| From | Message |
intensedak39
*GenIII*
10/24/2005
14:28:19
|
 Subject: RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
low 9.3s = 9.47
hahaha!!
|
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
10/25/2005
11:25:09
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
I dont feel like updating my member profile intensedak39....im lazy :P
1999 RC Auto 5.2L
Mopar PPH, Magnaflow 3" w/cut-out, 3.90s/Suregrip, 50mm Fastman TB
Track Times:
9.47 @ 72.21mph
14.89 @ 91.33 mph
|
intensedak39
*GenIII*
10/25/2005
13:58:41
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
haha!!
|
realdakotar/t
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/15/2007
08:29:04
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
all of you are joking yourselves if you read the specs on the r/t vs 4.7 the 100 or so extra lbs does not shadow the fact of 20 to 30 more horse power or the fact if you hypertech them the r/t has 25 to 35 more horsepower plus the r/t has over 350lbs of torque i do believe torque is what gives you the jump on the go and if i am correct the 4.7 is at least 100 ftlbs short of the r/t. i have a 99 r.c. r/t and i race you slow pokes all the time even when i had a blown tranny i beat you 5.2,s and 4.7's now that my tranny is fixed by the time you half ass racers hit the gas im at the next light. ive beat the new g.t. mustang that was funny only if you could see the poor little guys face it was like when you take a kids toy away or like when the bullies pick on you at school (and by you i mean all of you who bought a 5.2 thinking that it would compete, and all you mustang owners) sorry you guys couldnt understand the meaning of race technology while you were at the dealer picking up your turtle. you might be more efficient but since when does efficientcy equal power. (oh thats right in your own minds)well get a clue and come to reality you are like a little boy in a mans world there is no competing. and by the way the r/ts bigger rims weigh way less than your 15s shipping weight from the dealer is 8 lbs yes thats right 8lbs. put that in your pipe and smoke it(god knows your truck wont)
|
Tired
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/15/2007
10:36:02
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Everyone knows that the fat RTs can,t shift for themselfs. Thats why the 4,7s "stick" it to them with almost 80 cubes less. Im getting rubber in third while the RTs are trying to figure out why they lost.(hey man, I blew my trans.) By the way, mine came on 16s and RT rims are still porky. Now-Let the tongue racing begin..
|
1hotkadota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/16/2007
01:13:05
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
The realdakotar/t says,
"you might be more efficient but since when does efficientcy equal power."
What are you a retard?
The 4.7 is 73ci smaller than a 5.9 but makes only 20hp less. That works out to .800 hp per cubic inch, to your .695 hp in the R/T. Torque is better too at 1.03lbft/ci compared to .958lbft/ci in the R/T.
"plus the r/t has over 350lbs of torque i do believe torque is what gives you the jump on the go and if i am correct the 4.7 is at least 100 ftlbs short of the r/t."
Last I heard, the R/T makes only 345lbft compared to the 4.7's 295. I'm no mathematician, but I think thats only 50 lb ft.
So, if you have done the math, by now you would have discovered that theoretically, a 4.7L bumped up to 360ci would make 288 hp and 370lbft vs. a stock R/T with 250hp and 345lbft.
Welcome to reality
|
?????
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/16/2007
06:11:05
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Are you sure the mustang even knew that there was a race, or- did he just see a puppy do a burnout at the lites and you claimed a win?
|
2002 R/T
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/16/2007
21:17:44
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
2002 reg cab r/t bolt ons with 100shot
12.8@107
|
Shoe
GenIII
5/16/2007
21:24:31
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
'97 RC 2.5 5-speed... 10.0 in the 1/4. Oh Yeah!!!
'97 RC V6, 5spd, soon to be V8, 5spd!
|
Kid next door
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/17/2007
06:23:06
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
The kid next door has a 91 LX 5.0 with 200,000 that cost less than your no2 kit and runs 12.9 on used drag radials. Need more bang for the buck.
|
USAF
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
5/17/2007
10:34:47
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Old chevy plus 500 pound bomb= 2 sec et. (mostly air time).
|
92jeep
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/22/2009
23:33:26
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
wow ya i dont even have the 4.7, i have the 4.0 H.O with a port and polish TB, true cold air intake, no header, straight exhaust dump before rear diff. cat delete, clutch fan delete, 180* thermo and even i can leave almost all stock gt mustangs. if no one realized, they have to be turbo'd, supercharged, or no2 to be fast. enough said
|
heykid
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/23/2009
06:11:49
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
First, you are talking to a two and a half year old thread... Second- you are full of---- about your jeep and GTs. period.
|
Big59er
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/01/2009
12:40:36
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
I have a club cab RT with a shaker hood and a Mopar PCM. I haven't done anything else to it since 2002 except for much better tires. However, I've beaten Trail Blazer SS'es from a dead stop on 2 occasions, even in all of the SS'es LS2 glory. I would suppose if a 5-speed 4.7ho had the edge on me, it would also have an edge on the SS right? (logically?)
Also a Club Cab Dakota R/T only weighs a little over 4100lbs. If you think that's fat, the Challenger and the Charger both weigh as much as that. (Before all of you get excited I'd trade my RT for a Challenger in a heart beat.)
I don't know... I really wish the RT would have came with a 5 or a 6-speed (especially after watching those Keisler 6-speed RT videos on youtube) but I have to say the lack of ability for the 46RE to shift properly is easily remedied in the form of a shift kit.
I haven't posted on this forum since 2002/2003 either, I forgot how entertaining it is. :^)
|
brett s
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/05/2011
22:19:58
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
I would have to give this one to the 5.9, due to the fact my dad had a 98 extended cab ram 1500 4x4 with the 5.9 and the truck used to break your neck when you laid into it, i beat alot of chevy and ford 1500's in the truck on the road. it wasn't even moded other than a magnaflow muffler. I now own a 95 c/cab slt dakota 4x4 with the 5.2 and it doesnt really have that snap of the 5.9 if i could afford it i would swap to the 5.9 in a heart beat.
|
super bee
GenI
4/22/2011
08:23:47
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
odd, i raced my little brothers 95 318 dakota (the engine is now the one in my 1990) with my 01 Ram 1500 360
the ram was toast, dakota left me behind
1990 sport RC SB, 1995 318drivetrain, 3.92 gears (came with truck) Powertrax "traction system", 95 dash/steering wheel, hearthrob exhaust, headers, cutout after y-pipe, necessary electric fan add-a-leafs, 30x9.5 mud tires, cranked T-bars, AR 39 15x8 rims, grill guard, roll bars
|
pete
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/20/2012
21:36:04
|  RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
My 01' 5 speed single cab short bed 4.7L
snaps the rearend so fast open
demand.id rather have my truck as is.
itdoesn't matter about the stock hp. Id
rather feel my truck, then be another
retard with only a gas pedal. With my
intakeand dual exhaust i smoked gts and
350Zs all day long
|
levi armstron
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/13/2012
10:26:49
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
I have a 5.9 98 Dakota an a 20 punch it
loses control an ridiculous acceleration. I
beat a 4.8 Chevy with a lot of aftermarket
parts. Ha I was leaving him while I was
fishtailing. I love the Dakotas
|
| | <<Original Post <<Previous Page P 2 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
