| From | Message |
DoveSlider
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/08/2002
22:46:23
|
 Subject: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
So, just wondering. Why did the folks in this forum opt for the 5.9 as opposed to the 4.7?
Aside from those that race their trucks.
I have a 2001 4.7 with the whole tow package thing and class IV hitch. Seemed to be even more than enough for me. Just wondering. Not important.
|
pixelenvy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/08/2002
23:10:59
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I don't "race" my r/t .. but I am a big fan of solid handling and fierce torque ; o )
-m
|
smokem
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/08/2002
23:26:20
|  RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
me too. "r/t" sounds, feels, and looks like a
he[[ raiser........nothing against the 4.7, just my opinion......
|
cbsdakota
*Mechanic*
11/09/2002
03:54:22
|  RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, I prefer the 5.9 because of simple math. The 5.9 comes from the factory setup for working, towing, low end torque. The 4.7, although a good motor, is already pushing it for power since it is tweaked from the factory. The same mods react better on the 5.9. Not knocking the 4.7. Duner has a nice turbo setup. But I can't imagine a 4.7 with no blower or spray getting into the 12's. It might, but it wouldn't be near as streetable. I also have the disadvantage of weight. My SS/T (no pick yet; still old Dak pic)weighs about a thousand pounds more than the Dakotas. If the 4.7 was available in my truck, I sure as hell wouldn't buy it.
97 Dodge Ram SS/T, black w/ silver stripes, Carsound cat and 40 Series Flowmaster
|
Cotharyus
GenIII
11/09/2002
08:14:59
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Thats funny, that there is no power left in the 4.7, and it doesn't react well to mods. I dropped my third cat and added an FIPK and I'm making as much hp as a stock 5.9 - not to mention the fact that you'd have to be out of your mind to undertake any heavy towing with an automatic tranny. One more time:
Two identical trucks purchased for farm use - both tow gooseneck trailers with 6-10 tons of hay on them on a regular basis. Both are also daily drivers for the farm managers. The only difference is one has a manual tranny, the other auto. Major maintainence: auto - rebuild tranny at 50k miles. New tranny at 92k. Manual - new clutch @ 102k - which truck would you rather own? I'm not busting the 5.9, but if you want something to pull with, get something that comes with a suitable tranny for towing. Don't use lown end torque for an excuse either. My engine aint hurtin' on that.
2001 QC 4x4, 4.7,5 spd, LSD, 255/70-15's, K&N Gen II Intake, Robert Shaw 180 Stat, Hanson Enterprise custom front bumper, Highflow cat
Check out my Dak
|
cbsdakota
*Mechanic*
11/09/2002
20:54:55
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Tell you what, leave your truck in 2wd, hook it up to the same truck with a stock 5.9 and see what happens. The 5.9 will drag your @ss down the road. I never said the 4.7 didn't react to mods. I said identical mods respond better on the 5.9 which in it's detuned form already creates more power than the 4.7. And when did I ever mention pulling a trailer full of hay? I said the 5.9 was a workhorse and better for towing in general. If I needed a farm truck, it would be a diesel. No need to get all defensive. The man asked why we liked our 5.9's and I told him.
97 Dodge Ram SS/T, black w/ silver stripes, Carsound cat and 40 Series Flowmaster
|
j
GenIII
11/09/2002
21:29:21
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
More mods available for the 5.9. There are some people on this site that have 5.9's putting out over 300 at the rw (NA). You could do that on the 4.7 too, but it would be much less streetable than the 5.9. I'm no expert, but that's my opinion.
2000 4.7 CC auto, clear corners, Magnaflow catback, Kenne Bell s/c.
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/10/2002
00:32:08
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I like both so here's some ammo for the 4.7; The 4.7 is available with a manual and the 5.9 is only avaialble in the quad cab and the R/T. If you want to save some money the 4.7 can be put on a sport or SLT for a lot less then a whole R/T package. Here's what it came down to for me, I wanted a RC but the shifter made it impossible to seat 3 in the front of the 4.7 5-speed. So I had to either go with a CC or get an automatic. A RC R/T, or a CC 4.7/5-speed came out to amost the same price so I went with the R/T. I'm sure the RC R/T is faster then a 4.7/5-speed CC and I like the looks of a RC better too. I would have really enjoyed a RC 4.7 too I'm sure as I ended up getting a good used R/T so I didn't have a choice of getting the bench seat, now my R/T only seats 2 anyway! After living with the R/T for over a year I am still happy but am looking to sell it for something roomier. It was fun while I had it but I think a nice 5.9 Grand Cherokee or a new Hemi Quad Ram would soot me better. You can't beat the availability of mods for the 5.9 though, especially on a 2000 or older.
|
Cotharyus
GenIII
11/10/2002
07:48:26
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Mods? We've got at least two good cams that any old Joe can buy right now. There are two more on the way. I've got a TB on my truck (need to update my sig huh?) and a set of eho heads waiting to go on. We have 4.7 mods in the works, cut us some slack there, our engine isn't 40 years old. 300rwhp streetable? Keep an eye on me.
