| From | Message |
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
1/03/2005
02:41:17
|
 Subject: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Just curious on how "flat the torque band is on
a 4.7L dakota."
The other weekend I had my truck dynoed and
I put a decently flt torque band from 2400-4000
rpms. It stayed about 215-250 the whole time
climbing ever so slightly but still looked pretty
flat and broad. I raced 2000 R/T CC w/ the
same mods as me minus the shift kit and we
went from a roll doing about 45 and by the
time I hit 75 he was about 3/4 truck back. I
Bought this truck in the summer and have no
idea the actual history or even earlier mods
but as far as I can tell Its stock.
Can anyone tell me If I have a chance in racing
a RC 4.7L 5 speed with 3.55 LSD. Does
anyone think wth a decent driver I could hang
with hime close. I have a buddy who thinks he
can completly mess me up...but he doesnt
know what he runs in the quarter and he
knows my times are very close to R/T times. I
have 3.55 with open differential and will spin
that one tire half way through second gear if I
just gun it off the line. Traction problems will
be bad so we are going to take them to the
trakc. BTW his is a 2001 bone stock and mine
is a 99 with mods and times below.
Any Ideas??
Thanks!
Mike
1999 RC Auto 5.2L
Flowmaster 40 series, Homemade CAI, Shift Kit
Track Times: 60' - 2.188
1/8 - 9.75 @72 mph
1/4 -15.42 @ 89 mph
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/03/2005
16:17:00
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
He'll likely beat you, but it shouldn't be too embarrassing. Maybe you'll get lucky and he'll miss a shift. The torque doesn't drop off as fast in the higher rpms with a 4.7, and the lighter reciprocating parts are happy to spin up quickly.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
AndrewM
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/03/2005
16:55:46
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Here's the dyno of my 2002 4.7. Only mods are HO cams and 360 AirIntakez. Torque band isn't very flat at all. Starts dropping off about 3,800. Not sure if this graph is typical of all 4.7s.
|
AndrewM
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/03/2005
16:59:31
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Compare that dyno to my friend's Mustang 5.0. Granted, he's got significant mods to it, but his graph shows you what a flat torque curve looks like.
|
And
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/03/2005
17:25:42
|  RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
The torque band on a 5.2 drops off even faster...
|
Dakota52318
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/03/2005
18:12:44
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
How do you insert pics, Ive got one of the 5.2 Tq curve and of the 5.9 They both are very flat, however at the crank, but very comparable to the 4.7, if not higher. Comes out of the moap magnum engine book.
Seems like his took a nose dive for some reason though, thats crazy.
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/04/2005
17:10:26
|  RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Not according to the graphs from Dodge that I'm looking at - 5.2 has dropped below 200 lb-ft at 5000 rpm and that's all she wrote, but 4.7 is about 270 lb-ft at 5000 rpm and still 240 at 5500.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
huh?
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/04/2005
18:10:40
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
why are you quoting torque specs above the red line on the 5.2? It is supposed to fall on its face when you rev it that high. The point is that it's a nice low-revving engine. Rev your 4.7 to 8,000rpm and quote me the torque figures, hehe :-)
I'd like to see a comparison from idle to 4000rpm between the two 8's.
|
because
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/04/2005
18:48:35
|  RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
some trash was being talked about the 5.2 having torque "comparable to the 4.7, if not higher".
|
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
1/05/2005
01:39:53
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Well can anyone tell me why my torque curve
is pretty flat...if I showed you the graph then I
bet some people wouldnt even think it was a
5.2 at all. I am pushing like max h.p. of 179
h.p. at 4000 rpm and max torque of 250 ft. lbs
at like 3300 rpms and drops off but very slowly
until it hit about 4100 and then it starts to nose
dive a bit.
I will have to try to post the dyno chart asap to
show you how mean this graph looks for the
torque perpespective.
Mike
1999 RC Auto 5.2L
Flowmaster 40 series, Homemade CAI, Shift Kit
Track Times: 60' - 2.188
1/8 - 9.75 @72 mph
1/4 -15.42 @ 89 mph
|
tractorguy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/05/2005
09:55:40
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Ever seen a dyno chart from a tractor?
That's flat.
Do you have a tractor engine?
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/05/2005
17:01:35
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Torque charts can be confusing. Using the 2 charts in this thread for example, while the 4.7 is not as flat as the 5.0, the difference has been exagerated by the expanded scale of the torque numbers on the right of the graph. The scale of the graph can make a huge difference in appearence.
You wanted some torque #s at lower rpms?
1500 both motors about 240
5.2 peaks at 300 at about 3000
4.7 peaks at 295 about 3300
4000 rpm 4.7 about 290, 5.2 about 280
From there the 5.2 drops off much more quickly-
4500 rpm 4.7 about 280, 5.2 about 240
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
4.7 lover
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/05/2005
18:12:32
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Here's one that Duner posted a long time ago. It was before he had a turbo. It looks like his was making over 300 from 2800 till about 4500 and still making over 200 at 6000.
|
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
1/06/2005
00:37:43
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Here is my Dyno Chart...hopefully you can see now how decently flat my torque curve is. Otherwise I am going nuts!!
[img src="http://www.geocities.com/destroyerofworlds/mike.jpg"]
Mike
1999 RC Auto 5.2L
Flowmaster 40 series, Homemade CAI, Shift Kit
Track Times: 60' - 2.188
1/8 - 9.75 @71 mph
1/4 -15.42 @ 88 mph
|
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
1/06/2005
00:40:45
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Oops can someone help me with the tag for the jpeg??
Thanks
Mike
1999 RC Auto 5.2L
Flowmaster 40 series, Homemade CAI, Shift Kit
Track Times: 60' - 2.188
1/8 - 9.75 @71 mph
1/4 -15.42 @ 88 mph
|
AndrewM
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/06/2005
08:32:35
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Here ya go Mike:
|
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
1/06/2005
14:31:25
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Thanks AndrewM....could you tell me what I did
wrong so I can correct this mistake??
Thanks
Mike
1999 RC Auto 5.2L
Flowmaster 40 series, Homemade CAI, Shift Kit
Track Times: 60' - 2.188
1/8 - 9.75 @71 mph
1/4 -15.42 @ 88 mph
|
Wal
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/06/2005
21:05:01
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Kowalski - Mike's is an automatic and all the other runs I see are from 5 speed 4.7's or modified. Can you point me to a run for a stock automatic 4.7 so I can see where you are getting your info.
Thanks,
Wal
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/06/2005
21:42:14
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
Info is from '00 dealer sales literature.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
Wal
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/06/2005
21:55:04
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
yuck. OK, sorry but I don't believe any of your figures then; mfgrs routinely show bogus numbers. Seeing a run from a chassis dyno on a 4.7 with an automatic would be acceptable to me though. Of course, one might argue that the newers tranny is more efficient... but where then *do* we draw the line, haha. Of course then the argument continues wherin we're comparing a 6 model year old truck to a new one...
Wal
|
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
1/07/2005
01:32:32
| RE: 4.7L Torque Band vs. 5.2L
IP: Logged
Message:
So is my dyno decent or what??
Can anyone give me some input on how well I
did or didnt do on my dyno??
Mike
1999 RC Auto 5.2L
Flowmaster 40 series, Homemade CAI, Shift Kit
Track Times: 60' - 2.188
1/8 - 9.75 @71 mph
1/4 -15.42 @ 88 mph
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
