP per CI...
|
Bernd
GenIII
1/26/2001
09:06:46
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
You sure? What about the 340 Six-Pack. Wasn't that one around 1hp/ci as well? (Honestly, i'd have to check into that one...but i'm almost certain that they were around that figure as well.)
Bernd D. Ratsch
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT
Supercharged w/Nitrous
|
Brad
Gen III
1/26/2001
15:06:57
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I believe the 340 six pack was rated at 275hp. Although most people believe it was closer to 340hp.
|
Bernd
GenIII
1/26/2001
16:45:05
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Damn...your almost right. (Actually less than that!)
"In late 67, the 340 came out. It was a street fighter from the start. Inside was a dual timing chain with a windage tray to cut down on the air. It ran with 2.02 intake valves and 1.60 exhaust, big bore 4.04 inch pistons (almost as large as a 454 Chevy), high-rise dual plane intake. An 850 cfm carubretor was used in 1971 through 1973, when it produced 245 hp. A good-running, early 340 embarassed many big block engines, and didn’t destroy a car’s handling with its weight.
The 340 had a steel crank until 1973, when a cast iron one was used and the flex plate and cover were used. A lot of 340 and other LA engine parts will swap out; even today, the Viper V-10 uses some of the smae parts. The 340 is fast, but the bodies they were put in were for street or drag racing - or if you just like driving."
Now slap one of those into a Dak and you can kiss your 4.7L good-bye. ;)
Bernd D. Ratsch
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT
Supercharged w/Nitrous
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
1/26/2001
17:22:59
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
340 cu against a little 287 cu .Hum... if we bore or stroke the little 287 to say 340 and keep the over head cams,no freaking way, will the 340 whip the cammer!
Bob
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto. #9Elliott
|
50+
Unregistered
2/02/2001
09:44:10
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
The 340/4 bbl. had an advertised H.P. of 275 from introduction thru 1970. They started rerating and killing them in 1971. I don't have my books here with me but I seem to remember a 290 H.P. rating on the 3 deuce model(T/A). These were all under rated. That was very common in those days.
50+
'99 5.2
|
Derek
Unregistered
3/01/2001
19:35:18
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
how about a fuel injected magnum head 340 4spd 92 dak with a 150 horse shot of spray. i've got it to run 12.50s@114mph on drag radials that i can't get to hook. not too bad for an extended cab. it'll be quicker this year!
ps-20mpg on the highway
til dodge builds us a muscle car daks rule!
|
Bob
DakotaEnthusiast
3/01/2001
20:42:28
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Derek I read a story on a guy that put a 340 in a CC Dak,he used a 5.2 top half on his truck and did some other trick stuff...he used it to haul parts for his business,he used the Mopar rims from a RoadRunner,it was very impressive.I think it was in HotRod a couple of years ago.The 340 dart did haul ass in 1969.
Bob
00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto. #9
|
Tommy
Dodge Dakota
8/10/2001
21:41:26
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Im still debating on the 4.7 or 5.9 as well. I am really interested in a 5spd which is not available on the 5.9. So far everybody tells me the 5.9 with an auto is faster than a 4.7 with a stick..
|
Jeffster
Dodge Dakota
8/10/2001
22:05:31
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Not of you get the 4.7 5 speed with trac lock and 3.92's. You will edge out a stock R/T.
|
Tommy
Dodge Dakota
8/10/2001
22:18:53
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Thats the plan Jeffster.. also the tire and handling and all the other goodies. Does anybody know when the cut off date to order a 2001 is???
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
8/11/2001
18:38:41
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
It's not fair to use those pre 71 HP numbers to say a motor made 1 HP per cubic inch. It is a different way of measuring the power. If the R/T's 360 was rated the old way it too would be making as much power as the 340 six pac was rated (granted they may have been fudging down a bit). The R/T's 360 certanily the most powerful factory Mopar small block excluding the 1970 340 six pac and it does it with a mild cam and low compression. Try that 340 six pac on 87 oct gas and I bet the 5.9 makes more power. The six pac setup was very difficult to keep tuned just right as well. Now the 4.7 still has some potential as well, I'm not sure you can call it a "small block" (which generally means the "LA" block) but if that 4.7 HO shows up and is making 270 HP it really will be king of the small blocks. The new 5.7 hemi I don't think really would count as a small block at all.
