Jack, I'm agreeing with alot of what your saying here, I know your NOT
talking any truck/engine down, as I am NOT either.
Just good discussion here, so please take it that way, but the only point I
still disagree on is your assumption that there is 50 less ft lbs of torque
in the 4.7L, maybe in some published numbers, but in the real world, NO,
not that much, the 5.9L has more TQ, but it is not 50 lbs. no way. My
285 RWTQ number was with a K&N filter and some PVC pipe as an intake. So yes
your right, not stock.
There is no way the addition of this modification netted 35 ft lbs of
torque. If it did, then I need to get out of the engineering business, and
start selling air intakes for 4.7L's :) The only way to prove my theory
is to put my air box and paper filter back on and re dyno, then we can talk
"stock"?? I've been debating on doing this for a while now, I guess I'll
have to do it now to prove the point, just so we can see what it really
puts out.
Thanks for some good discussion Jack, and not a bunch of flames!!
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Hilton [mailto:hemi@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 9:25 AM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: R/T difference Re: Jack
Something told me you were gonna throw in the "Well all I added to my engine
was..." deal.
I was comparing stock numbers. In previous statements, I also said that when
compared with at least the 318 ( I know, diff. engine, but I have no basis
for
this with the 4.7L yet) that the same mods on both engines will produce far
better results on the 5.9. I would *guess* the same would be true with the
4.7,
but I may be wrong.
If you want to compare apples-to-apples, and you want to use your truck with
your mods, then you need to compare it to a 5.9 with the same exact mods and
the
same exact mileage. Since you will never find a 5.9 with the same exact
mods,
and the same exact mileage, you can only rely on the stock engine ratings
for a
base comparison.
So again, yes, the 5.9L only posts a HP diff. of 15HP, but the STOCK ENGINE
shows a gain of 50lb-ft of torque. In my book, 50 lb-ft of torque is a world
of
difference. Hell, I wouldn't care if the HP rating was the same. That is one
problem with the smaller displacement engines that everyone is going to;
They
can make lots of HP at a high-RPM, but they fall short when you look at the
Torque numbers. I say that if I race you, and if you have more HP, but I
have
more torque, then the race is mine.
So Matt, and don't take this like I am talking another truck down, but there
is
a *15* HP diff. from the 4.7 to the 5.9, and a *50* lb-ft of torque diff.,
not
10 HP and 10-20 lb-ft.
"Barret, Matt" wrote:
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:54:26 EDT