| From | Message |
01R/T
Dodge Dakota
9/21/2001
11:27:54
|
 Subject: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
I have heard many people talk bad about the 5.9 and praise the 4.7. I have also head the reverse. Lets finally put an end to it all. If you have timeslips, post them. I don't want any BS opinions that have no actual backing. Let it be stock rc vs stock rc, stock cc vs stock cc, and so on. No heavy modded rc vs a stock cc or qc. Lets really see how the 5.9 performs against the new 4.7. How each of them take mods, and how they affect speed. So, post only if you have factual dyno graphs and/or timeslips. Post what mods you have and what kind of truck you have. Lets put all the namecalling and BSing to an end.
|
Mar
Dodge Dakota
9/21/2001
14:47:31
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Its a good idea but its still up for debate. We drag at diffrent tracks at diffrent temps in diffrent altitudes using diffrent gas or oil or sparkplugs. Tires might be worn or new car might be dirty or freashly waxed. ANd the fact that both these motors can throw a dakota down the track with millisecond diffrence leave a lot of room FOR DRIVER ERROR. So really you will never end this debate and the BSing.
What you have to realise is that these are two totally diffrent motors made for diffrent people that do diffrent things.
After your done racing the 5.9 in a 4.7 put a 2000Lb trailer behind each and race again then you will see which is a truck engine.
|
DakGuy
Dodge Dakota
9/21/2001
14:52:00
|  RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
01',RC, 4.7L, 5spd.,3.92 anti-spin. STOCK ET=14.9 @ 92mph in Houston @ Baytown Raceway Park
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
9/21/2001
15:10:57
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Hahahaha
Hey Mar......... I'll race ya! My truck is used to towing trailers. Pretty much every time I go out of town with it.... it has a trailer on the back. Check out this pic:
http;//members.home.net/cartel5/ScottTrailer1.JPG
I'm towing a 12-second R/T Dakota! hahaha That's the only way I'm gonna be able to stay ahead of that one!
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
9/21/2001
15:15:54
| Bad Link
IP: Logged
Message:
Oh Great! It won't let you edit your posts when you see that you have something wrong. Try this one:
http://members.home.net/cartel5/duner/ScottTrailer1.JPG
01R/T - Are you located anywhere near the southwest? The Truckin' Nationals are coming up in about 3 weeks. It's located in Phoenix AZ and is on Oct 13 & 14. There are bound to be some stock 4.7s as well as some stock 5.9s. Oh, there will be some modded one's too!
|
01R/T
Dodge Dakota
9/21/2001
15:37:55
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
No, I live in the southeast. Alabama, actually. Its true, there are different drivers, altitudes, etc.. But I thought we might be able to get an idea finally which is better based on facts, not opinions.
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
9/21/2001
16:52:36
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Unfortunately, deciding on which is better is an impossible task. That's similar to the question about whether a Ford or a Chevy is better. Or what is the best color? It all boils down to what you actually want to drive or own. Different people have different needs or expectations from a vehicle and that makes it difficult to quantify which is better. You will be hard pressed to find many facts. I'm sure you will however find plenty of opinions! hahaha
Both engines are a compromise.
Fact: My '98 CC R/T ran a best of 14.61 @ 94 mph bone stock.
Fact: My '98 CC R/T never ever got better than 13.3 mpg the entire time I owned it
Fact: The 5.9 has been around long enough to create a good selection of aftermarket parts
Fact: You can only get an automatic trans with the 5.9 in the R/T Dakota
Fact: I wish I had my '98 CC R/T back
Opinion: Something was different about that truck. I haven't ever seen or heard of another CC going that quickly bone stock. It had no rev-limiter or speed limiter from the factory. If I still had it..... it would be in the 12s by now.
Fact: My '00 CC 4.7 5-speed ran a best of 15.05 @ 91 mph when bone stock
Fact: My '00 CC 4.7 5-speed has gotten a best of 21.89 mpg on a trip from LA to PHX
Fact: You can get either an automatic or a manual trans with the 4.7 engine
Opinion: I think it was actually slower than the 4.7 5-speed I test drove originally. I special ordered the truck I have now and I think it's slower than the one I test drove.
