| From | Message |
sportdakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2002
03:19:16
|
 Subject: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
what is the best performace mod to increase hp and torque for the 4.7l ? a exhaust system? cold air induction,or a combination.....?seems this engine is very difficult to get extra hps out of?
|
Cotharyus
GenI
 
8/04/2002
09:06:21
|  RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Currently there aren't too many people that are taking this engie seriously, so performance mods at this point can be hard to find. Your best bet for bang for your buck right now is to get a set of cams from the HO jeep engine. Barring that, which is about 200 bucks for 20 hp, your next best bet is something like a KB supercharger, that'll get you about 135 hp from a bolt on.
2001 QC 4x4, 4.7,5 spd, LSD, K&N Gen II Intake
|
Signman
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2002
10:04:56
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
I love my Kenne Bell on this 4.7 and highly recommend it, but don't expect to see 135 HP gain out of it. More like 80-90 HP at the crank. At least that's what their dyno sheets said when I got mine. Course that was back around Christmas of 2000.
From what I understand they now want you to send in your PCM to get flashed, as well as adding their Optimizer computer. I didn't have to send my PCM in. So maybe they're squeezing out more now. But I doubt it's an extra 45+ HP though.
-------------------------------------------------
00, 4X4, Intense Blue, CC, Sport Plus, 4.7L, 5sp., 3.92 limited slip
Kenne Bell Supercharger
Borla Headers, 180* Thermostat,
Magnum Performance Throttle Body,
3" Cat-back w/ Flowmaster ,
Roadmaster Active Suspension Upgrade,
Line-X bedliner,
Chrome Westin Step Bars,
VA legal window tint,
Mopar Diamond plate tool box, ect.
98 Black, CC, R/T
4.56 gears, MP PCM, Ported TB
Cold air intake w/ K&N
3" Cat-back w/ Flowmaster
2/2 Drop w/ Toxic Shocks
Waiting to go on:
MPP Headers (on back order), 3" cut-out,
electric cut-out plate, & 3" Catco hi-flow cat
|
Chris B
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2002
13:24:16
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Does anyone have a Kenne Bell optimizer II. I have a little money for some mods for my truck and I was wondering what would be better for me to get, between the Optimizer II or the HO cams? Which gives more power increase?
|
sportdakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2002
21:01:42
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
what is the avg cost of kenny bell supercharger? and how involved is it to install or have installed? does this void the warrenty?
|
j
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2002
00:41:08
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
I bought a KB through superchargersonline.com. I paid $3800 for the 4.7 kit. Cost of installation is $700, but this depends on where you take it. Most places charge around $70 per hr for labor and it is considered a 10 hr job. Sorry, I don't know about the warranty issue.
|
notchlx
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2002
08:12:44
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Another route to take will be the Paxton NOVI-1000 system. I don't know of anybody currently running one on a 4.7, but I just ordered mine. I'll post 1/4 times and dyno numbers after installation.
The Paxton is around 200 bucks cheaper in price and about 200 bucks cheaper on install, due to not having to pull the intake, and relocate the TB, etc....We'll see if the performance is near the same.
|
Cotharyus
GenI
8/05/2002
08:51:19
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Chris - the Optimizer II is in a few trucks whose owners post on these boards, but they cost about 400 bucks, and you'd be looking at roughly a 10% gain according to the information that comes with the ordering kit. You'll get as much or more power out of the HO cranks for half the money.
2001 QC 4x4, 4.7,5 spd, LSD, K&N Gen II Intake
|
toddk
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2002
10:43:52
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
HO cams.
|
Canucker
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2002
13:33:42
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Signman:
I just got the dyno sheets from KB (must be new ones) and they claim 135 RWHP gain. The one thing I don't like is at full boost, at 2000 RPM, there's still only a 10 ft-lb gain in RWTQ. If you look at the dyno's for all the other kits they sell (Mustangs, R/Ts, Lightnings, etc.), they're getting about 40-70 ft-lb gain in RWTQ at 2000 RPM! The 4.7L just doesn't seem to want to wake up in the lower RPMs
Just something to think about.
|
LQ
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2002
16:28:48
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
That can't be right. 135 rwhp @ 6psi? That's around a 70% gain for the 4.7. Can you post those dyno results?
|
CW
GenIII
8/05/2002
16:58:46
|  RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Thats to much all the dyno runs I saw on a KB was 65 RWHP at 6psi.
2001 4.7HO RC 5sp 3.92 LSD
Click on thumbnail for mods
|
xplikt
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2002
17:07:38
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Yupp, I've seen about 60-65 rear wheel at 6psi too on the Kenne Bell, even in their own words. I've seen their spec. sheets say it's somwhere around 30-35% depending on what else you have modified, of course.
