Matt had a five speed manual version not the five speed Auto
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Jack Hilton
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:10 AM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: R/T difference Re: Jack
> 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.
Not my assumption, it's DaimlerChrysler's. These are the numbers they
publish.
>
> 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 :)
Actually.......I would be willing to bet that the reason you see such a
large
rear-wheel number is due to the new automatic tranny that comes with the
4.7. As
I understand it, this tranny has a dual-ratio 2nd gear, which could boost
torque
figures some how. In fact., I remember a comparo of the Quad Cab with the
4.7/auto and the GMC Sierra (or Chevy) with I forget which engine. Anyways,
the
GM had less weight, more HP, and more Torque, but still the Quad Cab beat it
in
the quarter. The magazine asserted that the only logical explanation was
that
either the new dual-ration tranny designed just for the 4.7 was really 'Da
Shit', and/or the GM was rated at a higher HP and Torque number than was
realistic. I would tend to believe more that the tranny is where the credit
should go, but of course I would like to think that the GM is just full of
it
too.
:)
Jack
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:54:26 EDT