CSBdak - If you think you can drag my truck down the road, come on to nashville and lets give it a try. I'll leave it in 2wd for you. I'll even provide a set of chains. Cocky? Yea - here's why:
How much does your truck weigh? Mine weighs 5100 pounds. Part of that is the 250 pound tool box I keep in the back. Look at my tires - look at the lsd. I'll wind it up and granny slip the clutch and hook it up, and drag you, tires spinning like hell, all the way to tinbucktwo.
2001 QC 4x4, 4.7,5 spd, LSD, 255/70-15's, K&N Gen II Intake, Robert Shaw 180 Stat, Hanson Enterprise custom front bumper, Highflow cat
Check out my Dak
|
j
GenIII
11/10/2002
14:03:50
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I know there are things in the works, but I'm talking about what's available now. The HO cams sound like the best out there right now, but from what I've read it sounds like you get 15hp max. Has anyone seen a dyno of these? I'm not trying to knock the 4.7. I have one myself. I'm just thinking that if you want a lot of hp out of a small v8 (NA) your going to have to sacrifice a lot of low end. More so than you would with the 5.9. Thats all I'm saying.
2000 4.7 CC auto, clear corners, Magnaflow catback, Kenne Bell s/c.
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/10/2002
14:06:25
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
The other thing that was said against modding the 4.7 is that it is already in a "hot" state of tune from the factory, the 5.9 is very, very tame in factory tune. Dodge cold easilly bolt on their own parts form their own catalog to a 5.9 and easilly make a production 5.9 with well over 300 HP. Which personally I think is what an R/T shold have been all along! The 5.9 with the big valve heads, better cam, M-1, headers, cold air, hotter PCM that required 91 octain, and more compression. The only thing Mopar dosn't make is a bigger TB, but I'm sure they could if that proved to be a bottleneck.
|
cbsdakota
*Mechanic*
11/10/2002
15:58:00
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Cotharyus: Mine weighs in at just over 5000lbs too. I have 3.93's, limited slip, and 275/60R17's. I got alot more meat hitting the ground, and don't need to wind it up because of the 345lb/ft of torque. I would, come visit you but my truck is currently on it's way to England where I am stationed. That's why I don't have a pick of it up yet. And you can granny slip all you want, you won't have a clutch when we are done. You don't have to get all defensive. I'm just saying, pick your battles. I wouldn't take on a Cummins!
There's no replacement for displacement!
97 Dodge Ram SS/T, black w/ silver stripes, Carsound cat and 40 Series Flowmaster
|
brianman
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/21/2002
17:02:59
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
these guys are right the 360 will respond more to the mods, it makes way more low end than the 4.7. the 4.7 has a bigger operating range than the 360, which is all but out of power at 4000rpm.
|
midnightdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/21/2002
18:21:21
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
i have a 4.7 dakota cc and u know why i like it because it has all the power i want,better trottle response than the 5.9 and it still does pull after 4000 rpm BRIANMAN.Oh ya how many more hp does the 5.9 have than the 4.7 a hole 20 big whoopty fu**ing do,an the 4.7 has an all alumiun block.dont get me wrong guys but u dont have that much more than us 4.7 guys do.i do plan on puting a 5.9 in my truck when this one blows up
|
trukguy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/21/2002
18:35:00
|  RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
why do you think the 4.7 will blow up? is that cause its in such a hot state of tune from the factry? I heard that the 4.7 engine dosn't respond well to mods like the 5.9 does. Would that be mods like a brass rotor and cap and spark plug wires? or was it the 1.7 rocker arms?
|
blued
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/21/2002
20:01:25
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
WOW... I was gonna say something about the impressive low end TQ that my 5.9 produces but know I'm afraid someone would throw something at me. I have and drive both a 4.7 and a 5.9... Although I wouldnt hook the 2 together because then I would have $55,000 dollars worth of broken trucks. An automatic transmission will work fine even for heavy towing applications. Our company owns and operates 4 dakotas and 6 Rams none of which have a standard and all of which Tow trailers. The 5.9 is fun to drive because of the responsive low end TQ, which gives you that little snap But if you lean more towards some top end and like RPM's then go with the 4.7 (when comparing factory- no mods). You wanna pull something pull a Chevy out of a ditch...Thats what i do...
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/21/2002
21:14:58
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Midnight- the 4.7 has a iron block just like the 5.9. The 4.7 does get aluminum heads but then again better heads is one of those things available from the aftermarket for the 5.9 (including aluminum) but not really for the 4.7.
|
QQQ
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/21/2002
23:09:02
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I just wanted overhead cams. I figure when I sell it, it wont tick and sound generally nasty.
|
brianman
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/21/2002
23:17:41
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
the 4.7 has a better powerband than the 5.9, like i said, it doesnt however have an aluminum block there guy.