1.30 x 200 (stock RWHP) = 260.
|
signman
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2002
22:16:54
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Canucker, I'm not trying to flame you in any way, but are you sure your reading the new dyno sheets correctly? I'm with the other guys on this. That seems way too high.
The dyno sheet I have starts at 3250 RPM's and show about 25 ft lb of torque increase there. Putting the torque at 285 @ rear wheels. It basically stays right about there through to 4950 RPM where the dyno sheet stops. The stock line starts to drop off hard around 3950 RPM's and @ 4950 only shows about 210 ft lb of torque compared to 275 Supercharged. Giving you a peak Tq increase of 65 ft lbs at the rear wheels. HP seems to be the same showing an increase of 65 RWHP at 4950 RPM's.
|
yates-in-DE
GenIII
8/06/2002
00:20:11
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Chris B,
I have the Kenne Bell Optimizer II, and it cost like $349. Beats the crap outta CAMS. Didn't take near the time or hassle. I will put in new CAMS when they have a good Custom Grind available. Something better than the STOCK HO setup. (what a waste) I added the Intense Performance intake and Exhaust modifications and for around $650 total got all I needed to agrivate the Germans.
Geusstimates in advertisements say 10% increase in Power for the KB Optimizer II, I think this is an average because I got about 12%.
We have been agrivating Hughes Engines to get them to do some CAMS, so a quick e-mail by any one with a 4.7L to let them know we are still here would help.
Later,
My VW Killer
Lynn
|
Cotharyus
GenI
8/06/2002
08:49:04
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Yates - I know we've talked about the Opt-II before but I've heard conflicting stories about it. Someone else that has a manual trans. thought that it didn't do much for them. I've reached the conclusion that it would probly be best for someone that doesn't have the cams or the Opt-II to get the cams, and include the lift/duration on the Opt-II order sheet, that way they can take that into account when they do the flash. Having the cams can't hurt, and if KB can eek out a little more power with the flash because the cams are there, then I'm sure not going to complain.
PS: I'm shocked to see an Open Source junky here besides me.
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve.
2001 QC 4x4, 4.7,5 spd, LSD, K&N Gen II Intake
|
CW
GenIII
8/06/2002
09:25:40
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Yates if you haven't installed the cams, how do you know the optimizer is better?
2001 4.7HO RC 5sp 3.92 LSD
Click on thumbnail for mods
|
yates-in-DE
GenIII
8/06/2002
11:47:32
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
CW + Cotharyus,
I don't say that a flash is better than Custom ground Cams. I say for the money, (CAMS, STOCK HO + Labor, because most people pay someone else to do the work) that it is easier and more feasible to do the flash. If you use the HO CAMS from the Jeep, then it would make even more sense to include the STOCK HO INTAKE and complete the whole transition to gain 30+ HP. This would incure more cost and thus make the flash even more appealing. Now that you've spent this money on STOCK PARTS that have very limited performance gains, Hughes releases NEW CUSTOM GROUND CAMS with exceptional performance gains in comparison, then order we must, to satisfy the beast. I got nearly 28 HP from the flash by the Dyno the Germans use here. UH, thats about the CAMS and the INTAKE. I did change the exhaust prior to Dyno so there is some of the accountability for the power gain, but not much.
When new CUSTOM GROUND PERFORMANCE CAMS are released I will be at the front of the line for purchase. And while the engine is torn apart I will port and polish the heads and do something with the INTAKE. (I'm a lazy SOB and believe in saving time and labor = money) Then if a new flash is needed I will have that done.
I hope ya'll don't think I'm tryin' to Flame ya'll, (have had that here before) but he asked, and thats MY OPINION.
Cotharyus, yes OPEN SOURCE, I don't think there is any other way. (MY OPINION AGAIN) I hate MICROSLOP (R) and all it's blue screens and Viruses and Thievery and Small Buisiness Crushing Attempts and ......................., I feel that when an OS is installed that it should be complete for the end user, that one should not have to purchase 9 other Suites to acomplish their tasks. Total Cost of Operation UNIX/LINUX, BSD, free to Minimal cost, 30 - 50 minutes install time.
Total Cost of Operation MICROSLOP (R) WINDOWS 2000 PRO, or XP PRO, OFFICE 2000 PRO, VISIO 2000, FRONTPAGE 2000, BORLAND C++ or Visual Enterprise 6.0 or better, COREL DRAW 8.0 or better, NORTON ANTI VIRUS, ADOBE ACROBAT READER, WINZIP, NERO BURNING ROM, POWER DVD, Countless Patches and Updates, ETC, ETC, ETC, $1,100 per unit, 3.5 - 5.0 Hours install time, WO!