Fact: My '00 CC 4.7 5-speed has gone as quick as 14.63 @ 93.3 mph (with mods)
Fact: My '00 CC 4.7 5-speed makes 242.2 hp and 322.5 ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheels
Opinion: With my present mods, it's a very fun truck to drive. I enjoy having a manual transmission - that was one of the reasons for getting the 4.7 to begin with. The 4.7 makes up for it's lack of displacement thru efficiency and rpms.
|
Blizzard
*GenIII*
9/21/2001
17:40:16
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Fact: I'll race either a 5.9 R/T or a modded up 4.7, pulling a trailer or not ..... but there has to be at least 1/2" of snow on the road.
hehehe ... just havin' some fun with you guys. I'll be good now. ;o)
'01 QC 4x4
5.9L, 3.92 LSD, loaded
www.geocities.com/blizzzzard69
|
Jim
Dodge Dakota
9/21/2001
23:26:24
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Duner what mods have you done to your 4.7 ?
|
Demon-Xanth
Dodge Dakota
9/22/2001
00:05:01
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Fact: my current car will get it's ass kicked by either the 4.7 or the 5.9 R/T :)
Last I checked the 5.9 was only available in the R/T which isn't really as suitable for truck type stuff because of the suspension travel, though I do seem to remember that it also has a handling package.
IMO, the decision of 4.7 vs. 5.9 should be based on the following criteria:
Is it going to be used for truck type stuff?
Do you want it to be a sleeper?
Do you really want a manual transmission?
Is gas milage a major concern?
For me the answers lead to the 4.7 setup, for others the 5.9 would be right up thier alley. Though I'd still love a GMC Syclone if they weren't so hard to come by (at a reasonable price) and weren't so much to insure.
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
9/22/2001
03:09:38
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Jim - My performance mods are a custom programmed pcm, K&N filter, ported 68mm throttle body (stock '01 item), MorFlow 3" Cat*, Mopar 3" cat-back system*, IAT adjustor, prototype fuel rail cooling system and leaf spring clamps.
* = The 3" exhaust system actually slowed the truck down by quite a bit but I left it on in preparation for my work in progress mods.
My other mods are a complete R/T suspension package (springs, sway-bars, shocks), R/T 17" wheels with Michelin 255x55x17s, black spare tire cover, custom hidden receiver hitch, fender flares, body color painted bumpers and full length ruby red racing stripes, "R/T not" emblems on the doors(white on white) and custom 3rd brakelight .
My work in progress mods are a Garrett T04 turbo set-up with custom manufactured headers, fuel management system and intercooler.
|
kraw
Dodge Dakota
9/22/2001
16:04:27
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
5.9/4.7.. whatever... 5.2 BABY!!!!!!
well, when I get my next Dak it will be the 4.7. It will pull whatever I need it to up to , what, 5500#'s? The 5.9 is lucky to get 18mpg (in the full size we had) and the 4.7 is just as happy getting 21+mpg.
hmmmmm... if mpg isn't a concern, I say go with the 5.9.. if it is a concern, get the 4.7
|
BH-R/T
Dodge Dakota
9/22/2001
22:40:59
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey Duner,I thought you said you would not make those 3rd brake light covers,at least that is what you said when you saw THE ORIGINAL ONE on my truck and said you liked that idea,then I said "dont make them ok" you said "I wont".I realize and am thankful that you saved my a$$ but,I just wish you would have let me know.I saw the one on Travis's truck too.Do you remember me now?
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
9/23/2001
00:44:46
|  Yeah, I remember you now.
IP: Logged
Message:
Bill - What difference could it possibly make to you? I should have let you know? What..... did you want me to ask your permission to customize my truck? My 3rd brakelight says "Different". Yours says R/T. There are other people making them out of stainless and aluminum. Do you have an issue with them also? I don't like how theirs looks. To me they look too gawdy and they are very limited in how they can create them. I don't recall us having a conversation about the production or "non" production of the 3rd brakelight at all. Are you selling them? People want them. Where did you get yours? People saw mine and asked me to make some for them. I make vinyl graphics for a living and do a very good job at it also. What was it you did for a living?
