| From | Message |
QC
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/29/2005
10:42:25
|
 Subject: Cams and intake
IP: Logged
Message:
Hello,
Its been some time since Ive been on the site and it looks like the "search" function is now reserved for members. I need some advise/info on the HO cams/intake manif. I have a few questions, so please bare with me - I want to get this mod done right.
- I see the HO cams on Socaldakotas web site - Is $240 a fair price for these?
- does anyone have the link to the installation instruction for the cams? I remember there were some pretty detailed ones out there.
- I remember some discussion on the HO intake. Some felt it wasnt worth the upgrade. Does it really make a difference?
Dak is a 4.7 QC. Power mods included intake and exhaust. Obviously looking for the next step up with the Cams...
Hope you guys can help
thanks
|
Jecht
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/29/2005
16:28:19
|  RE: Cams and intake
IP: Logged
Message:
beings you didnt say what year your dak was. I will just say 03 to 04 years dont need the intake manifold as they as I was told they was basically the HO manifolds and designed better than the older HO manifolds. I dont know about the 02 year if the manifold is better than the HO manifolds. so if you have a 03 or 4 stick with the manifold you have.
|
ricardcapecod
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/03/2006
01:07:23
| RE: Cams and intake
IP: Logged
Message:
QC, i got the HO cams and the 2002 intake.
What i can tell you is that because i did them at the same time, i dont know how they work separated.
My conclusion is that whatever torque i gained on low rpm( 800 to 1500) w/ the cams, i lost w/ the HO intake. So,up to 1500 rpm, nothing changed, but what i was looking for, was better performance after 4000 rpm, and this combo was awesome compared to the originals intake and cams.
The 03 and newer, are a bit more oriented for low torque and the 2002 is a litle better on the higher side of the tac.
The ave mpg increased too but again i dont know how much. All the mods i got, K&N fipk, ported tb, HO intake and cams, Gibson header and single 3 in for torque, no clutch fan, 180 tstat, chip, etc, give me an ave of 20+ mpg when i want and 17 when i`m driving noisely if you know what i mean.
Today, w/ 115 k miles on the clock, it is an average of 2.5 mpg better than when new and for more than a year nothing went wrong. It is a 2000 CC 4.7, 5sp manual w/ 3.92 lsd and 255/65/15.
I love stock RTs for lunch.
|
QC
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/03/2006
18:59:20
| RE: Cams and intake
IP: Logged
Message:
ricardcapecod,
Thanks for your response. I hear you loud and clear on the RTs...I aspire to that level.
Sorry I forgot to mention - My QC is on 01.
Where're you at on the cape? Not too often I see daks post here from this area. Im in Falmouth during the summer, house is in Norwood year round.
You got an email and some pics of your dak we can swap?
Currently I have the same size rubber - Toyo Proxys(love these tires), rear RT sway bar. 3.55s (4x4 - yes its a tank - dont think I get near your MPG but the power...oh the power), K&N custom intake, Flow master 4 custom cat back, etc, etc.
Hey - did you also port the tb yourself?
-B
|
DakAttack
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/04/2006
16:00:07
| RE: Cams and intake
IP: Logged
Message:
I did the cams on my 2001 CC - They make a big defference.
|
redrider
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/05/2006
10:56:28
| RE: Cams and intake
IP: Logged
Message:
I have the same experience - I found the HO intake seemed to take away from the lower end torque - I would go with the cams and see how you like them then add the intake if you feel you want to. I believe the 01 daks have a 68mm tb which is better than the 65 so you may not need to port.
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
