| From | Message |
Jesse
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2003
18:08:27
|
 Subject: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
i wanted to kno if the 5.2 is faster than the 4.7 ?
|
dweishaar
GenIII
8/04/2003
18:28:30
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
not even close. 4.7 is more comparable to the 5.9
The Baja Dak
|
Joey
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2003
20:24:02
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
the 5.2 with stick is about equal to the 4.7 with stick its just when u get into the automatics where the 4.7 will win.
|
Ed
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2003
21:33:30
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
I got a 5.2. I would like to "test" it against a 4.7. I'm sure it would win but by how much. How are the 4.7's on gas. If I drive "sensibly" I can get 23 a gallon.
|
dweishaar
GenIII
8/04/2003
22:16:38
|  RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
My 5.2 has trouble getting out of its own way, and gets a lofty 12.6mpg, My 4.7 on the other hand has some serious traction issues, can chirp into 3rd and gets 14.3mpg out in the desert. Hmmmmmmmm.........since i own both, I may just know what I'm talking about.
The Baja Dak
|
AK
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2003
22:57:33
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
I had a 5.2L 98 Club Cab, and now have a 4.7L 03 Quad Cab...both stick shift. I'm not sure it has to do with acceleration or weight distribution (CC vs. QC), but I had to feather the clutch to keep the 5.2 from stripping the tread off the tires. I have to literally "try" to make the wheels spin on the 4.7.
Anyway, I think my old 5.2L was alot faster off the line and accelerating out of backroad turns (at lower speeds). But, I think my 4.7L would kick it's butt passing a car at highway speeds.
The 5.2L seemed to run hot over a more broad range of engine speeds than the 4.7L (best when over 2500)...sort of seemed there was no "wrong gear". The 4.7 doesn't have balls until you get it above 3500, and I frequently have to throw it down into one or two lower gears.
The 5.2L also had a MUCH nicer rumble than the 4.7, but the 4.7 gives me an average of 15 mpg (19.1 best mileage on a highway trip) vs. the 5.2's 13 mpg average (and 15.1 best mileage on a highway trip).
|
Pittdawg
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2003
23:13:39
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
hmmm..dweishar and AK come to exact opposite conclusions. Since the 4.7 and the 5.2 put down nearly the same dyno numbers and owners of both can't agree as to which one is faster I'd say its safe to assume they're pretty damn close
|
HIDAKDUR
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2003
23:58:59
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
I have a 97 CC 5.2 5 speed DAK and a 2000 4.7 auto Durango, both 4wd and I guarantee the 4.7 auto is faster than the 5.2 5.2 motor needs help! (it already has intense performance cold air stage 3 intake, cat back gibson single, MSD ignition, still gets smoked... guess I'll have to throw more money at it...
|
dweishaar
GenIII
8/05/2003
06:44:54
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
I do agree with that tho...after you throw 4k at a 5.2 you defiantely have a contender
The Baja Dak
|
Chris72941
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2003
09:54:17
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
well i have a 5.2L 91 dakota and that truck hauls i have a record or 4/5 the only person i raced that beat me was a corvette (which it was a given that the vette would win) i do agree though that off the line 5.2 shine but they are a little slow getting into top speeds i noticed that the 2nd gear is the worst ( i had a guy that i raced that started catching up to me in the 2nd gear but when i kicked it in to drive i smoked him)
|
Mike Sirianno
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2003
15:39:14
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
I had a 5.2 in my Dodge Conversion van. Got the 4.7 in my 2000 Dakota Quad Cab. Gas mileage may have been a bit better with the 5.2, but the 4.7 definitely screams on down the road! Just returned from a trip to Florida, gas mileage was very acceptable. Got as high as 19.6 MPG which I consider very good considering I had the back end full of stuff and was carrying 3 adults with the air on and cruise set at 77. The 4.7, to me, is definitely an awesome engine.
|
patindahat
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2003
18:16:32
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
Ok, if the dyno #s are nearly the same then its the tranny and driver that makes the difference really.
I'd like to argue that the 5.2 is better from a standing stop because it has more low end torque, but at the higher RPM the 4.7 is the hands down winner.
Pat - Ex nihilo nihilus
|
CDAWG
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2003
18:51:58
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
I think those 5.2's that run like dogs need a tune up. My 99' 318 CC w/tonneau cover gets 18 MPG highway @ 85 MPH. With a loaded bed, no slicks, tire spin, and in the South FL heat, it does 16.2 @84 MPH in the 1/4. There is really a lot of old school fans of the 318, because it is such a good motor and been around for so long. I think it does have more potential than the 4.7. In the last 1/16 of the 1/4 mile it does feel Like I'm not getting enough acceleration though. On the highway it's got all kinds of mid to top end.