But now that you brought it up.....
Hey EVERYBODY! I make CUSTOM 3rd brakelight covers for our Dakotas! They sell for $10.00 and look absolutely awesome. They are subtle and look like they could have come standard on the truck. BILL had ONE on his truck FIRST.... just ask him. His, according to him WAS THE ORIGINAL. I'm not sure who made it for him but.... Now YOU can have one too. As I said above, I produce vinyl graphics for a living. Mainly fleet graphics for autos/trucks/aircraft. My work get's around. I produce the graphics for LifeFlight and MediVacs as well as the graphics for many different Police helicopters and planes. My work ends up on the sides of Police and Sheriff patrol cars, as well as ambulances and fire engines. Sometimes I will make things for my friends that have Dakotas.... I produce full length dual stripe kits as well as 'Cuda stutter stripe kits that go on the side. As for the 3rd brakelight product: I have them that say "Different", "Dakota", "R/T", or I can custom make them to say whatever will fit in that space. I also make them for RAMs/SSTs. I make them out of Silver Metallic, Black, White, Carbon Fiber or just about any color you might want! Thanks to Bill's urging, I guess I better create a whole web-site around the marketing of these custom 3rd brake lights. I'll take some photos of the finished items and post them as soon as possible. I'll have the market absolutely saturated in nothing flat!
So Bill...... are you happy now?
Yeah, didn't think so.
WTF did you expect me to answer with?
Bill - If you have further issues with me, I invite you to come to my house on October 12th... the night before the Truckin' Nationals event. You remember where I live don't you? I'm having a BBQ for the Dakota guys. I'd be happy to burn you a burger while we discuss "issues". That is of course if you are going to make it to this year's event... Last year's festivities got cut short. I had to send everybody home early while I took an unplanned 560 mile R/T "rescue" road trip in the middle of the night. I had to go borrow a trailer from a friend and really piss him off by getting it back to him later than planned. It basically changed our relationship as friends forever. Travis and Glen also went with me on this little trip. Since we stayed up all night on our "rescue" mission, we couldn't take part in the following night's "festivities" either. We got to the track late and were completely wasted the whole 1st day of the event. I called in a number of favors from a number of people for somebody I had never even met yet....
Anyway... It won't happen again this year because I now know exactly how grateful some recipients of this kind of generosity can be. Yeah, I remember you now.
|
BH-R/T
Dodge Dakota
9/23/2001
01:27:03
| WOOOHHH DUNER
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey Blane,there is no reason to throw punches here,I am forever gratful for what you did for me,without you my trip would have been a TOTAL disaster.I have told Travis and Glen everytime that I have seen or talked to them since how much I appreciate what you all did,and when I do see Scott again I will let him know also.Sam and I are still friends too.I even have a gift that I made for you a present when I attempt this trip again in a few weeks,I wasnt trying to start sh!t with you over a peice of vinyl,it just kind of bothered me because I made that first cover myself,I was trying to set my truck apart from the others.Thats why I asked you not to mass produce them.I would think you could sympathize with that.And when you started producing them,as childish as it sounds,I just wanted the recongnition for the idea,ecspecially being the new R/T guy in town.It is kind of hard to get in that niche.Once again,I didnt mean to p!ss you off,sorry you took it that way,you are so nice in person,how can you get so ugly on the forum,well I should have known better,I have seen you tear into people on here alot before.Sorry for the misunderstanding,and by the way I work for a monument company and make custom granite tiles and signs after hours.We dont need any ugliness between Dakota Guys,thats what they make Fords for.