Finally horsepower is mathmatically derived from a torque measurement, toruqe is measured and the horspower is caculated from there. That said torque is the only thing you feel as far as a motors power and thus a better way to compare motors. The 5.9 makes 345 ft/lbs (.96 ft/lbs per CU)and the 4.7 makes 295 (1.03 ft/lbs per CU) If they only would just stroke that 4.7 to a 5.9 and it could be making 290 hp and 370 ft/lbs of torque. Until they do add those inches a discussion like this is pretty meaningless, I'm surprised nobody ahs mentioned all those baby motors that make just as much power, like Honda S2000. Just because that motor makes more HP then a 5.9 or 4.7 do you really think if you put one in a Dakota it would run anywhere near a 15 sec 1/4 mile?
|
Wayne
Dodge Dakota
8/12/2001
10:44:34
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Hersbird, the answer to your question is a definite NO as you already know. That is because of that torque number that you referred to and is overlooked by people. Another point is where that torque (and horsepower) is made in the power band. The new GM in line 6 makes 270 hp but it does it at 6000 rpm. The 5.9 makes 245 @ 4000. Guess which one is easier to drive on a daily basis? In a recent test in Popular mechanics the 6 beat the 5.9 but just barely and the 5.9 was in a vehicle that weighed about 1000 lb more. Torque numbers on those 2 engines clearly shows why the test came out the way it did.
|
jeffs
Dodge Dakota
8/12/2001
18:58:11
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
This 4.7-5.9 debate is a joke. If you really want
to compare, compare apples and apples. Take a 01
4.7 4x4 auto QC for a ride and then take a 01 5.9 4x4 auto QC for a ride. After driving the 5.9 the 4.7 doesn't even compare. Now this is all stock and new off the showroom floor. The 5.9 is so detuned it is pathetic but it is obvious the 4.7 is a better revver. I just did this and went for
the 5.9 for the torque. Hell my 99 5.2 would outrun a stock 4.7. The only real difference is the 4.7 will give more power and revs when you slowly push the gas where as the 5.9 sort of stays feeling about the same from off idle up. The arguement sort of reminds me of the small block - big block wars. And I never did see a stock 340 Cuda that would hang with a stock 383 Cuda : ) Let alone my 440.
Jeff
|
Jeffster
Dodge Dakota
8/13/2001
04:22:38
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Your 99 5.2 would out run a stock 4.7. Well I guess I had a bad 5.2 in my 98 for my new 4.7 would eat it up.
What your saying makes little sense. The 4.7 produces equal power and weighs much less than a 5.2 yet is slower. Hmmm obviously you don't own a 4.7. I have owned both.
I would rather have a quad cab 4x4 with a 5.9 also but with such a light truck RC 2WD the TQ disadvantage is less of a factor and the lighter weight and higher revs start to become very usefull.
|
rudy
Dodge Dakota
8/13/2001
08:17:16
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I have owned three small blocks 1 in a 68 Satelight 1 in a 69 Cuda and 1 in a 79 Ramcharger
None of those compare to the 4.7 I now have in my 00 club cab. Granted the 68 was tired and th 79 sucked from emission add ons but even when that stuff "fell off"" the truck it didn't go as good as my dak. The Cuda would have given it a good run for awhile but top end 4.7all the way. Now I dont have figures to back up all this but let me say this. I have driven almost everything Dodge makes short of a Viper. The 360 is a good motor if you want to buy on do so, but if you want seat of you pants fun buy a 4.7
|
Manuel
Dodge Dakota
8/13/2001
08:55:12
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Bernd, I think I've found a flaw in your calculation (250 hp=1.046hp/CI). If I recall, isn't that 250 hp measured at the rear wheels of your truck? Aren't all the other cars in this discussion rated at the crank by the manufacturer? By my calculations, 250 rwhp from a 239CID engine=1 evil truck.
|
jeff
Dodge Dakota
8/13/2001
12:20:41
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Jeffster,
Well my 5.2 had a couple of tweaks that gave alot
more torque and 4mpg. So it wouldn't have been fair to compare it to a stock 4.7. But I didn't think I could get the 4.7 to run the same with the same less than $200 mods. I did try a 01 QC 4.7 and yes it is more of a revver. But I didn't like the fact that to make it go you really had to go into the throttle, I live in Pa so it is really hilly. Now with the 3.92's, I may have liked it.
