I'll tell ya what guys... i don't want to call anybody an idiot for not
thinking the same as me, but i do know two things:
1. Matt Barret knows what the hell he's talking about.
2. Steven Laurent knows what the hell he's talking about.
Sean
(sorry, not a flame -- so much as a restrained flame)
"no replacement for displacement, if you exclude technology and therefore
efficiency"
"my engine was designed on a sophisticated computer a couple years ago, not
penned five decades ago"
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven St.Laurent <Saint1958@home.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:03 AM
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