I think a new RC 4.7 3.92 2wd 5 speed will slightly beat a new RC R/T.
-RYan
99 DA RC R/T
----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald Wong <ron-wong@home.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 12:05 PM
Subject: RE: DML: R/T difference Re: Jack
> I don't think it's a matter of someone not knowing what they're talking
> about. It's a matter of published numbers of one source vs published
> numbers from another source. Personally, I'd rely on published numbers on
a
> dyno before anywhere else, however, for those that still have doubts,
let's
> put 'em on a track side by side and let 'er rip! I have a lot of faith in
> DC for their 4.7. From everything I've heard and seen it's a great
> engine....but I STILL LOVE MY 5.9!
>
>
> Ron
> 00 SLT QC 4X2 5.9 46RE 3.92 LSD
> For modifications see my DML Profile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Sean Bruckman
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:59 AM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: Re: DML: R/T difference Re: Jack
>
>
> 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