The 5.9 barely have to touch the gas to go w/3.55.
Also I tow two heavy jetskiis and I felt the 4.7 would just lug too much. I bet the 4.7 w/5 spd rips pretty good as that is what the engine felt like it should have behind it. Try a 5 speed neon compared to an auto totally different machine. It makes me laugh that 5500 rpms is high rpms, my 71 440 cuda had the valve float for 7200 and often I ran close to 6500 before shifts and that was a stock bottom end cast pistons and all. Darn now that I think of it I really should play with that thing since it hasn't been on the road since 84.
Jeff
|
jason O.
Dodge Dakota
8/13/2001
13:33:45
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey Bernd, what do you mean by "Just remember, the 5.9L (aka: 360) has a huge bounty of aftermarket Go-Fast Goodies. Not to forget that there's about 30Hp to be gained in a simple head "clean-up". Do you mean a port and polish?
I need information !!!! :)
|
Jeffster
Dodge Dakota
8/13/2001
20:17:26
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Jeff I agree that the 4.7 needs to be stepped on a little more to equal what a 5.9 does with a light touch. I still love that surge of power I get when I hit 3,200 RPM's. It's like a sling shot right up to over 5,300. I have no doubt also the 5.9 is a better work horse and more suitable for hauling or moving a larger vehicle which you are using it for. For my little toy this motor is a gem and suites it well.
|
CW
Dodge Dakota
8/13/2001
20:40:47
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I would have to agree with Bernd There is alot more parts out there for the 5.9 and properly assembled will out pull any 4.7 modified the same way just because of the CID difference. No replacment for displacment!
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
8/13/2001
21:11:11
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
What exactly is a "properly assembled" 5.9? hehehe
Is that anything like "completely built"?
It's a good thing you said out pull instead of out run. I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that a 4.7 with just a performance pcm will outrun a 5.9 with just a performance pcm. I can't argue about the pulling or towing capacity between the two engines. My '98 R/T with it's 5.9 was a fantastic towing machine! Although, my 4.7 is no sluch either!
Don'tcha just love these long-running threads? It gives everybody a chance to state their opinions.
|
360R/T
Dodge Dakota
8/13/2001
23:02:31
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Duner, I have been reading this board for a while as well as others you post on, and you always talk of the R/Ts you beat. But I have seen you beat by many R/Ts at Firebird and in Tucson, yet you never mention this. And we are talking about mildly modded R/Ts. The ones I have seen you beat had bad 60' times and were mainly stock. Yet you fail to mention that you disconnect your engine fan, lighten your truck as much as possible, pull your air cleaner off, and not to mention you have a high dollar custom computer reprogram, modified throttle body, and to get your high 14s you beat the life out of your five speed to the point of breaking it. I'm not taking any credit away from you , you know how to drive(I'm sure it helps your times), but don't make it sound like you dominate every R/T you come accross, because you don't. You can't even beat what your R/T did stock with your modded 4.7. I know, now that you have a 4.7 you will say the R/T was a freak and better than normal, not true, not compleatly anyways, you know how to launch the truck and that brings the full potential of the R/T out. I know I have trouble getting under 2.3 60' times and I still run high 14s lightly modded(stock PCM). All I am saying is don't spin the storys in faver of the 4.7 just because you own one now. You have time with both, and spend time with a lot of R/T guys, give them propper representation. Buy the way, I have nothing against 4.7s, I onceed owned a '98 5.2 Dak that pulled a few tenths quiker than my R/T(the 5.2 was modded of course).
|
jeff
Dodge Dakota
8/13/2001
23:28:53
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
In all honesty, I didn't run the 4.7 very hard since the salesman and my dad were in the truck with me. I normally don't run the truck very hard anyways, just not as much fun as the Cuda or intercooled shelby daytona was. I think the 4.7 would be like the 2.7 in our concorde, a good running motor but very weight sensitive. Also the one I did test was a 4x4 QC. I'm sure it is a different animal in a lighter package. How much of a true running difference between the 00 and 01's?
