AMEN ! Thanks Steven, I'm not the only one here who has seen the 4.7L
perform like I've been talking about (and doing)
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven St.Laurent [mailto:Saint1958@home.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 11:03 AM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: RE: DML: R/T difference Re: Jack
Matt assumption is correct on the RWHP and RWTQ. I had witness two other
Dak here taking a DynoJet run with the 4.7 version and pictured painted is
no different than the new Mustang Cobra R when it was tested. The SAE is
rated a lot lower than what should be. The motor produced about 376 at the
rear but show a SAE of 380HP. 4 HP losses to the rear? What a feat or just
Ford don't want to be sued later for false labeling again.
Same applies to the 4.7 versus 5.9. It is embarrassing to see such a motor
keep up or slightly faster than it's bigger brother the 5.9. With the SAE
factory rating and what really is reality is another story. I really don't
know why they lowered the specs.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Jack Hilton
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 6:25 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