| From | Message |
Red 99 Dak RT
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/31/2005
00:05:54
|
 Subject: RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I don't know why the arguement, Look at what you have. GM/Ford/Toyota doesn't compare when you put the complete package together. I mean, Power with looks and the big thing is the FUN. The only complaint I have is with the new Dakotas. I think Dodge ruined the looks of the Dakota by squaring off the fenders and putting on the Mercedes front end. I do love the Suicide Doors. They should have started that back in '97.
|
ricardcapecod
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/31/2005
22:31:15
|  RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
The specific numbers favor the 5.9.
The problem is that at the end, the 5.9 looses its advantages on transmission, weight, etc, making it very close to the 4.7 performance wise.
Now if the 4.7 has 5 sp manual, 3.92 LSD and 2WD, Bingo. These add so much to the fun factor, that i had no doubt when i opted for the 4.7l just like that. I do not drive anything automatic.
|
2002 R/T
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/31/2005
22:51:42
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
hey but what if you did the Keisler 5speed or 6speed conversion. i think if you did that to the r/t all b.s. would settle down.
|
2002 R/T
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/03/2006
22:11:20
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
so which one of u mama's boys with 4.7's wanna race?
2002 reg cab R/T
K&N air intake
Hypertech III
M1
Holley TB
1.7 RR
PPH w ypipe
|
Trukguy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/04/2006
16:19:35
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
You have maybe a 14 second R/T and you're going to challenge all 4.7s?
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
7/04/2006
19:20:09
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
As soon as I saw the thread, I thought "OH NO! Not THIS thread again!"
LOL!!!!
That is weird. At least pick on a CHEVY guy or something. But having a 5.9 and wanting to find something by the same brand, and basically EQUAL to pick on..... oh boy!!!
But since he asked. When I get my 4.7 Powered 1974 Plymouth Duster finished, I'll race him! :D
I'd have to start it in 2nd gear I guess to give him a chance :)
|
toolfan
GenIII
7/04/2006
20:07:14
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
318 still #1! i like watch people argue over second, is it gonna be the 360ci or the 289ci...
|
2002 R/T
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/04/2006
21:15:47
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
13.9@99 w/drag radials
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
7/05/2006
01:34:07
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Ford makes the 289. We have the 287 :D LOL!!!
All 3 of them are so close, it's apples to oranges. You can make any of them as fast depending on how deep your wallet is!
As for me, aside from the more expensive parts. I like how the 4.7 is put together and how tight the seals are on the engine. Once I get the Duster together, It would be a very long time befor I ever got any oil leaks. And the best bebefit is that the spark plugs wont be down by the exhaust to worry about. There are NO wires down by the exhaust. Which will be nice when I shove the turbo piping down in there!
Anyway. I say as long as you have a V8 in your Dak, build up with what you got. No reason to switch for another engine.
|
Nohbudi
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/10/2006
19:47:10
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
If anyone here truely believes that a 4.7l v8 making 240hp is in a "hot" state of tune, you must have no idea.
I personally deal with several different brands of vehicles, all have their strong points, all have their downsides.
I like dodges, and after my dads 95 Dakota 4x4 SLT 5.9L (that was a fun swap) burned to the ground from the transmission bursting into flames.... (let's here it for the 46re) I practically had to beat him into submission to get another Dodge. That truck had 312,000 miles, and it's better to follow the devil you know than to discover the devil you don't.
Now he has a 2005 Ram with the anemic 4.7l. The HO would have been a better option, but you know how it goes. Price was great, and overall the truck is nice. I pushed the hemi option, and when I found out he went with the 4.7l I was a bit annoyed. That said, after looking into it, I am of the oppinion that the 4.7l will eventually replace the LA series for performance in street cars.
The Hemi is great, but the design prohibits use of SOHC heads, and DOHC heads would be pointless without 4 valve heads. 4 valves would leave you further from a true hemi than normal. Don't get me wrong, the hemi works... But from experience OHC setups work better. The less moving parts, the less parts to break.
So typically in a towing application low RPM grunt is prefered over higher RPM power. This is of course reasonable. I have found that engines built to turn high rpms don't really care too much how long they do so, as long as they don't go over their limits, just like any other engine.