Does anyone know if the canadian pcms are calibrated with a different curve, since Calif. is unfortunately in our country?
Jeff
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
8/13/2001
23:51:01
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I had a 93 LE RC/5.2/3.55LS/automatic dakota that ran 14.90's at 91 MPH all the time at sears point. It had P215 tires, the MP PCM, no muffler, a short belt, a regular round K&N, and the bumper, spair, and tailgate removed. I haven't heard of many 4.7 automatic Dakotas doing that on 3.55 gears and $300 worth of mods. That said, although I haven't run my R/T at the track, it feels much faster and is pure stock. I would not believe it is any slower then a 14.7. Maybe the gen 2's were a bunch lighter then the gen 3's, I also believe the 93 was the best year of the 5.2's. Mine was factory rated at 230 HP. If you put the torque curves (or HP curves if you really are a slave to them) of the 5.9 and the 4.7 over the top of each other, the 4.7 NEVER makes more power then the 5.9. The 4.7 may feel a gret surge of power at 3500 RPM's (295 ft/lbs) but it is the same "surge" that is felt by the 5.9 at under 1000 RPM's. You could say, "Man I can run my 4.7 to 5500 rpm's before shifting and it's still pulling." Yeh, it's making 240 ft/lbs, which is about exactly what the 5.9 is still making at 5500 rpm's. The only reason some 4.7's run so well compared to R/T's is that they have the 5-speed, period. It is not the motor but the transmission and it's extra gear, and less frictional losses, and mass. You should be braggin about your transmission and not your motor. The best comparison would be a stock 1999 5.2/rc/3.92LS 5-speed vs a 2001 4.7rc/3.92LS 5-speed. I bet they run within a tenth of each other. I think going to the 4.7 was a good move by Chrysler, it gets better economy and lower emissions for similar power compared to the 5.2 it replaces. And that is the reason for the switch, not to improve power, but feul economy and emissions.
|
mark crisler
Dodge Dakota
8/14/2001
00:14:48
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
WELL NOW WE'VE ADDED 4X4'S TO THE MIX!!! DIBS ON A 4x4 5.9 VS. A 2WD 4.7 ?????? HECK LET'S GO ONE FURTHER A 4.7 2WD QC VS. A 5.9 4WD STD CAB !!! AND WE ARE TALKIN' 1/4 MILE ASPHALT.... (31" BFG'S VS. 20" BOYDS)
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
8/14/2001
09:47:29
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, if we're going to fight about transmisions, then let's get it on! I can pick up my NV 3500 and physically run down the 1/4 mi faster than you can pick up your 45RFE (or whatever that thing is) and physically run down the 1/4 mile!! Hahahaahhhahahahhhaha!
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
8/14/2001
17:23:59
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey Alex has the right idea, he is bragging about his transmission being better, not the motor. And MArk, who says you can't compare 4x4's? The topic is just 4.7 vs 5.9 and it seems right to compare the same year QC 4.7 to a 5.9. At least with this setup the two trucks could be otherwise completely identical except for the motors. I'd still put my money on the 5.9 to win in any application where the only difference is the motor, from trike, to space shuttle.
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
8/14/2001
22:57:01
| Representation!
IP: Logged
Message:
360RT - You have done a fine job of reviewing the history of my truck for the past year and a half. Are you still pissed about the plaque from Tucson? hehehe
IF you remember correctly - and I think you do - my original pcm went bad and was replaced. Prior to that, bone stock the truck ran 15.0s and with borrowed slicks it went 14.80s. With the defective replacement PCM, the truck was a full second slower than my truck had gone with it stock. At the Truckin' Nationals the quickest I could muster with all of my "tricks" was a pitiful 15.90 @ 86 mph. I took a pretty good beating from the R/Ts when my truck was in that condition! At that point I was almost forced to get an aftermarket pcm. The "high-dollar" pcm just happens to be the same price they are for the 5.9s!
