Yea but Jack, the power is at the wheel. I will never discount or put down
the 5.9. If I had the time to wait, I would of bought one. But a nickel
over invoice was offered for my current vehicle and I fell in-love.
Someday, the R/T will be the muscle truck that it should be. I had to agree
with Charles Wyman, let Roush Performance do the engineering work on the R/T
and you will see results not promises. Since they do the SVT engineering
for Ford, I believe they could do a better job than Mopar Racing club.
Yes! There are many more parts to choose from but that will be short lived,
since it will be discontinued from next year lineup. I believe the 4.7 HO
will be the 2002 R/T pushing around 265HP and 350 lb of TQ, with the 5.7
push rod Hemi will be the R/T in 2003.
What I am seeing here for the current 4.7 is not the usual 22 percent loss
on manual and 25 percent lost on the Auto. If that is the case well then it
is 260HP and 345LB TQ for the 2000 4.7L. The last three Dyno runs on the 4.7
range from 204 to 208Hp and 279 to 284 on TQ (rated on the latest DynoJet
equipment). This is why I am thinking that Dodge did this on purpose to
allow another year for the 5.9 life and keep the 4.7 lower for now until
2002 model. Then it will change for one year until the 5.7 will be the
dominate motor in the light truck class. But then I could be wrong.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Terry Herrin
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 4:08 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: R/T difference Re: Jack
Stlaurent Mr Steven <STLAURENTS@MCTSSA.USMC.MIL> wrote:
>See both Matts and Sams Dyno numbers it is almost even on the RWHP.
I believe it. Since the two are almost even at the rear wheels, Sam's
is putting out much more at the flywheel, which is where you compare
two engines.
Terry Herrin
99 FR CC RT
14.769 @ 91.43
Wilmington, NC
Dakota R/T Club,Executive Board,SE Region
http://users.isaac.net/therrin/dakota.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:54:27 EDT