| From | Message |
Johnny5
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/20/2005
11:10:00
|
 Subject: RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
Lets just agree that 4.7's don't suck. Mine's pretty good in the ol quad cab. I'd still like to drop my 438 big block in if it wasn't such a PITA (pain in the ass) to swap...
|
blakels
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/20/2005
12:13:15
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
Having owned both a '93 5.2 and an '04 4.7, I have to agree with IntenseDak that the 1/2 gear ratios on the 4.7 give it alot more "seat of the pants" acceleration feeling. But after it hits 3rd it kind of falls on it's face where the 5.2 is just gettin started. I do like the 4.7 though, it's very smooth and quiet, doesn't have that thrashy valvetrain noise the OHV's do.
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
8/20/2005
12:14:14
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
you're right kowalski.. looks like graphite started the debate.. haha!!
as to one person that thought i was trying to compare my big block to stock motors... i wasnt. I was comparing Bore X Stroke.
It's not that one stroke/bore combination is better than another... it's what you want in your motor and how you use it. Sure a 451 (400BB + 440 crank) would have all kinds of low end torque, but it would be rather "slow" to rev. My motor is 4.342" bore x 3.375" stroke and lemme tell you, it's one fast revving motor... which is what my truck needs/wants. Short tires, Short gears, and one fast revving motor makes for one quick pickup truck that's been lightened.
I know i'm comparing big blocks but that's more of what i know now.
Look at fords new undersquare 300 hp 5.4. Longer stroke than bore... that design is gonna keep the reliability and longevity of the motor to a minumum as the long stroke puts increased pressure on the narrow bore. It's still a good motor... but i wouldnt expect them to take the abuse that a shorter stroke motor could.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
8/20/2005
12:59:58
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
You going to blame ME for this debate intense???
Although I agree that the 400 is one surprisingly fast reving engine! I had driven one for a while. I think that BB reved faster than a SB Chevy 350!
As soon as you floor it it's at redline!
The 318 will ALWAYS be known as probably the LONGEST lasting V8 gas engine. No arguments there.
But it was old school and they made a new engine. The 4.7 with the 5-45RFE is a good setup and has lots of get up and go. Even when it was bone stock it ran great and had a good throaty sound even with stock exhaust.
One thing about a 4.7 that I like is that is a high reving engine yet DOES make more torque at the low RPM's than you would EXPECT. It's not like the Chevy 4.8 at all when you drive it where you wait till 4K for that power to really come on. But it does rev over 6K and don't mind it.
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
8/20/2005
13:48:26
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
hell yeah i'm gonna blame you!! haha!!
... and i quote;
"The 4.7 makes MORE power all around and then some over the 5.2 and can even rival the 5.9 in some cases." - graphite
that was the first mention of anything other than a 4.7 in this thread... haha, busted!!
being quicker in the 1/4 mile dont make it all around more powerful. Like i said before, i've seen the dyno's that prove that.
.. and by no means am i saying the 4.7 is a bad motor. I'd rather replace an intake manifold on a 4.7 than any LA based motor.... but my BB comes out on top with that... 10 swap (you know how that goes graphite).
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
8/21/2005
23:47:12
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
Yeah. I guess you have to add EVRYTHING in together. NEwer engine PLUS newer tranny makes it perform like the older bigger engines.
I should have explained the 5.9 performance comparison too. Just noting that many people with the 4.7 5 speed manual have actually equalled or beaten som 5.9 R/T's in 1/4 mile stock to stock. Doesn't mean it has more power per say. Just with given combinations, some things just work out for the best.
As far as Dodge engines go. They DON'T make a BAD engine. Let's just say that!
If I can get the room and talk my wife into it, I may be getting a Plymouth Duster to build.
Chances will be, I'll have an old LA engine it it. MAYBE a 400. :p
|
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
8/22/2005
11:13:13
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey its been while since i posted but to let you know my 5.2L made 181 rwhp and 252 ft.lbs.
Greg Durangos with the 5.2L may have a slightly performance gain cause of the extra weight. It still out weighs a ram RC.
Now I have no clue what my 5.2L makes but I have never lost to a 4.7L around my mods.
SO far I have
3.90/Suregrip
Viper Fan
50mm Fastman TB
PPH Mids and Single 3"
I am running in my RC 5.2L Auto 14.88s @ 91 moh and thats with a 2.18 60' on cheap street tires Dayton Daytonas!
4.7L is a good motor but my torque curve is more broad than any 4.7L dyno I have seen!
1999 RC Auto 5.2L
Bulet Glasspack, K&N FIPK, Viper Electric Fan Kit
Track Times: 60' - 2.223
1/8 - 9.78 @70.37 mph
1/4 -15.33 @ 88.16 mph
|
whatever
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/22/2005
17:14:30
|  RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
Performance gain due to extra weight ?
Relevance to original thread ?
|
Bubba
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/22/2005
18:42:38
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
My new 4.7 couldnt touch my 2000 5.9. With that said, I can actually afford to drive my 4.7 with the gas the way it is.
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
8/22/2005
20:48:12
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
Mikey you lost me on that weight/hp gain..