Later,
My VW Killer
Lynn
|
YJ
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/06/2002
12:35:05
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
XP Pro rules. ; )
YJ
Black 2K QC 4x4 4.7 3.92 KVT910DVD
Black 91 YJ 4LHO Borla | 5" Suspension | 33BFGMT
|
Cotharyus
GenI
8/06/2002
19:45:43
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Yates - I respect the opinion on the custom cams - but whats the word on when we'll get some? I sure would love the power. I've been toying with the idea of a KB SC for it, then doing cams and flash later, but I'm still having a hard time justifying four grand, even if it will get me 60 or so horses.
YJ - god what a lemming.
2001 QC 4x4, 4.7,5 spd, LSD, K&N Gen II Intake
|
CW
GenIII
8/06/2002
19:57:24
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree that the flash is a very good thing. You are the excetion for the flash then because every dyno that I have seen has been in the 10-12 HP range.
Cotharyus: I like the paxton better than the KB as it is more adjustable. From what I have heard the KB is a nightmare to get more power than it was originaly designed. The numbers that I have been throwing around have been in the 85 hp range. For my truck since I already have some mods to it.
2001 4.7HO RC 5sp 3.92 LSD
Click on thumbnail for mods
|
Cotharyus
GenI
8/07/2002
08:09:05
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
I've seen quite a bit of debate about the paxton vs KB - I know how a SC operates as far as being belt driven, and have a pretty good idea what the KB kit looks like (if memory serves it looks like it replaces your intake) but I have never seen a good picture of the paxton unit. Other than tapping the oil pan, what are the pros and cons of the two that you can see CW, and why is the paxton easier to get more power out of? Sorry to ask so many questions, but I'm a bit of an information hog.
2001 QC 4x4, 4.7,5 spd, LSD, K&N Gen II Intake
|
yates-in-DE
GenIII
8/07/2002
11:10:56
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Cotharyus,
Thats why you like open source, information hog.
The difference in the Kenne Bell vs. the Paxton is Twin Screw vs. Centrifugal. (I'll try to be easy on ya)
Centrifugal Super Chargers such as Paxton and Vortec is that these SC's start at idle and slowly build boost till they reach their max potential at 6,000 RPM's, sorta like a turbo charger. That gives you a slow building power curve starting at about 1,200 rpm and rising a little all the way up. Picture a slow arch that peaks at the top. So thier rated boost is at 6,000 RPM,s at or past your shift point. :(
A Kenne Bell Hits it's rated boost at about 2,000 RPM's and holds it till shift and then regains all boost again. This gives more torque and HP at the lower RPM's where it is actually needed.
See the below graph and linked web page:
Super Charger Info
I hope this helps, have fun.
My VW Killer
Lynn
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/07/2002
11:58:52
| Marketing Material?
IP: Logged
Message:
Absolutely no offense meant..... but IMHO that graph is just an artists representation/marketing tool. (I make those for a living) While it illustrates quite nicely the "area under the curve" part of the boost early part of the explanation.... I don't think it's that accurate. If you take a normal engine and add 8psi of boost to it you should end up more than 40%. I think they've also exaggerated the late boost numbers. I bet a boost vs rpm graph at the Paxton, Powerdyne or Vortech site would show a different curve..... one that exaggerates things in their favor.
The funny thing is that the curve for a turbo system would pretty closely match the KB line on the chart if you just moved the starting point about 500 rpm later and added a bunch more to the top of the chart..... 8psi would make 57% more hp. The turbo doesn't gain boost as the rpms climb like the centrifugal supercharger.... when it spools it's at max boost. If it spooled at 2000 rpm then it has full boost until you back out of the throttle..... you NEVER wait for it to build. Once the boost gauge leaves vacuum it hits FULL boost.... no climbing involved.
|
yates-in-DE
GenIII
8/07/2002
12:15:06
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Duner,
You are absolutely correct. The Graph is for explanation purposes only.
The turbo spool up is why I said a 'CENTRIFUGAL IS SORTA LIKE A TURBO CHARGER' I personally prefer TURBOs over any SUPER CHARGERs because there is no HP loss from the driving effort. (and because I've used them for 17 years driving trucks before being a computer nerd) So for the same boost pressure the TURBO builds more power because it doesn't have to drive it self like a SUPER CHARGER.
Thanks Duner and have a Good Day.
