| From | Message |
sandman
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/30/2002
21:43:08
|
 Subject: RE: 4.7 or 5.9?
IP: Logged
Message:
While the 5.7 has a lot of common design elements in common with the 5.9 all of the things I hate about the 5.9 have been addressed. 1)The moron designed oiling system has been fixed.2) The gasket leaks have all been adressed.3a) The redesigned sealing issues fixed over heating problems 3b) They redesigned cooling system to do a better job of cooling the engine.4) The block was designed with truck use in mind and the entire lower end has been stiffened considerably.5)The moron inspired intake manifold and low flowing heads have been replaced.
The 5.7 has all of the best features of the 5.9 and they finaly have fixed the 40+ year problems that this engine has had. The best part is that it is even cheaper then the current 5.9 to produce and it is alot cheaper then the 4.7. This is the engine that Dodge should have been building 10 years ago!!!! I am disapointed that they chose to stay with hydralic lifters which are a high failure item. I am also disapointed that variable valve timeing was not worked in but that would violate their "CHEAP" priority. Dodge has needed this engine for a long time! I am glad that they have it now! Did they manage to work all of the acc. items into the block and drive them off crank and cam gears or are they still driveing them with a belt?
|
paysonbadboy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/30/2002
23:00:24
| RE: 4.7 or 5.9?
IP: Logged
Message:
What is disappointing is that I hear these 5.7 engines are built in MEXICO LOL! Cheaper and cheaper to be built.
But the 5.9 I have been around for years. The 5.2 was good as well. Those both went well past 100,000 miles in the 70's and 80's. Plus you could easily build a 400HP 5.9 (carberated) in a daily driver. I am sure it is still cheaper than the Mercedes built 4.7 to get any serious gains.
With descent induction, I'm sure the 4.7 couldn't even hang with an equally built 5.9
And like someone said. As they phase out the 5.9, it will probably still be highly sought after.
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/30/2002
23:16:46
| RE: 4.7 or 5.9?
IP: Logged
Message:
Sandman I think they adderssed 1/2 of those things you mentioned on the 92-93 Magnum changes. Since when are hydralic lifters a high failure item? I've seen 360's go over 300,000 miles and wear the dam cam flat without having a lifter problem! The beer barrel intake is a high torque long runner design. It is actually really good for what it does, if you want a better car motor then just spend all of $350 and get a M1 single plane manifold. Yes the 5.7 is stronger on the bottom end, but I've not heard of many problems with the old 360, even in blown, N2O applications. Even leaky gaskets aren't very common since the 92 changes. The weakest thing is the headgasket, that seemed to be the limiting factor on the 360's, and there were even fixes for that. Still I agree that the Hemi was a little late, at bare minimum it should have been ready for the 2002 ram redesign. and probably they should have just went straight to the Hemi in 99 instead of bothering with a completely different design, the 4.7. Now there is even talk of a V-10 Hemi, and of course the 6.1 Hemi. They should have just done a v-6 Hemi to round out the motor choices.
PS- somebody is posting under other people's names again, remember imitation is the highest form of flattery.
|
paysonbadboy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/31/2002
22:35:24
| RE: 4.7 or 5.9?
IP: Logged
Message:
I think stock to stock the 4.7 maybe close to the same power as the 5.9 and better mileage.
However. Look at the Ford 4.6 vs. old 5.0. Stock the new 4.6 has a lot more power than the older 5.0's came with. But, when you see built Mustangs, the 5.0's are easily getting into the 10's and 11's for a lot less money than the newer 4.6's can. You can still do a lot with a 5.0 Ford to beat the 4.6's just like I am sure you can find WAY more mods for the 5.9 to leave the 4.7 in the dust with the same money and effort!
|
sandman
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/01/2003
09:43:12
|  RE: 4.7 or 5.9?
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree to some extent with what you said. I belive they tryed to fix alot of problems in 92-93 magnum series but they really needed to completely redesign to elimante the problems. I can agree that it was definatly easier to get power out of non-computer controlled carberated engines espcialy when HP parts are available. My problem with the beer keg is two fold. It had gasket sealing issues and it allowed fuel to puddle in the intake track raiseing emissions. The hydralic lifters are always a concern for all engines reguadless of who makes them. Most engines with hydralic lifters have lifter problem betwen 60,000-80,000 miles. Hydralic lifter are not a very accurate and are just their for lazy people.Solid/Mechanical lifters are much more accurate and durable. My dad 340 Dart swinger ate up head gaskets. He went through 6 head gaskets under warranty. So this has been on going for entirely too long. I do not like the 4.7 just because it is over head cam. I like their choice of materials for the parts and I like the full bed plate bottom end, powered split cap rod, the gerotor oil pump, the coil on inginition system.... I think that you are also right that they should have at least had it ready for the 2002 redesign. I also think it would have made more sense to have all engines based on common engine family. Their is no reason that they could not have designed an entire family based on either the 4.7 or the 5.7 hemi. It is pretty easy to add or delete cylinders. Personaly I think a 5.9 V10 based on the current 4.7 would have been pretty sweet.
|
ZZ
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/01/2003
23:31:13
| RE: 4.7 or 5.9?
IP: Logged
Message:
I've had engines with hydraulic lifters go over 200,000 miles without problems. Solid/mechanical lifters require expensive valve adjustments every 30,000 miles or less - there goes your gas mileage savings..........................
|
| | <<Oringinal Post <<Previous Page P 2 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