.. and your truck is slow ;-)
haha!!
and here's why i believe my durango might just be a bastardly motor.
mikes made 181/252 while mine made 184/261
mikes mods*:
aftermarket exhaust
headers
electric fan
mopar pcm
aftermarket throttle body
K&N FIPK
my mods:
non
*mike please correct any of these mods if they didnt pertain to the dyno.. i figured maybe you didnt have the throttle body or headers when that was done.
i also just noticed you posted your mods and i dont feel like changing my post.. lol..
i'm waiting for another guy that has a 4.7 durango to do some work... we're trying to do like items and dyno to see the progress. We both now have the same flowmaster muffler on and awaiting dynoing.
|
WELL
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/22/2005
21:33:12
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
to me, the 4.7 is a strong motor so far, as long as I had it, I have 82,000 miles and it still runs strong.
it is pretty peppy, with mods it is very peppy,
stockwise, it may not have the same low end grunt as the 5.2, but with the right gears, and the right mods, all is well.
hitting 3rd, I can light up the tires at 60 mph, it leaves a black strip. that is with 32 inch Tires and 3.55 gears as well, I think that is pretty impressive.
the Tuner, Intake and Throttle body helped out for the top end, and I can tell a difference in mid to top end, where as the headers, exaust, and cams helped in the low end department.
all I need now is a little help from powertrax, and a gear swap, hopefully to 4.10s
01 CC 4x4 5-Speed Manual 3.55 4.7
HO cams, KN FIPK II, Gibson Headers, F/B 70mm TB, 40 Series Flowmaster, SuperChips 3715 Tuner.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
8/23/2005
01:02:29
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
My brother in law just ported his TB on his 2000 RC 2WD RAM 5.2 4.10's (but taller tires than me), PowerTrax or something similar. I know he's LOCKED. I have to let my tires down to 20PSI and that probably hurts my higher speeds.
He also has true duals dumped after the glass packs (sounds funky under the cab if you ask me).
We raced again at Speedworld last saturday.
I changed my SuperChips down to 87 octane. Put my second deep cycle battery back in, etc.
I only ran 1/10th slower than with the 91 setting! So there you have it. I may have needed more octane than the 91 pump gas for all I know.
The last run we both had our wives with us. I don't know why, but mine didn't even spin the tires on the last run, I ran 3/10ths slower than the earlier run and he ran his best which then seperated us by ONLY 1/10th! He actually had a chance for a bit, actually had his bumper ahead by a smidge then I pulled it out and he was pissed :p
But I can say him porting his TB he gained 7/10ths from the time before!
I better get on the ball or he may just beat me soon :(
I also think the NEWER 4.7's most likely have more pep than the first series. Remember they changed the intakes and TB but never re rated them.
|
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
8/23/2005
09:40:20
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
BTW Greg, I was talking about how like the rams with the 5.9L or whatever had factory advanced timing because they were much heavier than a dakota. I was thinking the same with your truck.
BTW when I dynoed my truck all i had was a flowmaster, nothing else ; )
1999 RC Auto 5.2L
Bulet Glasspack, K&N FIPK, Viper Electric Fan Kit
Track Times: 60' - 2.223
1/8 - 9.78 @70.37 mph
1/4 -15.33 @ 88.16 mph
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
8/23/2005
14:21:16
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
just the flowmaster?? cool
still weak.. haha!!
|
Bad Sport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/23/2005
17:41:33
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
I was pretty impressed with the dyno readings I got that day with my 4.7: 196 HP and 259 TQ. The only mod was the superchips and a K&N Drop in.
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
8/23/2005
17:52:20
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
not bad!!!
i forgot you dynoed yours too.
Wonder what the superchips was worth?
|
Bad Sport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/23/2005
19:55:48
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
I dunno, I already had the 91 octane performance program installed. I never got a baseline pull stock.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
8/23/2005
22:22:48
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
I still think NONE of them 3 V8 engines suck. PERIOD!
All of them have mods you can do to them within reason. Older ones have MORE mods available.
Stock to stock I bet they are fairly comparable. The 5.9 having the most down low TQ I'm sure.
Funny thing is the argument is kinda dumb. Unless you buy a USED Dakota you don't have much of a choice in picking what V8 you get. Now it's HO or non HO.
I asked for a 5.9 in mid Summer when I bought mine. They didn't have on on any of the lots. This truck was the only one with what I wanted.
It's a damn good truck I think. And I kind of like having a V8 that revs as high as a 4 banger!
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
8/24/2005
09:24:19
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
lol... i've got two V8's that rev pretty high.
my 5.2 will rev to like 5000 rpms but my 400 revs to 6000 while still making power. It could probably go a little higher if i had a roller valvetrain on it and not the flat-tappet lifters.
my 89 3.9 only revs to about 4000 though.. quits making power at about 3500... haha!!
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
8/24/2005
23:54:51
| RE: 4.7s suck
IP: Logged
Message:
You talking WITHOUT the turbo for that 3.9?
That's funny your 400 out revs the 5.2 (only because of the 5.2 set up).
I believe it though. Them 400's reved like a mo fo. And 6k is nothing for my 4.7 but power cripples at 6200 and more slowly pulls to 6500. I need "retune" the biatch to release some more ponies up top. But not until I go with some diff gears.
|
| | <<Previous Page P 2 Next Page>> |
