| From | Message |
Ian
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/01/2002
00:04:41
|
 Subject: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
From an old post by Matt Barret, "My baseline numbers, prior to the HO install were 214 hp @ 4600rpm and 290 tq @ ,3300 rpm...Here are the peak numbers for the HO cam/Ho intake: 230 hp @ 4400 rpm / 290 tq @ 3650 rpm."
My thoughts:
1) a 16 hp increase and zero torque increase from ho cam/intake combo or;
2) a 14 hp increase and 23lbs of torque increase from cams alone.
Now let me think, should I pay the extra $150 to gain 2 hp and lose 23lbs of torque?
Sorrow for the sarcasm but I'm just kinda bothered a few of you were claiming you didn't lose any torque from the intake when it is obvious you did. The intake cuases a loss in torque and makes a negligible amount of extra horsepower. In all fairness, it does appear the manifold allows the engine to keep making power at higher rpms which would be beneficial for a race/track vehicle but as a daily driver there is no justification for such a torque loss. I'll be ordering my cams on Monday and I'll let you all know how the 4.7 no longer lacks in the torque department!
Seriously though thanks for all the input guys...I don't know what I'd do without all the opinions and advice on this site...even if our opinions differ it still helps in making an informed decision
|
cryppie
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/01/2002
00:49:14
|  RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
Hi Ian,
Those were my thoughts exactly... UNTIL, after hours upon hours of doing research on the M1, I finally saw the light and ordered my M1 (not here yet btw). Those numbers you posted are PEAK horsepower numbers. From what I gathered, you will see good peak horsepower gains using it, which is nice and all, but... what it basically does is give you a flatter powercurve. The best gains you will see is throughout the entire powerband of 3000+. For example, maybe you will only gain 2 peak horsepower (probably much more than that) at say at 4500rpm. At 5000 rpm, it is possible to see a 20+ horsepower gain over the stock intake, but still be under the "peak" which was at 4500. You will see much more horsepower throughout the entire powerband, even though the peak numbers may be minimal. Hope that is not too hard to understand, because I have had a peak amount of 15 beers tonight.
cryppie
|
Ian
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/01/2002
01:04:25
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
no...I understand...basically what you are saying goes in line with my comment that the intake is more for a race/track vehicle where you would actually use the extra horsepower in the upper rpms, most daily drivers don't have much use for a drop in torque with the only increase in hp coming at 5,000+. Anyways different strokes for different folks...damn now I'm gonna have to go throw back a few cryppie, nowhere near my peak!
|
.alex.
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/01/2002
21:05:05
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
Matt also went on to dyno again with a short belt and no clutch fan and the numbres came out at 238 hp and 314 tq, if I remember correctly.
And here's other food for thought:
http://www.dodgedakota.net/boards/per/6404.html
Maybe I shot myself in the foot with the intake manifold, but it sure doesn't hurt when my (shot) foot hits the firewall........
|
FastRT6Dakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/02/2002
19:37:19
|  RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
Ian, just to clear up what cryppie said, if you were to look at two dyno sheets, one with a 4.7L with JUST the HO cams, and the other sheet with a 4.7L with the cams and intake. While both may show 290 peak torque, the one with the intake will probably show higher numbers under peak torque RPM. of course, I'm speaking under strict generality. I don't have the H.O. intake yet, nor have I seen actual dyno sheets, so I don't know. Given the fact that it is a short runner intake, the torque may not come in until the higher RPM ranges. So thats what I think Cryppie meant.