|
dakotaboy360
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/24/2004
21:55:06
| 5.9 r/t's are better than 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
i have a 98 5.9 r/t and all i have done to it is a jet power module, dual flowmasters w/ factory converters, and a cold-air intake, but i have a problem when i give it gas it wonts to go sideways evertime. but they only made 52 of mine but im gonna put engine work, twin-turbos on it and a 175 hp shot of nos on it and then ill run anything that will come to east kentucky and race it i goto claycity, ky thats were it will race this year so watch out for it you lil 4.7 and 5.2's
|
dakota man
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2004
03:55:42
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Watch out little boy! Its that kind of mouthy bull SHlT that will get your ass handed to you! I happen to have a 5.2 that would masacre your 360, so shut your hole! Just so you know, I have a 318 with the 4 inch steel stroker crank (now a 384) It has ported & polished 2.02 r/t heads, Eagle H beam rods, Keith black forged pistons,a custom cam grind, m1 intake 58 mm tb, paxton novi 2000 pushing 18lbs of boost, a 150 shot from NX, spintech true dual exhaust, reverse manual valve body, 4.56 gears on a detroit locker! 28x 12 inch drag slicks. In 4th gear on the dyno they hit the gas at 72 mph, and smoked the tires. Max whp was 554 @ 5850 and max torque was 630 @ 4610. haven't been to the track yet, but as soon as i do I'll post my slips. Dyno sheet is being e-maild to me so i will be able to post that too in a few days. BTW, you know nothing!!! Factory cats? hmmm, funny 98 r/ts only have one. jet power module(snicker snicker) thats funny My 98 rt I had loet 4 hp on the dyno when I installed that waste of money!!!!!!! haha Dual flowmasters? do you mean one with 2 outlets? You are a pathetic mess, who cant afford the turbo, or any parts to go with it! Wow your truck goes sideways.... in what 1st gear? mine does it shifting into third, with a really loud long squeel in 4th(with street tires) slicks i get 1 and 2. I'll make a special trip to destroy you this summer, so look out for A very stock looking 99 rc dak hiding behind black paint! Oh, and congratulations on bringing up a 3 year old post douche bag!!!
|
MartinS
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2004
14:33:55
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey guys this has been done before Mopar Now! magizine did a 5.9 vs 4.7 test back in there spring '03 issue the 4.7 won hands down
-----4.7L----------------5.9L R/T
15.68 @ 90.22 to 15.71 @ 91.36
15.29 @ 90.54 to 16.05 @ 91.27
15.41 @ 90.33 to 15.81 @ 90.98
both were regular cab short boxes but the 4.7 had a 3.55 rear end with no limited slip differential the R/T 3.92s with a sure-grip!
|
rich
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2004
16:19:14
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Those numbers are interesting considering that the R/T had faster MPH on all 3 runs.
The 2nd set espically. The R/T was nearly 3/4 a MPH faster but 3/4 a second slower !?!?!?
-Rich
|
Ian
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2004
17:23:31
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Wow! 3/4 mph! That's huge, either it was a typo or that race must have been rigged! LOL---Rich, get over it, the replacement for displacement is clearly technology and efficiency.
|
Tnjones
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2004
17:31:33
| RE: For real: 5.9 vs 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Probably real numbers:
-----4.7L----------------5.9L R/T
15.68 @ 90.22 to 15.71 @ 91.36
15.29 @ 90.54 to 16.05 @ 91.27
15.41 @ 90.33 to 15.81 @ 90.98
Definately BS numbers:
Fact: My '98 CC R/T ran a best of 14.61 @ 94 mph bone stock.
Fact: My '00 CC 4.7 5-speed ran a best of 15.05 @ 91 mph when bone stock
Rich,
The difference in time vs MPH is the difference in tork vs HP. Low E.T. usually isn't high MPH. In fact, when I used to run 1/8 miles in Byhalia MS they would give extra prizes for each of these and it was rarely the same car/driver that won both. I outran a camaro by 1/2 second my last pass down the track although my MPH was only 90 and his was 105. You can see it on the time slip. I pulled ahead all the way to the 660' mark and he was catching up the whole rest of the track. Low end tork vs high end HP for ya.
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
