| From | Message |
Brian22
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/20/2005
20:23:24
|
 Subject: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
who do you guys will think will win?
|
toolfan
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/20/2005
20:45:39
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
the 5.2 you left out.
|
daddio
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/20/2005
20:48:46
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
good one toolfan! LOL
|
toolfan
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/20/2005
21:06:00
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
how about which engine will last longer?
2.5-3.7-3.9-4.7-5.2-5.9
put them in order form longest to shortest.
|
lol
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/20/2005
23:27:35
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
those engines in order of owners that dont need to start stupid posts like this...
everyone knows 5.9 reigns supreme, regardless of what those dual cam queers think
|
toolfan
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/21/2005
01:54:40
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
to answer the Q the 360 still has more tq but the 4.7 is lighter and will probably rev quicker dew to have the ohc. you leave the 318 out like it's slow but i think you need to beat the 318 before you go for the 360. here is my number when you want to race 661-860-0182. 318 cc 3.55 peg leggier and i know your scared.:0
|
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
10/21/2005
09:42:46
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Stock with a flowmaster I can beat a cc R/T and hold very very close to a RC R/T
MO POWA to the lil 318!!
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
|
4.7onNO2
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/21/2005
15:14:14
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
I have 2 R/T under my belt with just ho cams and ported 68 mm tb. Could just be driver though. I did loose one race though but he had a license plate that said blownrt so i dont feel to bad about it. I had him for about 60 ft then it was all over.
|
Brian22
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/21/2005
20:29:26
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
the reason i left the 318 out of it, was because the 4.7 HO is Dodge's replacement for the 5.9 (thats what i've been told)... nothing against the 318, i have a 318 in my 97 cc 4x4
|
Kowalski
GenIII
10/22/2005
08:59:51
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Toolfan - the reason the 4.7 revs quickly is not so much the overhead cam, but the lighter reciprocating weight overall. It would be silly to expect a 5.2 to compete against a 5.9 when the 5.9 is basically a 5.2 with more displacement. There are some minor differences; but none that would allow a stock 5.2 to be competitive against a 5.9. It's great some of you are so faithful to your 5.2s, but lets be realistic here. Between the nice power the 4.7 has at higher revs and the advantage of a more efficient transmission, regular 4.7s with 3.92 gears and a manual transmission have beat 5.9 R/Ts; I don't think that can be said for the 5.2.
As to the original question, I believe the lighter truck would win, isn't the newer 4.7 HO heavier ?
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
10/22/2005
21:13:18
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Actually Kowalski, I have seen a couple stock gen3s with a rc 5 spd. 3.92s beat stock R/Ts...the advantage just like the 4.7l is weight.
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
|
01Motorsport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/22/2005
21:35:53
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Since the lightest 2005-up Dak CC is over 4200 pounds, this performance comparison really only applies to pre-2005 Daks.
|
shannon
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/22/2005
22:26:35
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
I have taken care of 2 rt's with my stock rc 4.7 5 speed. The 360 (5.9) is one of the most bad ass small blocks in proper tune. Especally with magnum heads. The problem is tune. A properly tuned 360 emits a lot of polution because if its big bore. Therefore dodge has to detune them to meet emisions. The 4.7 was designed to meet emisions from the start. It has a small bore which is emisions friendly and has its rings located higher on the piston (emisions friendly also). Thats why the 4.7 can be tuned more agressivley. Both motors are held back severely from the factory due to timing and exaust. (the h pipe on the 4.7 makes me want to puke its so small and kinked) Take a stock 5.9 rt, add a eldebrok rpm intake, 750 holly, and run a msd distributor (timing set to 35 total mechanical advance) with the msd box and true duels and you'll have a high 13 second truck.
|
4.7
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/23/2005
09:31:20
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Actually Mike, Kowalski is right, for the reasons he claimed. He never said anything about different cab sizes. Once you get to drive a 5.9 you will understand your 5.2 is not king of the hill ! Nice to be faithful to what you are driving, but please get a clue.
|
Mopar318
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/23/2005
10:27:52
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
My first time at the track with my 96 RC, 318, auto, I beat 2 RC R/T's and 1 CC R/T, And I was stock, they were lightly modded. I beat the CC R/T by almost a full second....5.2 cant compete? yeah right....
|
4.7
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/23/2005
10:57:13
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
Just goes to show mods need to be well planned to work together. People who don't realize that often lose power when they modify.
|
pete
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/23/2005
12:16:16
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
not to mention most people dont get the right tires to get that extra power to the ground. a lot of people get slower as they pile on the mods because of increased tire spin, and they kill their ET before they even get past the first cone.
|
toolfan
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/23/2005
13:10:26
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
i just got bfgoodrich radial T/A and I'm very happy. the tires were $435 and are p275/60/15. my truck use to under steer when i would go around corners at high speed and now it just throws you against the window. it still will spin of the line but i don't think it will through 1st and 2nd like my old tires would.
|
intensedak39
*GenIII*
10/23/2005
13:32:24
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
5.2 regular cab genIII's have the possibility of being quicker (not faster) in the 1/4 because the drivetrain weighs less.. including the wheels. At a local track, there was a local RC 5.2 5 speed genIII that was knocking off 9.2's (1/8th) with just a home brew intake, shiatting flowtech headers, a flowmaster exhaust and some E.T streets. Pretty damn good for a 5.2 with just minor bolt-on IMO. Put those same mods on a RC R/T and you'll be lucky to get 9.7's down here in DFW.
now put that already-lighter drivetrain in an even lighter genII, and i'd hope you'd beat a heavy-a$$ R/T.
i think sport truck magazine did a comparo between a R/T and a 4.7, and the 4.7 was just a tad quicker down the 1/4 mile each time.. which shows the lighter weight. the 5.9 had a higher MPH.. which shows the extra power.
|
toolfan
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/23/2005
13:42:17
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
there all good motors, but wait!
should int we be putting Dodge against Chevy or Ford?
i almost forgot that they cant keep up unless its a Lighten or a SS. pussy they have to have more motor or be s/c to win!
|
Mikes99Dakota
GenIII
10/24/2005
10:03:00
| RE: 4.7 HO vs. 5.9 R/T
IP: Logged
Message:
4.7 Dont worry about me not having a clue cause I have one and BTW I drove my friends same mods as minein his R/T and I wasnt impressed at all...matter fact It felt like I had more low end grunt then he did and we are both RCs and both have same gearing.....so yes 360s are great and Im not knocking on them but its not the king of the hill either IMO.
Plus I am knocking off low 9.3s in the 1/8th with my new m1 and I am launching very easy off the line with no ETs streets.
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
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
