Re: Re: 4.7 Tq vs 5.9 R/T

From: Terry Herrin (therrin@isaac.net)
Date: Thu Sep 07 2000 - 22:09:49 EDT


"Ransom T Holbrook" <ransom@setel.com> wrote:
>"Just make sure the 4.7 is an automatic" Why??

So that it's a fair comparison of the two engines. Isn't that what
this is about, comparing the two engines?

>I think the comparison should be the 'fastest' of the 2 configurations.
>That's the point.

Well, the point of *this* thread was not comparing two configurations,
it was comparing the 4.7 to the 5.9. People were talking about torque
at the flywheel. To compare the engines, everything else has to be
equal. Now, if you want to compare drivetrain configurations, then
fine, it's been well established the 4.7 5 speed is just as fast if
not a little faster than the 5.9 auto. I don't think anyone is
arguing that point.

>If you insist that the 4.7 must be equipped with an ATX, then we have to
>increase the displacement of the 4.7 to match the R/T....apples vs. apples

Then you wind up comparing the same thing. My only point in joining
this thread is that a lot of people seem to enjoy putting down the 5.9
by saying the 4.7 5 speeds outrun the R/T's. That's fine that they
do, but that doesn't mean the 4.7 is a stronger engine than the 5.9,
it just means DC should have put a 5 speed in the R/T. That's the
only point I've been trying to make.

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 - 11:54:28 EDT