| From | Message |
Mathieu82
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2005
13:06:01
|
 Subject: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
Hi, I want to know how much HP I can get of more If a put a M1 intake manifold at the place of my H.O intake manifold. Does it really make a difference?
I Have a 2002 4,7L dakota equiped with a Paxton supercharger, Gibson headers and Borla Kat-Back system.
|
stumpy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/26/2005
14:52:34
|  RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
First off if I'm not mistaken you can't buy the M1 Intake manifold for a 4.7l because its made for an overhead valve engine whitch are the 5.2l and the 5.9l, secondly the HO manifold is your only and best bet for the 4.7L, because its made for an over head camshaft which the 4.7l is.
Stumpy
Silver 01 R/T
|
Zach
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/27/2005
02:00:23
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
What stumpy said, the M1 is for the 5.2 and 5.9 engines, while the HO is for the 4.7.
|
caulk04
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/27/2005
19:46:12
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
I will correct the OHV (overhead valve) comment though. All three of the 4.7, 5.2 and the 5.9 are overhead valve engines, the 5.2 and 5.9 and pushrod type engines while the 4.7 is, as you said, overhead cam.
|
stumpy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2005
11:56:36
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
I'm sorry if i wasn't that specific.
Stumpy
Silver 01 R/T CC
|
caulk04
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2005
15:05:15
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
No big deal, wasn't accusing anything...just clarifying.
|
Kramer
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/13/2007
22:15:59
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
Would this be the same intake manifold as the 2001 jeep grand cherokee 4.7? is the jeep 4.7 similar? sorry for intruding, just thought about flashing the pcm on my jeep :) http://www.bgperformancepcm.com/
either the premium flash at the top or the prowler flash near the bottem, all i have now is a afe intake system, thanks for anyones input!
|
01Motorsport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/14/2007
12:11:04
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
The first 4.7's were in Jeep Grand Cherokees in 1999, and Dodge Dakotas in 2000. The Jeep 4.7 HO engine appeared in 2002. The 2002 HO intake manifold became a "running change" as the standard 4.7 engine's intake manifold in 2003. The only performance difference between the two is that the HO/2003-up intake manifold raises the peak torque and horsepower curves upward 500 rpm. I personally like the torque/typical street characteristics of the pre-HO manifold on my '01 4.7. With HO cams, the dyno shows my truck's peak torque at 3440 rpm, which is real sweet.
|
TexasTodd
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/14/2007
13:46:34
|  RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
What does your RW torque peak at?
|
Kowalski
GenIII
11/14/2007
16:52:06
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
There are actually basically 3 different 4.7 intake designs - the original, the HO, and the compromise design now used on both. The true HO was never put on a regular 4.7; in the year when both engines got the same intake it was a third design. Some people wrongly call that an HO manifold; I'd guess that's the cause of 01Motorsport's confusion. When the same part is used on a regular engine and a HO version, that's really just a regular part. Not anything to do with what makes an HO an HO.
I'm happy with the characteristics of the original style manifold on mine as well; and also found the cam change to be a great mod. I went with a custom flash on mine; felt like about as much of a gain as the HO cams. The Jeep 4.7 is basically the same motor.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
kramer
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/15/2007
00:30:59
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
how hard was it to do the HO cams? how much? i am pretty interested and would actually like to know more if anyone could shed any light on it?
|
Kowalski
GenIII
11/15/2007
16:15:26
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
Much easier than a cam swap in a pushrod motor. Hardest part is R&R of the valve covers. A few things to be careful about - zip tie the chain to the sprockets to keep on the right tooth, and don't stress the locating pins on the cams where they engage the sprockets. You need to use wedges to keep the chain tensioner from tightening up while you have stuff apart - let me know if you want the dimensions to make your own. Most guys used a wrench on the crank bolt to keep strain off the cam pins; I just used a pair of water pump pliers on the cam tube. That's about all you need to know to avoid needing any special factory tools. Been a few years since I did it, maybe some of the others will chime in if I missed anything.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
TexasTodd
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/24/2007
00:56:18
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
01 MOtorsport
I looked at my dyno graphs.
With the HO cams, and the 02 HO manifold on my 01 4.7.
My motor peaks Torque about 3550. Thats only about 100 rpm more than your non HO manifold. NOT 500. After that its flat for about 150 rpm more, then begins to slope off.
My peak torque- rear wheel, was 300ft lbs, the way I drive it. NO short belts, air cleaner in, etc.
Max RWHP @ 227 @4500rpm
What I like about my 4.7, is that my torque curve is completly flat
from 2100-2700rpm @ 255 RW Ftlbs.
try this link of my dyno graphs:
C:\Dyno Graph 2.zip
|
01Motorsport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/25/2007
18:12:06
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
Texas Todd: Thanks for the HO rpm info; I was going on a "vague memory" of the difference. My dyno run was done with the clutch fan on (now removed) at 160K miles: 212HP/286TQ. The peak torque # was at 3440 rpm. I'm getting a F&B 70mm TB, so a new dyno run maybe next Spring (similar ambient).
|
TexasTodd
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
11/27/2007
14:58:46
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
01 moto,
Obviously, my link to the graphs on my harddrive didn't work, Sorry.
Nice #'s.
My best dyno run of 227 RWHP, and 300 RWtq,
was with:
01 4.7, manual tranny.
no belt driven clutch/fan, homebrew CAI (Probably negligable), ported my stock 68mm TB, no third Cat, SC'c tuner and premium gas.
|
01Motorsport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/04/2007
10:22:35
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
Todd, my run was on a Dynojet. Was yours on Dynojet or Mustang? I run 89 octane, sometimes 1/2 tank of 87. My truck has pinged since day one on straight 87. That's with the OEM PCM. I've always heard that the manual 4.7 PCM has more advance than the auto tranny Daks.
|
TexasTodd
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/04/2007
11:23:06
| RE: M1 Intake vs H.O Intake manifold
IP: Logged
Message:
01 moto,
Mine was also on a Dynojet. I actually found one in my hometown, a suburb of Houston, on their website.
I normally run the 87setting and use 87(REG) gas.
I do have a 180 t-stat, and the bosch plugs I put in I think equal the autolite 3923's, or a little colder.
Rarely do I ever get any pinging, even though it's the manual and might have some more advance.
If you haven't already, you may try different stations. Rarely, I'll fill up with some 'bad' gas somewhere, and I will have some pinging, it's rare though. By 'bad', I mean the octane not quite it's rating.
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
