| From | Message |
Ian
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/09/2004
03:30:53
|
 Subject: RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Jeep sounds like he nailed it, don't think the lower numbers would be due to the new intake waltherone as the 2004 jeep uses this manifold and still is listed as a healthy 265hp and 325ft/lbs torque
|
Kowalski
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/09/2004
15:51:41
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
It could well be at least partially due to the intake then. They used to rate the Jeep HO at 270 hp, did they change anything else on the Jeep ? Something lowered that rating.
|
Ian
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/09/2004
20:50:18
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
kowalksi...pretty sure it has been rated at 265hp ever since it was introduced...what u may be thinking of, as I recall, that before it came out and all of us over hear at dd.com got rumor of it, it was reported it would have 270hp but when it actually came into production it always had been 265hp. In fact, I just looked it up in my 2002 Consumer Guide (booklet with all 02 makes and models and specs) and it rates the 2002 4.7 HO at only 260hp, go figure, 5hp is nothing to get nit picky over though. I sincerely doubt the new intake lowered the horsepower. Why would u think they would spend the time, effort, r&d, and money to produce a poorer performing intake manifold?
|
Ian
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/09/2004
21:02:32
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Furthermore....the 2002 h.o. intake with the shorter runners does absolutely nothing for peak horsepower, it only raises the hp in the 4800+ rpm rangen and kills low end torque. This may be good for a race truck but not a daily driver, hence the redesign in the intake manifold for more low end power. Take a look at Matt Barrets post after the ho intake and cams install. He only gained about 15 peak hp and absolutely no peak torque. Compare this with KRC's dyno of the ho cams alone where they got about 15 peak hp and 23 lbs/ft peak torque. Thus, all the peak hp from the ho package comes from the cams alone, not to mention the 2002 ho intake negated all 23 lbs/ft torque from the cams as well. As you will note, all the h.o. intake did for the dyno numbers was a 10-31hp increase from 4800-5300 rpms, again supporting my point that these are good increases for a quarter mile but not for everyday driving where we rarely see over 4800 rpms.
http://www.dodgedakota.net/boards/per/4949.html
|
01Motorsport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/09/2004
22:59:29
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Nice post, Ian. People like to say "horsepower rules", which is true if you are racing. That satisfying feeling of a performance-oriented truck driven primarily on the street, comes from torque, IMHO. What's the day-in/day-out fun of an R/T? A 5.2 or 4.7?: Torque! The engine doesn't have to always scream to put a smile on your face. A concept that escapes ricers and owners of new Canyons and Colorados.
|
jam0o0
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/09/2004
23:41:31
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
well said 01 motorsport. if dodge is gunna wait for another year or two to put the hemi in the dakota then i guess i'll be waiting another few years to get my second truck. i haven't had the best reliability with my dak, but it is the best power/looks/space (none-full-size) out there IMHO.
|
waltherone
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/10/2004
20:14:37
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
I still say when I did my HO intake install (2002 model piece) I lost no noticeable low end. Still spins the hell out of the tires when I punch it from a stop, so I guess I've still got more low end power than I need :P
Yeah it does nothing for peak horsepower, but the HO cam dynos weren't that impressive for PEAK power, compared to the power they added all throughout the rest of the powerband. You wouldn't need peak HP for daily driving either, unless you know of a gas engine that makes peak HP at 3000rpm :)
It's just the manifold off a jeep engine, some people act like it's a nasty enormously ported aftermarket intake manifold. It, if anything, felt like it extended the powerband upward a little. Where power used to fall off at 4800 sharply, it now feels like it just holds steady (rather than drastically dropping) till shift point. VERY mild changes in powerband, not sure what all the fuss is about..
|
01Motorsport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/30/2004
19:49:43
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
I went back to this post after reading the 2005Dak info in the latest Dodge consumer magazine sent by the dealer. It still mentions 250hp/ 300+tq for the 4.7 HO. The general consensus from those on dd.com who have done the HO cams mod on Dakota 4.7's, is that 15hp/25tq is gained from the cams. Taking a 235hp 4.7, adding the HO cams, the route the factory took on the '05's? What I haven't seen mentioned is the compression ratio of the '05. The standard 4.7 is 9.0:1, the Jeep 4.7 HO has 9.7:1. By that, the "missing" 15hp (from 265 Jeep HO) is the hotter pistons.
|
Jeeper
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/30/2004
22:04:13
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
The compression difference between the HO pistons and the standard pistons will only make about 3 HP. The typical rule is 2% per compression ratio so .02 x 0.7 x 250hp = 3.5HP
My experience with the HO manifold is similar to WALTHERONE. I added the manifold and drove around for a few weeks before doing the cams. My experience, is the cams are really noticable once you hit 4500 rpm, then the engine takes off. The intake manifold added very noticable grunt from 3000-4500. My Jeep is an Auto so under 3000 I have no idea if power is up or down (since the tranny downshifts with any significant throttle). So, I think I prefer the manifold as a mod for every day driving.
As an added note, I noticed that the cams altered the exhaust note by adding a definite "burble" at idle.
The manifold changed the intake noise to sound more like a lamborgini with a real high performance whine... Its great, but I have a home brew intake so I am pretty sure it is causing the specific sounds on my vehicle.
|
Kowalski
GenIII
5/31/2004
08:35:28
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
With a different PCM in the HO, one might also expect some gain there through increased spark advance.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
Pittdawg
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/31/2004
13:35:17
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Well in my experience w/ the h.o. cams, and regular manifold was that the engine takes off at 2800 rpms and up, hence the manifold moves the power up to 4500 rpms, i.e. not ideal 4 everyday driving.
|
aj
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/01/2004
01:55:54
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
I was curious about the HO so I went to the Jeep site. They make 2 4.7 motors. The HO comes on the more expensive model. And yes it is 265 hp, but that is at 4800 rpm, the Dakota is 230 at a much lower rpm.
I was also wondering if there is a difference from 03 to 04. Did they make anymore upgrades/improvements in the motor??
|
Sephiroth
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/01/2004
02:22:20
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
ian you're stupid...and Kowalski with a snow shovel in June???????? WTF
|
hi
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/01/2004
11:38:59
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
What do you expect from a sausage?
|
hmmm
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/01/2004
16:04:33
|  RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Figures the site's premier promoter of the tornado would call Ian stupid. Some might enjoy the "cool" picture once temps get up into the 90's.
|
conig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/01/2004
18:53:55
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
jeeper. are you running the 2002 ho manifold or an 03-04 with the medium size runners?
I do not want to do the cams on my truck but a manifold is simple enough.
|
Sephiroth
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/02/2004
11:20:13
|  RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
Guys, use your heads. When have I EVER joined a thread just to call somebody stupid? Pope is getting a nut off trying to imitate me, but he does it wrong. Look at the poor spelling, the over-use of question-marks, and simple gramatical errors. Now look at the posts (or flames) I have posted. Notice a difference? He's still trying hard to be me, and I take it as a compliment. They say imitation is the highest form of respect, right?
|
conig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/02/2004
11:35:45
| RE: 2005 Dakota and the H.O. 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
I always heard flattery as oppesed to respect.
|
| | <<Oringinal Post <<Previous Page P 2 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
