I miss the 318 too....it was it's time, but damn it's
a badass engine. How long did Chrysler use it for?
Something like 3 decades.....screw the Chevy 350, the
318 is right up there in my opinion. That's my 2cents,
Seth
--- Kenneth Berntsen <kenneth@berntsen.cc> wrote:
> Hee Hee look what I started.
>
> Course I cringe when some one calls me Kenny... But
> I won't hold that
> against ya this time Sean. :)
>
> Guess I just miss the 318. :)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Bruckman [mailto:bruckman@urisp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 4:47 PM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: DML: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Tired of getting
> slammed 4.7L TQ curve
>
>
> Easy guys... i cringed when Kenny said not-so-nice
> stuff about the 4.7, but
> i didn't flame him.
>
> I thought about what you said, Matt, but i think i'm
> gonna have to disagree
> and say that perhaps in some cases the dyno graphs
> on the dodge site are
> fairly accurate as an average. One dyno doesn't
> really prove them wrong in
> my mind and you can't base an argument on the
> technical accuracy of
> something that's mostly supposed to be a pretty
> graphic. (and especially one
> with a disclaimer of accuracy under it)
>
> I think the basis of this argument can be explained
> thus:
>
> Ken "felt" like the 3.9 had a "flatter" torque curve
> compared to the 4.7L. I
> think we might be able to agree he was experiencing
> that feeling because
> when he pushed a little on the 3.9 it gave him a
> nice, powerful pull. But
> let's say it was muted in delivery compared to the
> surge of raw, god-like
> and exuberant energy the 4.7 hit him with.
>
> Okay, that's a little overboard... but we could say
> simply the 4.7 is punchy
> enough that it may feel ackward when you are trying
> to go slow. =)
>
> Sean Bruckman
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Barret, Matt <MATT_BARRET@earthtech.com>
> To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 3:14 PM
> Subject: DML: RE: RE: RE: RE: Tired of getting
> slammed 4.7L TQ curve
>
>
> I have stated before, you can't go by those crappy
> dyno graphs that DC puts
> on the website, I mean come on, look at the 3.9L
> graph they have on there,
> their graph says the 3.9L is making 280+ Ftlbs of TQ
> ???? I'll email you my
> dyno graph, take a look at it, it will change your
> mind about the 4.7L.
> Compare it to the 4.7L graph on the internet.
>
> Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> <From: Kenneth Berntsen [mailto:kenneth@berntsen.cc]
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 4:08 PM
> >To: 'Barret, Matt '
> >Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Tired of getting slammed
> 4.7L TQ curve
>
>
> <Well, actually by the graph Dodge has on the web
> site, the 4.7 puts out
> more
> <torque at idle thatn the max of the 3.9. And the
> 4.7 doesn't have a flat
> <curve, it spikes acording again to the graph done
> by Dodge. All I know is
> <for the 4.7 to get moving, and I might add it was a
> Quadcab, I had to take
> <it up to around 1800 RPM. Prolly got more to do
> with transmission (Auto)
> <than the output of the engine.
>
> <My main point is that I hope the torque curve looks
> more like the curve on
> <the current 3.9 or the 5.9 than the one on the new
> 4.7.
>
> <Actually if you wanna talk flat torque curve, look
> at the one for the
> <Cummins Diesel. Now that's flat.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barret, Matt
> To: 'dakota-truck@buffnet.net'
> Sent: 8/30/00 1:48 PM
> Subject: DML: RE: RE: RE: Tired of getting slammed
> 4.7L TQ curve
>
> I'd like to see your dyno graph for your 3.9L,
> apparently you haven't
> seen a
> dyno graph for a 4.7L, cause its torque curve is as
> flat or flatter and
> ALOT
> higher than a stock 3.9L. You are basing your
> observation on assumption
> and
> feeling, and not facts. At 1200 rpm the 4.7L puts
> out more torque to
> the
> rear wheels than the maximum flywheel torque of a
> 3.9L (220).
> What exactly is "smooth" when referring to the
> torque curve?? Lets talk
> dyno graphs and not what this truck "felt" like or
> that truck "felt"
> like.
> I know you're not slamming the 4.7L, but lets talk
> facts here, instead
> of
> fiction and dreams.
>
> __________________________________
> Matt--VA--Y2K-HEMI `00 Sport Plus RC
> 4.7L 5spd. 14.48 @ 92.40 MPH
> 209.9 RWHP/285 RWTQ
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> <From: Kenneth Berntsen [mailto:kenneth@berntsen.cc]
> <Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 1:45 PM
> <To: 'dakota-truck@buffnet.net'
> <Subject: DML: RE: RE: Tired of getting
> slammed-kinda long
>
>
> <Ya know,
>
> <HP is one thing but the V6 has something the 4.7
> doesn't. Not trying
> to
> <slam the 4.7 but the 6 and 318 both have a nice
> smooth torque curve.
> When
> I
> <pull my boat out with my 3.9 I just giver her a
> little gas to get the
> RPMs
> <up to around 1200 and she just rolls right up the
> ramp. Pulled it with
> a
> <friends 4.7 and yes by all means it pulled it right
> up the ramp but
> just
> <didn't seam to come as naturally to that engine. I
> hope the new 3.7 V6
> <doesn't inherit the torque curve of the 4.7.
>
> <Just my 2 cents.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stlaurent Mr Steven
> [mailto:STLAURENTS@mctssa.usmc.mil]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 9:48 AM
> To: 'dakota-truck@buffnet.net'
> Subject: DML: RE: Tired of getting slammed-kinda
> long
>
> <The problem with the old V6, no Bernd it is not
> generalization, the HP
> was
> <not quite there yet. With the new line of V6
> coming it will surpass
> the
> <current V6 and some of the V-8 on the current
> market.
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Steven St.Laurent
> Test Engineer
> Test Branch, GSD, MCTSSA
> MARCORSYSCOM, USMC
> 760-725-2506 (DSN 365-2506)
> Work:mailto:stlaurents@mctssa.usmc.mil
> Home:mailto:saint1958@home.com
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:53:51 EDT