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/21/2002
23:38:19
| 4.7 Engine Clarifications
IP: Logged
Message:
Jeez - these 4.7 vs 5.9 discussions go on forever. Almost as long as the Camaro vs Mustang or the Lightning vs R/T ones! hahaha
The 4.7 responds favorably to mods. The 4.7s don't respond to the identical mods as a 5.9... probably because they aren't needed? You pick the correct mods and they respond just fine.
With just a couple of minor mods the torque output of the 4.7 improves dramatically. Mine was at 242 rwhp and 322rwtq before adding the turbo. I bet it's got more now with the HO cams (hp & tq).
The HO cams INCREASE torque.
The replacement for displacement is efficiency.
I believe that my 4.7 could get into the 13s in NA form if I pulled the turbo off. Anybody wanna put any money on it? ;>)
|
D
GenIII
11/22/2002
00:22:55
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
the replacement for displacement is forced
induction. no replacement? the days of more
cubes=more power are over. isnt marty at
KRC building (or already built) a 400+HP N/A
4.7 dak?
duner:::if you pull the turbo off, you can always
donate it my way ; )
2001 4.7 CC
shaved
dropped
slow...for now : )
|
BS
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/22/2002
06:15:19
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
"the days of more
cubes=more power are over"
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.Apply the same technology to a bigger engine,and what do you get? More power!If they produced a 5.9 using the 4.7 design,you're telling me it wouldn't make more power than the 4.7 version?
There is no,and never will be,a substitute for cubic inches...
|
David Stovel
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/22/2002
13:54:21
|  RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
My 4.7 has more hp than a 5.9 with a couple mods and looks fifty times as mean, and all I have to say is I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!
|
brianman
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/22/2002
13:58:43
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
you always need more cubes, the key is make it work efficiently, either by forced induction releiving internal stress and friction and pumping losses. ya you can build a 400 horse 4.7L, but how much more power will it get if it had 5.7L. any engine can make power its how smartly you go about it is what counts.
|
Demon Dakota
DakotaEnthusiast
11/22/2002
14:19:23
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
By the way, KRC 4.7L N/A makes over 500 Hp, not 400. That's a mean ass engine!
K&N Drop in AF
True Dual exhaust and removed third cat
HO Cams & HO Intake
Modified TB
Autolite 3923 Plugs
TPS @ .76 VDC
IAT Adjuster Mod
|
Dak03ta
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/22/2002
15:17:41
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Way to completely deviate from the original question. If someone isnt interested in racing, they probably are not that interested in mods.
I would say the 4.7 has newer technology, is lighter, more efficient, and almost as powerful as the 5.9. If I wanted to drag race my truck, I would have gotten to 5.9, but since I would rather get 17mpg than 13, I got the 4.7.
As for towing, both will do fine. If you have really large trailer, the 5.9 is obviously a little better.
Why does this always have to come down to what engine has better mods. Some people may not care and want an opinion on what motor to get without mods, ALL FACTORS INCLUDED, not just that one has an extra 15hp.
|
trukguy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/22/2002
16:10:17
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
the posts i like best are the ones where they bot a 4 cyl truck last week and want it to go faster. dont people test drive?
|
Nood1z
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/22/2002
18:37:36
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Ok fellas lets calm down a bit. It boils down to "different strokes for different folks". If you race, and Mod it up, then obviously go with the 5.9, if you like gas mileage or the roominess go with the 4.7. And, to elaborate on something already said, mods on a 5.9 are more productive, and benificial to power. If you took a super charger, cam, intake, TB, and headers on a 4.7, sure you would get alot more horses. But if you spent the same amount of money, on the same mods for a 5.9 you would have a higher gain in HP overall. Just my two cents. and if yor wondering, yes, I have an R/T
|
ChasE
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/22/2002
20:28:44
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
For me it was all about getting a V8 regular cab with a stick shift. That spells 4.7 engine. With just 3000 miles now, and only a free flow muffler and a K/N filter, it's a strong runner. Feels like upper 14s if I could get traction.
|
John W.
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/23/2002
00:39:35
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I’m not sure I understand all this banter. We all drive Dodges you want something to argue. Then argue the other trucks i.e. Ford, Chevy, or better yet the foreign ones. I couldn’t tell you which is better. I drove both and found the 4.7 much zippier. Yet the 5.9 had more grunt. But how much grunt do you need is up to each person. I will say this, my 2001 4.7 4X4 auto. Tows by boat to and from the marina at the start and end of each season. By the way my boat is a 27’ Rinker Fiesta Vee weighing 6500 LBS, and tandem axle trailer weighing 2000 lbs. Giving me a total of 8500 LBS or about 2000 over. Truck pulls it fine. Just take it slow on the start up. I would like to make some small mods at some time. It just hasn’t been a priority.
|
91DakotaFreak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/23/2002
00:53:34
| RE: 4.7 vs 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
what about the 5.2L my 5.2L could get into the low tens and possibly mid nines when i get done with it but that will be a couple more years and by the way it WILL BE ALL MOTOR no spray!!!!
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
