| From | Message |
minimac400
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/21/2004
00:25:45
|
 Subject: the real horse power
IP: Logged
Message:
I have a 97 5.2 and i have looked up in several different places to try and find the stock specs for my truck. I have found as low as 200 hp with 300 ft. and as high as 250 hp with 345 ft. Does anyone know the true specs for this truck. I would like to know before i start the udgrading process. thanks
|
Zach
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/21/2004
01:39:37
|  RE: the real horse power
IP: Logged
Message:
220hp and 300ft. lbs of torque
|
Kowalski
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/21/2004
08:17:14
| RE: the real horse power
IP: Logged
Message:
Not 230/300 ?
|
Zach
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/21/2004
12:57:29
| RE: the real horse power
IP: Logged
Message:
I found 220 for the 1997, I could be wrong though. Can anyone verify?
|
WipLash
R/T
2/21/2004
20:03:49
| RE: the real horse power
IP: Logged
Message:
The 1992 had 220hp. Then in 1993 they upped the cam and made 230hp. Then in 1994, they made theexhaust manifold smaller and the cam was also made a little smaller and it remained that way for the rest of the 5.2L's production. They didn't lower the HP back to the 220hp of the 93 model when they downsized the cam and exhaust. Line a 92 or 93 up against a 94-up and the 92-93 will blow the doors off the 94-up. The factory rates it at 230, but it's more like 190-200hp.
|
Jeeper
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/26/2004
23:29:02
| RE: the real horse power
IP: Logged
Message:
That explains a lot. I could never beleive that the difference between my previous 97 5.2 and my 4.7 was only due to lower gearing on the 4.7.
My stock 4.7 is so much quicker than my old 5.2 (stock) that it felt like the 5.2 was dragging an anchor. In effect it was...
|
WipLash
R/T
2/26/2004
23:39:32
| RE: the real horse power
IP: Logged
Message:
As you can see, there is really only one good year for the 5.2L and that was 93. The 92 was the next best. After that it's a toss-up as to which year is the slowest. I'm sure it would be a close tie between the 97,98, and 99 just becuase they weigh 300lbs more. Aslo, the **RE transmissions of 1996 and later seem to make matters worse. I had a 1995 Ram w/360 auto and it was damn near as quick as my 2000R/T. It was only rated at 230HP and it weighed 700lbs more than my R/T, but the transmission shifted much quicker and firmer. I had a lot of Chevy friends at the time that I let drive my Ram and they all were impressed at how quick the transmission shifted down when they punched it. Since the 'RE transmissions came out in 96, all the trucks are slower and less responsive.
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