I took it to the track after getting the pcm re-programmed..... solid 14.80s on my street tires, but my 60' times were still in the 2.1s - 2.2s.
Now fast forward to the Mopar Southwest Shootout which was held in Tucson (3075'). At that point I had the pcm and decided to try a TB from an '01 4.7 Dakota. It is a stock TB with no porting or "work" done to it at all. Due to the higher altitude, the truck ran better without the air cleaner installed so I ran without one. It needed all the air it could get. Here in Phoenix, the truck will slow down by 3 tenths if you take it off! (the air cleaner) My truck was running pretty consistent 15.0s in those conditions (Tucson), but I wanted to get it into the 14's! I pulled the viscous clutch fan off as well as my spare tire. WooHoo! It managed to get into the 14.90s! The mph improved because of the slightly lighter weight and not pulling the fan, but the 60' time was slower because I needed the weight on the rear tires.
Is that what you are talking about? How fast was you're truck in Tucson? Why didn't you pull your fan and or spare off and see if it improved? Sure, there were R/Ts that were quicker than my 4.7 in Tucson..... 3 of those that were quicker were supercharged (Scott, Mike, Glen). 2 of those that were quicker were on the bottle (Justin and Bob). I only remember 2 more that were quicker (Travis M. and Barry).... and they had more than just a TB and PCM. I'm not even sure I should count the TB....it's now the stock item! There were 16 trucks in the R/T bracket/class. That leaves 8 more that didn't go as quick as the 4.7. Did I miss anyone?
As far as the transmission in my truck: I had issues with it the day I picked the truck up at the dealer. I made sure and got my complaints on file immediately! The truck had been in for warranty work because of the transmission on numerous occasions. The transmission was finally replaced under warranty and the difference is night and day. The original one was a POS. Is that what you mean by beating the life out of it?
You ask about my '98 CC R/T? Was it anything special? You tell me. Bone stock it went 14.61 @ 94 mph at the previous year's Truckin' Nationals on the stock RSA's. (Corrected for altitude - that would be in the 14.40s at someplace like Cecil) How many have you ever heard of or seen that went that quick? It's very true that I haven't gone that quick yet with my 4.7. So far my best with it is a 14.63 @ 93.3 mph. I guess I'll just have to keep "playing" with it.
How should I "represent" the R/Ts better? If you are reading all of these posts....why haven't you come forward and done so? When somebody says that there is no way that a 4.7 could even come close to a 5.9 on the track.....how should I answer that? Should I just tell them that the R/Ts at the track were going 15.50s (Firebird Raceway on a hot July night) but miraculously some divine wind came down and somehow my 4.7 went 14.90s? Then there's the part about the better 60' times... yeah, the truck does pretty good out of the gate. Have you looked at the mph numbers? It's not doing too bad there either.
In the future you can count on 3 things from me:
1. I'll ALWAYS do my best to make my truck (or anything else) go as quick as it can go, by whatever means at my disposal. I will constantly take things off and try different set-ups to try and improve what I have. If you haven't figured it out....I'm COMPETITIVE!
2. You can count on me handing you a somewhat CHARRED hamburger at this year's Truckin' Nationals BBQ party.....just like last year.
3. You can count on having me SPANK your 5.9 at this year's Truckin' Nationals. (talkin' SMACK!) Or at least I will do my best to! Look for some "improvements" in the performance department. hehehe Did I mention that I like competition? Bring it...don't sing it!
I fully realize that my little 4.7 isn't the quickest truck out there. I work very hard to make it go as quick as it can go....because that's what I do for enjoyment! If you think I'm putting an incorrect "spin" in my reporting of events....then post away! I enjoy competition whether it's on the track or in a forum. If you want to race my little 4.7 and come on here and tell everybody how you "SPANKED" me than I think it would be fantastic! The whole point is that we got to go to the track and have the competition.
