I have looked at a dyno ticket revealing that the 4.7L loses only 17 percent
to the rear with an auto 4.
=================================
Steve St.Laurent
2000 DC Dakota 4.7, CC, 4x2 (soon 330HP)
2000 Roush Mustang Stage II (awaiting the new SC)
"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Cabin/4382/index.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Steven T. Ekstrand
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 4:51 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: RE: RATINGS NEED Re: Steven
I seem to recall from the Mopar Action article debuting the technical
highlights of the 4.7L that it was approximately 100lbs lighter than the
360 Magnum motor. 100lbs off the nose is pretty significant.
BTW- In the late eighties a Mustang LX 5.0 could often dust the "hipo" GT
models.
The LX had a 200+lbs weigh savings
Straight exhaust tips instead of sharp turndowns
And the LX for the first couple of years, could be ordered with a 3.23 axle
instead of the 3.08 standard GT axle.
Little things add up big. When I ran my mid 14's at the track, I had a
couple of tenths on the stock auto GT's and mine was a lowly 85 1/2 TBI
5.0L.
Steve Ekstrand, Pasadena, CA Driver: '00 Dakota CC SLT+ 4.7L 3.92SG 255's
Stacey's Driver: '00 Inferno Red Intrepid ES-3.2L-24V Autostick w/Leather
Race Car: 69 1/2 Road Runner 440-6 (ex-NHRA SS/GA future B or C/SA???)
Project Car: 69 Barracuda Notchback (Orig. 318, now 360w/Edelbrock Heads)
Homepage: http://sites.netscape.net/professormopar/homepage
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Scelfo" <macncheesemonster@hotmail.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: DML: RE: RATINGS NEED Re: Steven
| thats a heavy sway bar. and those flairs! ;)
|
| --
| Dave
|
|
| >From: "Barret, Matt" <MATT_BARRET@earthtech.com>
| >Reply-To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
| >To: "'dakota-truck@buffnet.net'" <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
| >Subject: DML: RE: RATINGS NEED Re: Steven
| >Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:56:09 -0800
| >
| >Ok then, what weight are you using for the CC 4.7L and a CC R/T???
| >I know what my truck weighs, its 3670, only difference in weight over
the
| >RT
| >should be the engine, which is about 70 pounds Max. so where is the
"BIG"
| >difference you're talking about.
| >Lets see some numbers, and not just this "much" more stuff??!!!?
| >Much lighter???? what 100 pounds, that aint much!!!
| >Please explain???
| >__________________________________
| >Matt -- Mechanicsville, VA Y2K-HEMI
| >`00 Sport Plus 4.7L 5spd. 9 1/4 3.92 LSD
| >RC 2x4 Homemade intake & K&N open element,
| >Traction Bars, Spring clamps
| >BEST 1/4 14.80 @ 90.97 MPH
| >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
| >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
| > >>>>>>>>>
| >-----Original Message-----
| >From: Stlaurent Mr Steven [mailto:STLAURENTS@mctssa.usmc.mil]
| >Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 2:43 PM
| >To: 'dakota-truck@buffnet.net'
| >Subject: DML: RE: RE: RE: RE: HP RATINGS NEED
| >
| >
| >Let us try that again the CC 4.7 is much lighter than the R/T 5.9 CC.
The
| >numbers are upside down.
| >
| >-----------------------------------------------------------------
| >Steven St.Laurent
| >Test Engineer
| >Test Branch, GSD,MCTSSA
| >MARCORSYSCOM, US Marine Corps
| >mailto:stlaurents@mctssa.usmc.mil (work)
| >mailto:Saint1958@home.com (home)
| >Office: (760) 725-2296
| >
| >-----Original Message-----
| >From: Barret, Matt [mailto:MATT_BARRET@earthtech.com]
| >Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 7:54 AM
| >To: 'dakota-truck@buffnet.net'
| >Subject: DML: RE: RE: RE: HP RATINGS NEED
| >
| >Weight ratio? of what, the engine itself?? yea, the 4.7L weighs about 60
or
| >70 pounds less.
| >Compare it to the truck weight, like the HP to weight ratio, ok, There
is
| >very little difference.
| >The 5.9 would be .066 hp per lb, and 4.7 is .064 hp per pound.
| >furthermore, the 4.7L is 73 cubes smaller and has about 35 lbs less
torque.
| >What are you comparing Steven??
| >
| >__________________________________
| >Matt -- Mechanicsville, VA Y2K-HEMI
| >`00 Sport Plus 4.7L 5spd. 9 1/4 3.92 LSD
| >RC 2x4 Homemade intake & K&N open element,
| >Traction Bars, Spring clamps
| >BEST 1/4 14.80 @ 90.97 MPH
| >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
| >
| >-----Original Message-----
| >From: Stlaurent Mr Steven [mailto:STLAURENTS@mctssa.usmc.mil]
| >Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 10:13 AM
| >To: 'dakota-truck@buffnet.net'
| >Subject: DML: RE: RE: HP RATINGS NEEDING
| >
| >
| >Matt;
| >
| >Now compare the weight ratio versus HP (ensure they have the same rear
| >gears
| >/ Tranny).
| >
| >-----------------------------------------------------------------
| >Steven St.Laurent
| >Test Engineer
| >Test Branch, GSD,MCTSSA
| >MARCORSYSCOM, US Marine Corps
| >mailto:stlaurents@mctssa.usmc.mil (work)
| >mailto:Saint1958@home.com (home)
| >Office: (760) 725-2296
| >
| >-----Original Message-----
| >From: Barret, Matt [mailto:MATT_BARRET@earthtech.com]
| >Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 5:40 AM
| >To: 'dakota-truck@buffnet.net'
| >Subject: DML: RE: HP RATINGS NEEDING
| >
| >5.9 is 250 and the 4.7 is 235.
| >
| >__________________________________
| >Matt -- Mechanicsville, VA Y2K-HEMI
| >`00 Sport Plus 4.7L 5spd. 9 1/4 3.92 LSD
| >RC 2x4 Homemade intake & K&N open element,
| >Traction Bars, Spring clamps
| >BEST 1/4 14.80 @ 90.97 MPH
| >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
|
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<
| ><<<
| >
| >-----Original Message-----
| >From: Morrison, Dennis [mailto:DMorriso@ciena.com]
| >Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:27 AM
| >To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
| >Subject: DML: HP RATINGS NEEDING
| >
| >
| >What is a stock R/T 5.9 and stock 4.7 HP rating? I am doing a little
| >reaserch and need the info.
| >
| >Thanx in advance.
| >Dennis
|
| ______________________________________________________
| Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
|
|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:49:48 EDT