| From | Message |
Kowalski
GenIII
1/07/2005
07:55:18
|
 Subject: RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
The type of transmission isn't going to change the torque curve, just the % of drivetrain loss you have to factor in to get the #s at the motor. The factory #s leave the transmission out of the equation. We are comparing the torque characteristics of 4.7 vs 5.2 here, not '00 4.7 vs '06 4.7 (by the way, '06 4.7 is rated pretty much the same as the '00 4.7). If you want to talk about bogus factory #s, I've heard some claim the 4.7 was downrated so as not to overshadow the 5.9; never heard anything like that said about the 5.2.
That's a good graph Mike, if you read the #s you'll see what I'm talking about; how the 5.2 drops off faster than the 4.7 at high rpm. Not a bad motor at all, but the point is that 4.7 maintains more torque at high rpm.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
Wal
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/07/2005
08:27:58
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
sorry, I don't buy into rumors nor high revving truck engines.
Without seeing the actual runs I have nothing else to say except it sounds like the 5.2 is being penalized for its higher rpm charectoristics, and that just makes no sense. No one tows at high rpms and the redline on the 5.2 is 4600.
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/07/2005
08:37:19
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Sorry, I don't buy into 4.7 being a high reving engine; with a redline less than 1000 rpm above the 5.2. There are many motors out there spinning much higher than that. 4.7 tows well too, pull a fifth wheel camper with mine.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
AndrewM
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/07/2005
15:05:15
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
I took the liberty to plot the torque from all three dynos posted on the same graph for a better comparion. The difference in scale between the three graphs make a comparision tough. This plot makes it easy to compare the three dynos:
|
TexasTodd
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/07/2005
17:24:35
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Was that duner with his turbo?
I made 292rw ft/lbs, with the 87 octane SC tuner and my other stuff, NA. 288rw ft/lbs w/o the tuner.
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/07/2005
17:45:09
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Looks like that was before the turbo.
Good job Andrew !
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
AndrewM
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/07/2005
19:21:24
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
I used the red line (baseline) from Duner's graph on page 1.
|
NoDak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/12/2005
22:16:50
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
What's the difference between the red and green lines on Duner's graph? Isn't that more than the 5.9's make?
|
Ryan
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/15/2005
22:53:46
|  RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
what are the stock specs for the 5.2 v8 dakota? thanks guys
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/16/2005
07:32:37
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
I listed stock specs for both motors on the previous page - did you read the whole thread ?
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
1/16/2005
14:05:47
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
those are some crappy torque curves post on the last page.
my stock (stock 70K mile plugs, wires, cap and rotor.. etc etc etc) 5.2 in my durango has a pretty damn flat torque curve.
If i had a working scanner, i'd scan it
max torque was 261 rwtq.. not bad for stock. Stayed with my friends modded 4.7 5 speed and more torque than my other friends modded 4.7 auto.
from 2100 rpms to 4000 rpms it's above 250 tq at the wheels.
from 1700 to 4500 rpms it's above 200 tq at the wheels.
not bad IMO
i'll see if i can get the graph scanned soon
|
TexasTodd
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/16/2005
20:22:15
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
INtense,
I guess that's pretty good.
My 4.7, With the Jeep HO cams, and no third cat, and without the slight gain from my new SC tuner.
I wish I could scan mine from 1/6/2005. That was w/o any tuner.
They started it from a roll, in 4th gear(manual, 3.55 rear end)at 2100.
From 2100-2600-completely flat torque curve,
260 ft/lbs, then rose to a peak of 288.26ft/lbs @ 3600rpm. At the rear wheels, of a Quad cab LSD.
I say again, without any tuner.
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
1/16/2005
20:52:22
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
288 is pretty good...
i'd like to get that with my automatic but it will probably take more than a muffler swap
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
1/16/2005
21:16:34
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
here look at this
http://www.dodgetrucks.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60629
SC tuner knocked almost half a second off his 1/4 and 4 mph faster
also gained him a dyno proven 13 rwhp and 25 rwtq
|
TexasTodd
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/17/2005
18:14:38
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
I know it's true, I've seen it somewhere else also.
I wanted to read the post, but the link said it no longer exists? Got a better link.
As I said, I know it's true, as are my dyno results.
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
1/17/2005
18:50:42
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
sorry... they moved that post to another forum
http://www.dodgetrucks.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60628
|
TexasTodd
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/18/2005
15:45:10
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
INtense,
Thanks,
Funny, that my 'stock'(non SC tuner) motor, Puts this thing to shame. I guess all the research I've done chose some pretty good mods, most of which were free, except the HO cams and intake, which I did so long ago, both cams, and the intake only cost me about $230 total.
Our graphs curves look rather identical, just move mine up a bit. I laid down 227rwhp, and 300rwtq on the SC's.
|
LaserAWD
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/22/2005
15:29:58
|  RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey, that's my dyno graph and post on the other board. Found this board when I saw the web stats for linking to my dyno graph posted on my website.
Texas Todd - yes your non-tuner graph looks better, but you can't compare apples to oranges. You have cams, exhaust work and a ported TB where as all of that on my truck is stock. All I have done, other than the tuner, is a Volant CAI (bought used $75), removed my clutch fan (free) so for the price I think I did alright.
I was also a test truck for Superchips so I got my tuner for free :) Only cost me about $60 in gas to drive down to there shop and back, so for only $135 in mods I'd say my truck is doing alright ;)
Either way I'm happy with my trucks 1/4 mile times and am looking forward to a pulley and exhaust in the near future.
And for everyone talking about the gains not being what Superchips advertised I think my dyno proves they are correct. You also have to notice that SuperChips advertises max gains and not peak gains. I have places in my graph that are over 20+ hp at the wheels and over 30+ tq at the wheels.
Hope that helps everyone and I'm glad to see my dyno graph is getting around.
|
| | <<Original Post <<Previous Page P 2 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
