Martin's was a CC, on the west coast, and dyno'd where mine was. I
looked at the sheet, and I believe the torque number is inaccurate due
to a shift point from 2nd-drive causing a much higher number. He was
in the 300s, but not 350s...
Sam '00 RT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Bob Tom
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 11:06 AM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: RE: DML: R/T difference Re: Jack
>
>
> 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