|
cryppie
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/02/2002
20:40:03
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, that too FastRT. To clear it up a bit more, if you look at THIS dyno sheet posted by rpkast, it will give you a better picture. Notice the max PEAK horsepower was "only" raised about 21hp. The max PEAK torque only .6! But, take a look at the Gain/Loss chart. At 5100, the gain is 39.1hp and 40.3 torque! You can see that the gain is huge throughout the entire range above 4000. Also, before you mention the -30hp/-49tq at 3200rpm... that concerned me as well. If you look at the time at the far left of that chart, it reads 0.00, meaning, that is where they started the run. I suspect this is the reason for the poor results at 3200rpm. If they had started at 2600, like the first run, I bet the results for 3200 would look much better. I will be able to tell you more after I install the M1 Wednesday night. I will be "fair and honest" with my conclusions, because, if its bad the thing will be coming off faster than I got it on. I have yet to find a dyno here where I live (Evansville IN), so the results may only be 0-60 and .25 mile wristwatch results. I might be able to get ahold of a radar gun also :)
cryppie
|
FastRT6Dakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/02/2002
23:59:48
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
Cool, good luck with the intake install. I'm kinda lucky as far as the dyno availability goes. The company I work for is heavy into both alternative fuels and performance technology. I don't want to give away too many secrets, but I have used the Schenke chassis dyno in an atmospheric control bay to set up some of my truck "aftermarket" calibrations. It's nice to be able to see the effects of a 60degree day vs. a 90 degree day without ever leaving the dyno bay. So anyways, let me know how the install goes, ok? Make sure that radar gun isn't in the arms of a County Mountie though, got it? The Law tends to frown on backroad 1/4 mile passes. Trust me on that one.
Keep it rubber side down!
|
Texas Todd
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/03/2002
09:15:43
|  RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
cryppie,
Hhhheelllllooooooo, You talk about installing the M1 isn't that for that 'Magnum' motor?
Ian's post is on the HO intake. You know the 4.7, sohc, that hp/ci power output kills the magnums!
You can't compare the dyno results of two radically different motors! However, I agree with alot of your assessment, and Ian's, on the 4.7, with the HO intake upgrade.
Where did this m1 thing come into this post?
|
Canucker
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/03/2002
10:31:41
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
M1, HO ... its all the same. The M1 has shorter, wider runners than the stock intake .. the HO has shorter runners (not wider though) ... it'll have the same effect on the motor.
I still haven't seen a dyno sheet of JUST the HO cams though ... has anyone else ?
|
Canucker
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/03/2002
10:39:36
|  RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
More food for thought:
Dyno Comparisonw/HO Cams & Intake
Now someone find a Dyno with just the HO CAMS!!!!
(POP Quiz: looking at this graph ... who can tell me why the 4.7L falls on its face above 5000RPM???)
|
Dr.Dakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/03/2002
12:47:00
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
Like I said before...the only guys that say you lose torque are the guys who haven't even tried the intake....The intake and cams combo will give you sooo much more HP, across the board, and rev faster and hold that HP to higher rpms that there is no noticable loss of torque at all. But to put it in plain english: When I pull my motorcycle trailer up a hill, I'm going faster now!
|
.alex.
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/03/2002
13:14:04
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
Ummmm..... ooooo me me me me Me!!!
It's because the intake manifold runners are too long!!!
|
FastRT6Dakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/03/2002
16:50:37
|  RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
Alex, you beat me to the punch again!!! Can I still have a cookie? Hey I have an idea...Anyone want to help me design/build/market a dual runner intake with an intake air control motor? Sortof like what Ford used on the SVT contour and on the 4.6L 4V Cobra? Write me.
|
Canucker
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/03/2002
18:00:04
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
umm ... I'm already on top of that ... shhhhh....
|
2THEXTRM
GenIII
12/03/2002
20:39:08
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
So according to that dyno, the ho cams/intake really only move the power up higher in the power band? It seems to have nearly the same characteristic curve but they both still "fall on their face" at around 5000 rpm with the HO peaking at a higher torque. So does this mean that a loss in bottom end is occurring? I may be reading it wrong since I am not really familiar with how to read them.
I still have the cams and intake waiting to be installed, but haven't had the time:( Hoping with the Fastman TB, AirRaid Intake, catback Vortex already installed and hiflo cat on order I should see some noticeable gains once their in.
Flowmaster cat back w/15 inch chrome tip, Volant Intake, Poweraid TB Spacer, Splitfire Plugs, full synthetic fluids
3 inch body/1.5 inch Block Lift, 305 70-16 X-Terrains on AR Terons, Pro Comp ES9000's
Grizzly double/single rollbar with (6) Hella's, Manik Nerfs, Line-X, Hard Work & $$$$$$$$$$
|
.alex.