My VW Killer
Lynn
|
conig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/07/2002
12:35:38
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
yates. what octane is your optimizer programmed for? I contacted kenne-bell and they told me that they could update mine for another 8-10 hp for 93 octane with a booster. in your case being in europe, don't ya'll have higher octane gas? you could get it updated and use a higher than 93 octane gas.
|
yates-in-DE
GenIII
8/07/2002
12:42:43
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Conig,
At the pumps it shows 98 octane, but the x-over to USA makes it = to 93 octane USA. They set mine and put a yellow sticker on it that says safe use with 91 octane or better. I run the Super+ over here and it is 93 octane USA @ $4.21 a gallon US dollors. If they did make a higher octane like they sell in San Antonio, TX at the pumps (VP Racing Fuel) with 99 octane, I don,t think I could afford it everyday. The 99 octane in San Antonio was $2.54 a gallon when I left there, so it would be like $9.+ a gallon here. WEW!
Later,
My VW Killer
Lynn
|
Canucker
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/07/2002
18:38:17
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
CW & Signman:
Sorry for the late response, but I've been in and out last week.
Anyways, I'm just going off of what KB published in their catalog. At about 5000RPM they claim ... CLAIM ... a 135 RWHP increase over stock ... now that I think of it though .. I think what they are quoting is 135 hp over stock hp @ 5000 RPM ... which may be true (i.e. if stock hp falls to 160 @ 5000RPM, they are claiming to make 295 @ 5000 RPM, which is only 60hp over stock peak). The 65 hp over peak is probably true. The catalog is at home right now, but I will take another look at it. But like the Dunner said ... they are just "marketing tools"
PS Dunner ... how much boost are you running? 8psi or so? Any pre-detonation problems? Are you intercooled?
|
conig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/07/2002
18:56:17
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
yates any picks of your truck with the drop on it? if you have picks please send some pics to my email or update your site.. please I've been looking at getting the same drop for acouple months now but have yet to see pics.
|
CW
GenIII
8/07/2002
19:17:47
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
Another reason I like the paxton is the fact it doesn't have boost at idle. I don't smoke my street tires off the line. Traction is already a factor with my truck never mind if I add a ton of torque.
Personaly I have never seen any trucks with a KB supercharger clicking off 12s in the quarter. I have heard of a slew of vortecs and paxtons do that. If you have one of the heaver trucks then I highly recomend the KB. My regualr cab with the 5 speed would be to hard to put the torque to the ground.
2001 4.7HO RC 5sp 3.92 LSD
Click on thumbnail for mods
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/07/2002
19:22:37
| RE: what is best for the 4.7l?
IP: Logged
Message:
I generally run about 7psi of boost with the 91 octane fuel that's available around here when I'm just using the truck for work or transportation. When I'm using the truck to tow my car trailer - I will turn it down to only 5psi. With all that weight on the truck - I'm more worried about the transmission than anything else. 5psi of boost will still make an estimated 450 ft-lbs of torque. And that's 100 ft-lbs more than the transmission is rated at! (NV3500)
When I feel a little more roudy I will put some better fuel into it and turn the boost up for some real fun! It ran that 12.76 @ 107.77mph with 10psi. Before adding the intercooler I ran it as high as 14psi in cold weather. I would never dream of doing so when the ambient temps are high like right now - without the intercooler. (110 degrees?) Now that it's air/water intercooled I have turned it up in that range without any problems at all (even in the heat)... well other than blowing the intercooler clear off the engine because the hose clamps weren't tight enough to hold it on? hehehe Damm, and it was on such a good pass too! The intercooler was VERY effective in Tucson. It was the quickest truck NOT running nitrous..... out of 107 trucks.
The only pre-detonation issues I had (past tense) were when the truck was not intercooled and was running the custom programmed PCM with VERY aggressive timing values that was created for my NA application. Then the truck would lightly ping BEFORE it got into boost (10" of vacuum was the trouble spot). Once it hit boost it would just RIP! Since then I've added the intercooler system and also run a stock PCM that has a much more conservative timing setting (on the street). At the track I still run the custom PCM for a number of reasons. The truck really responds to that additional timing, the rev limiter is up where I don't have to worry about hitting it (6700?) and the speed limiter is gone.
We've had this discussion here in the past... but my guess at power output at 10psi boost would be 420hp and 550 ft-lbs tq. Keep in mind that the truck was making some decent numbers before adding the turbo... 242rwhp and 322rwtq. How close my estimate might be is certainly open to debate.... but the online hp calculators are far more generous than that. Does anybody have an online calculator that has proven to be very accurate?
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