I've never driven a 4.7 though
|
Kyle D
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/06/2003
15:24:39
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
I dont know about the magnum motors cause mine only has 92k on it but my old 89 1/2 ton has almost 300k on it and still runs. Eats allot of gas and a little oil, bout one quart per 3k miles. I sold it to a friend at about 200k and hasnt failed him so far. I love the 318
|
kowalski
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/06/2003
17:14:40
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
I love the 318 too but you won't see one replacing my 4.7
|
Tarpitz
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/06/2003
18:44:12
|  RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
IT's all about gears and qubic dollars. There's is also a little saying in drag racing..."Light is right but there's no repalcement for displacement." I have seen 318's that screem! How much money do you want to spend is the final question? you can go back and forth all day. I think that the 5.2 has way more torque, and in racing, torque is better than HP.
|
dweishaar
GenIII
8/06/2003
19:37:29
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
didn't we just establish that the tq specs were about the same on both trucks?
The Baja Dak
|
pill box
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/06/2003
19:45:36
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
get the 5.2
|
Orangedakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/06/2003
20:13:08
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
Do you think dodge would replace the 5.2 with a less efficient motor. No. The 4.7 has more horse power, torque, and is way more fuel efficient. And the guy who said he gets 23 mpg with his 5.2 is full of $hit.
|
tj318
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/06/2003
21:54:00
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
23 MPG might be far fetched in a 4x4, but I get 20.5 with mine, Ive got some work done to it, but STILL.... and for the commments about power, I THINK the 4.7 only has the 5.2 beat by about 10HP and 10 in TQ.... the difference is WHERE the motors make that TQ people!! Lay the dyno graphs one over the other and you will see that the 5.2 makes way more TQ at lower RPMs than the 4.7 Thats why it comes of the line harder... but at the same time that TQ curve levels off and falls on its face around 4K, where the 4.7 still keeps turning to what, almost 6.5K?? The 4.7 was made to spin fast, and make HP later in the RPMs... COME ON GUYS, dont forget that HP is nothing but a mathmatical equation and the whole time on a dyno it is measuring the TQ at the wheels and calculating the HP... you could talk about PEAK numbers all day long, but thats all they will ever be... you have to compare the TQ curves. Race a 5.2 and a 4.7 sort distance(maybe even 1/8 mi), and the 47 will get its rear handed to it, try that on the highway.... the 52 is going to look silly.
TJ
dakota52318@toad.net
1992 Dodge Dakota 4X4
3.90 Gears, Long Bed
318, 46RH Auto
DT Headers, Functional RamAir Hood
K&N FIPK, Flowmaster Muffler
Custom Throttle Body
MP Computer
Viper Electric Fan
15.74@87.59 b4 fan.
4350lbs
|
dweishaar
GenIII
8/06/2003
22:13:10
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
I've said it once, and I'll say it again, if you don't own both, you don't have too much room to talk against me. The 5.2 DOESN'T compare to the 4.7 PERIOD
The Baja Dak
|
yates-in-DE
*GenIII*
8/07/2003
00:56:06
|  RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
CDawg, 16.2@84 at sea level South Florida, I'll light a candle at church for your 5.2L. I'm at 4,900 feet 102 degree heat in the mountains of Colorado and turn 16.01@86 with a 4.7L full trim,(including child safety seat, spare tire, full tank of gas and all) stock Goodyear Eagle LS's with a 2.55 second 60' (talk about wheel spin, and leaving 20' marks in second, and 10' marks in 3rd). Now this Friday I will be trying new tires (much wider) to reduce my 60' time and ET's. Oh, and by the way the conversion factor for 4,900 feet to sea level is .9393. You multiply my ET by this number and you will see what my sea level time would be.
Gotta love technology.
Later,
Lynn
 Clic the pic
|
falling apart
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/07/2003
09:25:21
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
Which is more reliable?? Ya the 5.2
|
Durango
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/07/2003
13:48:20
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
360 is better than both. No replacement for displacement.
|
cool
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/07/2003
15:16:09
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
Falling apart - can you prove that?
|
whocares
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/07/2003
15:51:24
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
Who really cares? They are both great V8 engines. No one can say anything negative about either.
The 5.2 was great for the time it was around, now with the economy the way it is, the 4.7 keeps the same/similar power with a more efficient engine for today's needs.
Same goes for the 360 (5.9) Great engine and always will be. But, times call for a more efficient replacement today, so welcome 5.7 hemi.
Fighting over what engines are better is plain stupid! If it's a dodge dakota, with a dodge engine, then party on!
|
jh
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/07/2003
18:02:11
| RE: 5.2 vs 4,7
IP: Logged
Message:
This is rediculous. REMEMBER PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK YOUR TRUCK IS, IT STILL ISN"T GOING TO BREAK ANY RECORDS THAT REALLY MATTER EXCEPT YOUR OWN EGO.
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
