| From | Message |
rompn4x
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/16/2005
20:01:45
|
 Subject: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
After a 192,000 mile romp with my 93 Ranger 4.0 (and rolling it on the freeway) i've decided to go Mopar and look for a Dakota. Im just stuck between getting a 00-01 4.7 or staying with the tried and trusted 5.2 in 97-99 Dakotas. My questions are: Has the 4.7 proven itself to be as durable as the old 318? Does that multi second gear trans in the 4.7 really make a difference? Whats the gas mileage difference? And is it true 4.7's like to go through head gaskets every 40-50k miles? Any responces will be greatly appreciated. I want to make the right decision here and not make a mistake ill regret.
Mike
|
Old Fool
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/16/2005
23:09:11
|  RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
This may get a lot of debate, but you will be sorry in the long run if you do not get the 4.7L. Very Durable and better on gas than the 5.2L, with a tad more factory power than the 5.2L. I suggest the 5 speed manual instead of the auto.
Later,
|
Hemiman
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/17/2005
09:30:11
|  RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
I have a 02 4.7 with100k plus, NO THEY DO NOT HAVE HEAD GASKET PROBLEMS. I can get 21 MPG if I drive for mileage it is a 2wd ext. cab. The 4.7 has no oil leaks runs great and the trans is very good it is about the same trans behind the 5.7 hemi. Injoy
02 slt 2wd 4.7
03 PT Cruiser GT
67 Hemi Charger
83 RamPage (under const)
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
5/17/2005
13:50:34
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
either/or i say
both perform well and both give decent truck mileage if not hot-rodded
basically all the 4.7 guys are gonna say theirs is better while all the 5.2 guys are gonna say the 5.2 is better.
|
dak408
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/17/2005
14:14:32
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
Easier to mod and more mods available for the 5.2 if that's a concern to ya.
|
Dakota5.2
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/17/2005
16:00:29
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
Glad to have you aboard as a mopar owner. I have a 1992 Dodge Dakota with 5.2 Magnum with 228K on it. I am second owner and put most of the miles on it myself. I am biased though. Parts are available galore and cheap. Let us know what you what you get. Have you considered looking at a 5.9 Dakota?
Dakota 5.2
|
tc
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/19/2005
01:43:43
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
I've owned both the 5.2 and the 4.7 either one is a fine engine. IMHO the 5.2 has better low end grunt but the 4.7 pulls harder higher up in the rev range and is more fun to throw around. I much prefer my 46RE tranny over the 45whatever its called with the 4.7 It doesn't always behave - I towed with both and never had an engine problem or concern.
|
jay
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/19/2005
11:11:19
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
personally, ive heard of alot more problems with the 4.7's.
|
Spacinjason
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/19/2005
11:44:26
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
I've put over 73k on my '01 Quad cab with the 4.7L. I've had no problems with the engine at all. No oil leaks and I've never heard of any head gasket problems with these engines. I get about 15 MPG and drive it pretty aggressively, usually have my foot in it. Plenty of power and good torque. My buddy has a '98 Dak with the 5.2L and he has had no problems either. Both are good motors. There are more performance parts available for the 5.2L. I prefer the way my 4.7L drives over the 5.2L. It 'feels' more powerful and seems to accelerate quicker.
Spacinjason
'01 QC 4x4
4.7L, 5sp., 3.55 LSD
Magnaflow exhaust
|
Kowalski
GenIII
5/19/2005
15:41:18
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
No problems with my 4.7 either; 4.7s seem very trouble free. The 5.2 is known to have problems with the belly pan gasket, but there's a fix for that - still a good motor. The 4.7 gets the 45RFE or 545RFE auto tranny, seems more reliable than what's behind the 5.2.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
5/19/2005
16:00:55
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
more reliable than the older unit's definitely
they had a problem with the governor pressure solenoid. I test drove a 2002 4.7 durango and you could tell it had the shorter gearing in the tranny, but the 2000 5.2 durango i bought had more grunt to it.
both good choices IMO
|
kyle
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2008
05:12:51
|  RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
i was a wondering,i have a 97 with a 5.2 in it and if i drive like a grampa the best mileage im getting is around 10mpg, and im lookin at a 2000 with a 4.7 and i was wonderin if it would get any better mileage
|
maxx
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2008
11:40:09
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
I have an 01 4.7 4wd, way better than 10 mpg.