Build the 4.7l to turn 8krpm, and we will see how it performs. In stock form it won't breath up there, so you will need supporting head work, and stronger valve springs. But that's cheaper than headwork, springs, lifters, pushrods, rockers.... and so on. That's a much pricier list of parts...
food for thought.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
7/11/2006
21:35:08
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I've let my 4.7 run between 4 and 5 k up a MONSTER hill before when towing way more than I was supposed to.
It didn't seem to phase it much and was still well below the limiter unlike a stock 5.2 :)
I don't know if a Hemi had 4 valves or not. I thought they were typically all 2 per cyclinder. But hemispherical in shape. The 4.7 heads are almost there. The new 5.7 Hemi isn't quite the same as an old Hemi in shape from what I hear. But I haven't taken one apart yet, but I have taken a 4.7 apart. And I pretty much like it.
I agree, they built this small 4.7 pretty balanced for midrange torque. It doesn't dog then scream at the high RPM's like the 4.8 Chevy's I've driven. Good for my 4X4 I suppose. But I bet the 4.7 could unleash some HP if you got it to breath. I know KRC has a 450HP all motor 4.7 they have built. And I am pretty sure that is with NO stroking leaving it at 4.7 liters still. Just compression (pistons), head work (springs), and some weird intake. That HP was @ 6800 RPM's too.
Unleashing it to breath higher RPM's will give more HP. But not an engine for the average 4X4, or towing, etc.
|
toolfan
GenIII
7/12/2006
00:56:07
|  RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
i thought the ford 4.6L (oil burner) was 281c.i...?
my bad on that POS 287c.i :D
doing anything to the duster GD?
remember actions speak louder than letters...lol
|
novadak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/16/2006
08:17:25
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Here it goes:
Ford made the 289 back in the classic 60's and early 70's mustangs, and the 302 and 351 also.
Ford made the 5.0, early 80's to mid 90's (which was the old 302, only "new").
Ford made the 5.8, early 80's to early 90's (which was the old 351, only "new").
Ford makes the 4.6, which is 281ci, not to be confused with the earlier one.
Dodge made the 318 forever
Dodge 'made' the 5.2 magnum in the 90's (the old 318 with the differences we all know already)
Dodge made the 360 forever
Dodge 'made' the 5.9 magnum (with the same differences as the 5.2mag)
Ok I'm done :)
|
ricardcapecod
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/19/2006
20:03:50
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
The Ford 302 is not 5.0. It is 4.9.
Chevys 305 are 5.0.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
7/20/2006
03:18:22
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I dunno. The Ford 302 has ALWAYS been listed as 5.0 liters in every single shop manual I have read.
Although you know it's rounded. More like 499-something cc's or something.
It's closer to 5.0 than 4.9
But anyway. Toolfan: I haven't done much to the Duster in the last month or so besides dream about it in my mind :)
I did get rods however. Just seeing if I can muster the 8.6:1 forged pistons for a whopping sum of $850 before I put it together!!!
|
PB
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/21/2006
19:50:43
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
i read on allpar.com that in the sixties chrysler engineered a dohc hemi but they never developed it because ford had an sohc motor for running in nascar and after ford couldn't run the sohc motor chrysler scrapped the idea.
|
Sam Slater
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/22/2006
03:43:59
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
My uncle races at Caraway Speedway in North Carolina. He races the older cars. His 318 is putting out 621RWH but of course he's running 110 Octane racing fuel, etc. It's so loud when revving I have to stand away from the car. BTW, there isn't much about his 318 stock but he revvs about 6,500-7,000 all the way through the race.
|
Chris G.
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/22/2006
03:46:20
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I have beaten a 4.7 with my lighter 318 1996 Dakota SLT. It's a pretty quick truck. Won't match my Camaro but it's fast for a truck. Talking about revving the 318 up.....I rev it to 6,000 pegging the tach and manually shifting the auto tranny sometimes. Never has blown up and still running strong. Sometimes the valves float though, but not bad.
|
Chris G.
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/22/2006
03:47:48
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
BTW, my Camaro has the 350. Moderately modded. 0-60 in 5.4secs.
|
Brian B.
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/22/2006
03:49:36
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
LOL...i'd like to see a 4.7 revving to 7k nonstop. Can picture the big oil spill.
|
| | <<Previous Page P 6 Next Page>> |
