Only according to the G-tech. I'll only say that much ;-) no displacement
for replacement... or something like that ;-)
> Chris Lambert <clam9892@postoffice.uri.edu> wrote:
> >And again you are saying that the 5.9 is faster than the 4.7. Do we have
> >proof of this? I would not say who is quicker without numbers. It seems
> >that the 4.7 and 5.9 are near equal powerplants. The 5.9 makes more
torque
> >than the 4.7 but the 4.7 has a higher redline (correct?)... so which is
> >qucker..? Lets just say they are both great engines and are near equal.
>
> The 4.7 is quicker, I was wrong. I stand corrected. I'm not looking
> forward to Matt's excessive gloating, but he earned it, as he was
> right.
>
> Terry Herrin
> 99 FR CC R/T
> 14.769 @ 91.43
> Wilmington, NC
> http://users.isaac.net/therrin/dakota.html
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:51:16 EDT