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/04/2002
08:51:09
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
http://www.dodgedakota.net/boards/per/6404.html
|
Canucker
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/04/2002
11:14:29
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
alex, you're in love with that post of yours aren't you!? heh
2THEEXTREME: The cams still gain the low end torque (below 2500RPM). It shows up on the graph too, the HO truck is a full 20 or so ft-lbs higher than the stock one below 2500RPM ... you do lose a bit though between 2500 and 3000RPM .. and I think that's the part people are reporting as a loss in 'low end' TQ... I guess you could say the HO intake just delays where the engine starts to pull real strong by 500RPM or so.
Do the cams and intake .. you wont regret it.
|
.alex.
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/04/2002
11:18:32
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
I'm totally in love with NOT typing that bunk-o over again. I'm pretty much going to quit answering this mess.... it's getting to be pretty close to the whole "What Flowmaster do I run with my 3923's?" stage, here.
I'm just trying to emphasize that the only people loosing bottom end torque are the ones who arent' installing these parts. I mean, hell, it's only $150 for the manifold, anyhow.
Oh well..... you & I know the truth.
|
cudashoe
DakotaEnthusiast
12/04/2002
11:35:35
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
QUOTE: (POP Quiz: looking at this graph ... who can tell me why the 4.7L falls on its face above 5000RPM???)
Easy, your exhaust isnt big enough.
2000 4.7 5- speed, 1989 Shelby #799 White
|
Texas Todd
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/07/2003
08:14:01
|  RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
cuda, .alex., duner, CW, and others,(forgive me if I left your name out, don't be offended),
yea, I'm bringing up an old post, it's of interest to me now, since I'll soon be doing the HO intake install, already have the cams, and the other little things.
'cuda', in your last post here, you said because the exhaust diameter is too small, the 4.7 falls off @5500. I"m no authorfity here. Don't want to use any peoples names here-codfidentiality reasons.
It seems the best objective answer is that the intake (stock4.7) runners and then the PCM, which doesn't have any progaramming beyond 5500, to know what to do with the engine. I"ve always heard that the Dodge exhaust systems were NOt really the bottleneck and releasing more HP, on this engine anyway.
Let's keep this an informative, no bunk or BS thread, and please, if you have any relatively objective info, please post it regading this.
|
darcy
GenIII
3/07/2003
11:05:16
|  RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
I'll be installing the HO manifold and KRC 206 cams this summer. Does any one see anything potentially wrong with this?
2002 Dakota Sport 4.7 V8 Club Cab
www.dodgetruckworld.com/darcy/
|
Demon Dakota
DakotaEnthusiast
3/07/2003
11:38:15
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
They'll work fine together IMHO Darcy
K&N Drop in AF (CAI during summer months)
True Dual exhaust and removed third cat
HO Cams & HO Intake
FASTMAN 70mm TB
Autolite 3923 Plugs
TPS @ .76 VDC
IAT Adjuster Mod
14.52@94.2 MPH at Silver Dollar Raceway
|
darcy
GenIII
3/07/2003
16:38:25
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
Thought so, just wanted someone's opinion, thanks man!
2002 Dakota Sport 4.7 V8 Club Cab
www.dodgetruckworld.com/darcy/
|
conig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/07/2003
17:13:52
| RE: ho intake not impressive at all!
IP: Logged
Message:
the bottle neck is the catalitic converter in the exhaust.
as well as the pcm not being mapped.
as for the comment about the dual runner system of the 2.5l duratec in the contour (svtv6 or v6)
i had a nitrous injected one before I bought my dak and we normally got a gain in 1/4 mile and drivabilty(can't remember if theres any dynos) by cracking the second set of runners open via the adjustment screw on the bottom side of the intake. theres plenty of info at contour.org and fastcougar.com
a cool thing to do would be to design an intake like bmw or jag(can't remeber which) that lengthens the runners fgor low rpm and then slides in for upper rpms.
also I missed this post when new so I'm adding my two cents now.
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
