At 07:13 AM 9/5/00 -0700, you wrote:
> <snip> 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. Matt
Here are a couple of posts from a '98 for information only.
Gene Baird, 98 Flame Red CC R/T, 256 HP and 309 lb.ft. torque at the rear
wheel,
dynoed in Houston around Nov 8 98. According to Gene, the HP curve on a
stock truck
starts to drop off after about 4200 RPM, and the torque curve starts to drop
after 3600 RPM.
Martin Tolentino, stock 99 R/T had 203 to the rear and max. torque was 352,
dynoed
around Nov 16 1998.
I believe Martin's R/T is (was) a RC and is on the west coast ... may
account for
the hp and tq differences?
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:54:26 EDT