Jack, I never said it put out more than the 5.9L, I agree it has more, no
question, I agree 100% the 5.9L has more, but not a "pant load"
With a K&N filter I have a dyno run (4.7L) showing 285 ft lbs @ RW's, that
is about 335 at the flywheel.
No question Jack, 5.9L has more Torque, but you are under estimating the
4.7L engine.
I hate to burst your bubble but, Displacement is great, but just like the SS
chevy pickup with the 454, if you aren't efficient with what you have what
difference does it make??? Yea, you can keep adding parts, and you'll
finally end up with some respectable numbers, but having 73 cubes more and
only posting 10 more HP and 10-20 more ft lbs??? I don't exactly call
that a Pant load!! Sorry Jack!
__________________________________
Matt--VA--Y2K-HEMI `00 Sport Plus RC
209.9 RWHP/285 RWTQ
?????????????????????????????????????????
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Hilton [mailto:hemi@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:36 AM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: R/T difference Re: Jack
You think that a 4.7 puts out more torque than a 5.9 ?! I hate to burst your
bubble, but the 5.9 in the R/T puts out an advertised 345 lb-ft at the
flywheel, and probably around 275 at the rear wheels. Let's compare that to
the 4.7l, that, while still a great engine in it's own right, can only
manage
an advertised 295 at the flywheel, and I would guess about 235 at the rear
wheels.
The numbers just don't lie, Matt.
5.9 = 250HP, 345lb-ft
4.7= 235HP, 295lb-ft
Again, not trying to say that the 4.7 isn't worth it's weight, but for me,
there is no substitute for displacement.
"Barret, Matt" wrote:
> Jack, I beg to differ on this. What kinda TQ figure does an RT put out at
> the rear wheels??
>
> __________________________________
> Matt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:54:26 EDT