Uh, I ain't run my truck at the track snce last year man. I am looking for
low 14s NA her ein 1-2 weeks (12pm-5P M test and tunes the first few Sat.
the track is open) and I am sure 360HP NA COULD be made, bt I don't think it
HAS. I think about 320 or so is prolly max that HAS that I know of.
-Ryan
99 DA RC R/T
My 5.9 RULES! :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Slick North" <prodog@swbell.net>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: DML: 4.7 or 5.9?
> Guys,
>
> Horsepower to displacement ratios are great and all, but the bottom line
is
> horsepower to weight ratio... How heavy is the vehicle with each engine?
> find the hp-to-weight ratio, and you'll know which should be faster, and
has
> more potential to go even faster with performance mods....
>
> Later,
> Tom "Slick"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET]On Behalf Of WMBARRET@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:13 PM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: Re: DML: 4.7 or 5.9?
>
>
> Hee hee, Ryan, So, lets see here, your truck is making over 300 hp, but
your
> still running what, 15's?????
> If you read my post I said you'll have a hard time finding a 5.9L (360
> cubes) making 360 hp NA (normally aspirated). 1 hp per liter. On the other
> hand, the 4.7L is very capable IMHO of making 287 hp, NA.
> BTW, 360 HP, would be around 288+ hp at the rear wheels.
> Good luck.
>
> Matt Y2K-HEMI
>
> In a message dated Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:31:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,
"Ryan
> Stewart" <firebird@kymtnnet.org> writes:
>
> << Uh, there's plenty of 5.9s puttin' out 300+HP with just bolt=ons. Lots
in
> faqct. Hehe. Prolly myself included!
>
> -Ryan
> 99 DA RC R/T
> Big fan of the new engines, just not to excited bout these problems.....
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <WMBARRET@aol.com>
> To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 10:10 AM
> Subject: Re: DML: 4.7 or 5.9?
>
>
> > Jason, as you said, we have run this thread into the ground, and then
> some, so I won't go into great detail as Jon Smith will probably kill me!!
> hee hee LOL, but seriuosly, the stuff Will has experienced is NOT normal
by
> any means, I would never trade my 4.7L for a 5.9L, I have had very good
> results with the 4.7L, especially with the hard life mine has had. The
5.9L
> has one foot out the door, take a close look at that aspect, the 5.9L is
> going, going, gone, outta here!
> > The 4.7L is moving into the future, it is a high tech, effiecient engine
> that has been proven to match and or exceed the 5.9L in every dept., for
> pratical purposes.
> > The 4.7L (287), I'm confident, can produce 1 hp per cube, normally
> aspirated, mine is currently 260 hp + with only minor mods. You'll have a
> hard time seeing those numbers from a 360 cube 5.9L that's NA.
> >
> > Matt Y2K-HEMI
> > '00 RC 4.7L 5spd
> > 14.23@94.49
> >
> >
> > In a message dated Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:33:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> "Will Coughlin" <willcoughlin@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > << Jason, at this point, I would tell you to get the 360,and the
trailer!
> I
> > don't really like the 4.7L the more that I deal with it and would take
the
> > 360 over it any day.Plus you would get the 46RE tranny which can be
> upgraded
> > with the deep pan and shift kits,etc(IE crap that's not available for
the
> > 45RFE). I have the 4.7L and would gladly trade it for a 318/360 truck
> > anyday,even if it meant I had to go automatic.Mine runs like crap-it
> > constantly gets hot,won't idle for crap,the fan clutch is still
> screwed,etc.
> > I would especially opt for the 360/46RE combo if you were going to tow
> > anything. The 45RFE shifts pretty sloppy and that means heat,and lots of
> it
> > during a slippery shift with a heavy trailer.IMO, get a QuadCab
> > 360/46RE/(9.25")3.92SG gears,and add an oil cooler,dual oil filters,
> Biggest
> > tranny cooler you can strap on there(preferably electric fan
> assisted),Shift
> > kit,Deep pan,And all the other heavy duty stuff.Just my thoughts.HTH,
> >
> > Will Coughlin willcoughlin@hotmail.com
> > '00 reg.cab,2wd,4.7L/hd5-spd/3.92sg(9.25")
> > http://www.geocities.com/willcoughlin/index.html
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: "Jason Bleazard" <jbleazard@home.com>
> > Reply-To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> > To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
> > Subject: DML: 4.7 or 5.9?
> > Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:18:17 +0500
> >
> > Okay, I know this is a FAT (frequently argued topic), but we're trying
to
> > decide which engine we want in our new Quad Cab 4x4. The archive search
> > engine doesn't seem to like searching for numbers (it tells me there
have
> > been zero articles posted to the DML matching the string "4.7"... that
> > just can't be right).
> >
> > Anyway, this truck will be used for daily driving, highway traveling,
> > camping, exploring, just generally taking us wherever we need to go.
> >
> > My first instinct is to go with the 4.7 for the gas mileage, and to
avoid
> > the standard belly pan gasket and pinging issues that plague the V6, 318
> > and 360.
> >
> > The reason I'm thinking we might want the 360 (other than bragging
> > rights) is that I was thinking about the possibility of getting a
flatbed
> > trailer and dragging my '95 Dak around on it. I haven't been able to
> > find any towing specs on the 4.7 anywhere. This trailer idea isn't
> > definite, just a possibility.
> >
> > