R/T difference Re: Jack

From: Tim J Koth (Tim.J.Koth@aexp.com)
Date: Wed Sep 06 2000 - 12:06:50 EDT


I hate to get in on this, but I think DC understated the numbers for the 4.7
so that it had a bit more differentiation from the 5.9 in the sales
literature. They didn't want it to be too close to the 5.9 because then it
would cause R/T sales to suffer. Just my opinion based on all the info I've
observed about this recurrent thread. Rear wheel dyno numbers posted in 4
Wheeler magazine support this. They dyno-ed a QC 4.7 Dak and a 5.9 Ram 4x4.
The numbers supported what Matt is saying. As for the 4.7 and mods, everybody
who slams it needs to read the article that Matt posted back in feb about the
engine. It has many features inherent in its design that must be modded into a
5.2 or 5.9. Such as valve size, breathing ability, bottom-end strength, etc.
Not to mention the terrific weight advantages the 4.7 has and it's ability to
wind. I'm a convert and I've owned 3 318's, no 360's, and driven many other
318's and a couple 360's (But the 360's were pre-mags...) I'll never slam the
318 or 360. They are wonderful engines. I just find it interesting that with
the exception of I think one DML poster, that everyone that has slammed the
4.7 has never owned one. Personally I don't give a rats pointed little peter
what the sales lit says. The proof is in the pudding. If given the choice
between a 26k R/T and an 18K 4.7 5 speed that will edge it out in the quarter,
for my tastes I'd go with the 4.7 as a sleeper and have enough money left over
to buy the Kennebell SuperCharger kit and realy make the beast scream. But
thats just my personal preference. I like the 'sleeper' aspect. Others would
obviously go for the improved handling and road holding capabilities of the
R/T with the badging for advertising. YMMV

--- prev post --------

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 06:12:33 -0700
From: "Barret, Matt" <MATT_BARRET@earthtech.com>
Subject: RE: DML: R/T difference Re: Jack

I'm not gonna argue that Jack. But can you agree with me on this, my truck,
with one modification (homemade air intake) pulled 285 to the RW's (no
question there), If you figure 15% loss with the manual trans. (being
conservative) that would be approx. 335 TQ at the FLYWHEEL , correct?
335 X .85 = 284.75 , Ok, its rated at 295, that means there is 40 ft
lbs, unaccounted for, YES some came from my modification, but not 40 ft
lbs!! probably not even 20 ft lbs, So as I have stated before, the 295
figure is low, I would say more along the lines of 320 ish (stock flywheel
TQ), there is not a 50 ft lbs difference in the two engines. I am not
disputing the fact that the bolt ons for the 5.9L yield more power than the
same piece on the 4.7L, I will soon find out the truth to this theory, I
have already installed the Flowmaster Cat back 3" system and it yield only
1.9 rwhp, and NO torque gain, that is some evidence of this theory, but not
enough to totally justify it, I have the Mopar Computer on order, and I am
also considering the Borla headers, each piece will get dyno'd, and I will
report the honest results.

Also, interesting that Sam's BONE STOCK '00 RT ran a 204 @ 270 ft lbs. if
you use the 20-22% loss you will get right around 345 ft lbs at the
flywheel. and probably around 260 hp at the flywheel, Very impressive Sam!



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:54:26 EDT