107 k on it and the only problems I have had is a
sheared exhaust manifold bolt and recently had to replace the throttle positioning sensor. But I also need to replace the ignition switch and clock spring.
Best mileage is about 19 and the worst is about 13-14 mpg.
|
TexasTodd
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2008
15:00:40
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
133,000 on my 4.7, 2001 Quad cab. Trouble free, no oil usage or leaking, none. Plenty of low end grunt, especially with the HO cams.
You're considering getting an auto tranny? Why?
|
navyguy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2008
23:54:04
|  RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
I have a 2000 extended cab 4x4 4.7 auto tranny with just over 50k. I've added the airaid intake, flowmaster exhaust, a superchips tuner, and a 3" lift. I drive my truck very hard both on and off road. The only problems I have had with it is a squeaking universal and my bushings are starting to crack (all due to spending some time submerged in the mud). All in all it's a great truck. It has plenty of power and speed (even when it was stock). Around town I get about 14 mpg and on the highway I've averaged as high as 19.7. The biggest downside, as far as I can tell, is the lack of available mods.
|
chris
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/04/2008
02:08:31
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
hey im new here, i drive a 2000 dakota, extended cab, sport, it has a 4.7 w/ manual trans, 2 wheel drive. i noticed a ticking sound(thinking it was the lifters) so i checked the oil it was a little low. When i went to add some i took off the oil cap and noticed the top of the cap was all milky white. I took it to firestone and they told they wont touch it because they say its a head gasket problem. I've been driving it all day the oil pressure is fine, its not over heating. Can anyone tell me what might be going on? thanks chris
|
maxx
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/04/2008
10:41:04
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
STOP DRIVING it immediatly, you do have a head gasket problem. The milky white is the coolant mixing with the oil. Antifreeze will eat all the crank bearings and rod bearings up. Then you will have a very expensive fix. It happened to me in a chevy I had a long time ago. Best of luck
|
daddio
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/04/2008
11:27:40
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
that's NOT a head gasket problem. most of the earlier 4.7's have that. moisture seems to collect in the top of the oil filler tube. search on here for some old posts and you'll see.
now if it was milky looking on the dipstick, then i'd worry.
|
dude
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/04/2008
11:32:12
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
quoted chris: "When i went to add some i took off the oil cap and noticed the top of the cap was all milky white"
This subject has been talked about many times...
Many 4.7's do that in cold weather, it's called 'oil emulsion' due to the design and location of the PCV valve. It created a white/yellow 'foam' inside the oil filler tube.
Cold weather / short trips make it worst.
Clean out the foamy stuff from the oil filler tube, keep an eye on it for a week, "normal"
accumulation might take 3-4 weeks.
Do a compression check, or pressure test the cooling system.
That 'foam' in the 4.7 oil filler tube
doesn't mean it's a leaky head gasket!
|
navyguy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/06/2008
08:11:40
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
My 4.7 did the same thing about a year ago. I had a engine flush done and switched to semi-synthetic oil. The problem seems to have gone away.
|
Tnjones
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/08/2008
00:55:21
| RE: 4.7 vs. 5.2
IP: Logged
Message:
They are both great motors. It depends on what you want to do with them. Stock for stock the 4.7 is faster. Not my opinion, proven by car and driver. The 318 has a little more power, but the 4.7 more than makes up for that in weight savings making it quicker in the 1/4 mile. If your wanting to modify, it depends on how far you want to go. With hemispherical heads, a stock roller valve train, the highest compression you want on pump gas and a bottom end that's made to turn high RPM's, the 4.7 comes almost maxed out right out of the crate. The only mods that are effective (without robbing a bank to pay for them anyway) are a cam swap and a pcm flash or reprogramming. The cam swap is almost as easy as replacing a valve cover gasket and can easily be done in an afternoon even if you've never been inside a motor in your life and with tools you probably already have in your shop.
If your wanting to go all out and add the roller valve train, heavy duty bottom end, aluminum heads ported for high RPM's, Headers (the 4.7 stock manifolds are as light and free flowing as most headers) raise the compression, etc., etc., you CAN have a more powerful engine with the 318. After all, there's no substitute for cubic inches! In my opinion, if your interested in max power through major mods, go 318. If your looking for thr most bang for your buck with minimal mods, the 4.7 is the way to go.
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
