| From | Message |
ch4ngv
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/24/2004
14:38:51
|
 Subject: 2003/2004 Grand Cherokee HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
Has anyone installed this intake on a 2000 4.7?
It's priced alot lower than the 2002 HO intake and it's the only one listed for a 2003/2004 HO and Base 4.7. Part Number = 53013403AB (AC, AD).
http://www.wjjeeps.com/manifold.htm have a look and tell me what you think!
I would like to use this intake with the HO cams (original P/N for all years). I might even consider the KRC cams (206).
CH4NGV
|
xplikt
GenIII
1/24/2004
16:51:04
|  RE: 2003/2004 Grand Cherokee HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
I bought an 04 a few weeks ago, but it's snowing right now and all weekend, so it probably wont go in for another week.
My 2004 (latest; slightly different than 03) was like $87 or something.
I was going to wait on getting KRC's or HO cams and do them at the same time, but I will probably just install it with some new plugs and call it good. Not sure what cam I want yet.
I say go for it, it and the KRC 206s would be a nice combination.
-Mike
http://www.dodgetruckworld.com/xplikt/
2002 2WD RC SLT 4.7L 5spd 4.56 LSD
|
Rob C
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
02:11:40
| RE: 2003/2004 Grand Cherokee HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
Has anyone replaced an intake manifold on a 4.7L? Is it easier than on a more traditional engine like a Ford 302 or a Chevy 350? What about all the hardware that attaches to the manifold like the throttle linkage,IAT sensor or vacuum lines? I've got a 2000, will I have to buy a bunch of stuff just to make the manifold work on my engine? Thanks for any info anyone can provide.
|
01Motorsport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
15:54:12
| RE: 2003/2004 Grand Cherokee HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
Any dyno results of the pre-2003 non-HO being better on low end torque?
|
Pittdawg
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/25/2004
16:18:12
| RE: 2003/2004 Grand Cherokee HO Intake
IP: Logged
Message:
01 Motorsport take a look at this post: http://www.dodgedakota.net/boards/v8/2406.html
From what i can gather, it appears that the non-h.o. intake manifold is better on low end torque, at least when compared to the earliest versions of the h.o. intake. However, the h.o.intake has undergone several revisions, as the best i can tell, at least one in 03 and another in 04, maybe one more even. Now, if these revisions were targeted at mainting the low end torque levels of the non h.o. manifold while maintaining the upper rpm benefits of the old h.o. intake this would be quite interesting. Come on you maverick gearheads, i know one of you can figure this out for us. Keep us posted
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