How's that for representation! hahahaha
|
Matt Barret
Dodge Dakota
8/15/2001
07:59:42
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Well said Duner ! Just for the record, 150+ passes an never a broken trans, or clutch, and thats launching at 3500 rpms, with slicks, 1.8 short times! yes, the rear end broke, but its the very same rear you get with the almighty RT !!
Good thing it has an Auto, cause the RT's would be breaking them too.
I agree 100% Duner, I'm all about competition, I tweak my truck out and use absolutley 100% of it to go as quick as it can go down the 1/4. remove the tailgate, spare,etc.. When I get beat at the track, its not because I did'nt let it all hang out !! My goal has always been to do MORE with LESS, whether it be, less money, less bolt-ons, less cubic inches...
For a total investment of 17K (15,800 for the truck), it runs low 14's, and soon to be quicker than that. This fall I will attempt a sub 14 sec run ;)
Matt Y2K-HEMI
'00 RC 4.7L 5spd 3.92
14.23 @ 94.49
|
360R/T
Dodge Dakota
8/15/2001
12:45:16
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Fine Duner,you didn't post anything that I disagree with. You pretty much backed up what I was trying to say about your driving (which you didn't mention)and that is that you might be able to shave 3 tenths off my best time with you driving my R/T! I am saying "you" make your truck run it's best (as you mentioned with your competitive spirit)wether it's a R/T (as you have done)or a 4.7 (as you have also done). I'm sure there are others here that drive their 4.7s as well as you do (guys like that are prone to come to sites as this), but there are plenty on the street that can't. I have only had one 4.7 (stripped down RC, 3.91 rear,5-speed,)edge me out on the street(by a bumper)to 90MPH. I talked to the guy and he was pretty cool and he liked my truck and was impressed by how it ran considering how heavy it is (4,440 lbs.CC). Like I said I don't dislike 4.7s, I know they are fast(it's a Dodge after all), it's just that your posts seem anti R/T and that's not how you act around the R/T guys. As for the plaque, again, a testiment to your driving. You just act different in person than on line.
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
8/15/2001
13:26:02
| Sorry, didn't mean to be a jerk
IP: Logged
Message:
360R/T - I'm sorry. It was never my intention to sound like I was "anti-R/T". If I had it to do all over again... I'd still have my '98 R/T! That huge 8' long Dakota R/T Registry Banner is hanging in my office (over my head) right now as I type this. The 4.7 is always compared to the 5.9, so the R/T ends up being the best thing to use for the comparison. I didn't mean to get carried away. I guess I just get a little worked up over some of these blanket statements that people throw around. Especially when the person making them has probably never even been to the track or seen a 4.7 in person.
I'll try to watch what I say and how I say it from now on. I didn't realize I sounded so different online than in person. I guess the real problem is that you can't see the (evil) grin on my face while I type! hehehe I suppose the best way to describe it would be how brothers act. They may fight among themselves, but if an outsider picks a fight with one of them, they all jump in! I will admit to getting pretty much " in their face" over on NLOC or Fords vs Chevy whenever they talk badly of R/Ts. I love R/Ts as a matter of fact!
Thank you for the pat on the back for my driving. Yes it's true - I'm an "old fart". I have probably been down the 1/4 mile track a few thousand times over the last 25+ years. I was bound to learn something on at least a couple of those runs. When are you coming up to Phoenix next? Maybe we could hook up at the track and we could try and work on those 2.3 60' times! (I bet we can get to 2.1s fairly easy)
Once again....didn't mean to be a jerk.
|
mark crisler
Dodge Dakota
8/16/2001
10:59:14
| RE: 4.7 Vs. 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
okay under the point is DAKOTAS are quick. and all of this started from one guy asking if he could make his 4.7 out do his friends STOCK R/T. and this has been anwsered yes. and we know that a modified R/T can beat a modified 4.7. SO let's all go to the TRUCKIN' NATIONALS and embarass all the others!!!!!! And let's make this site more productive by learning from each other!!!!!
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
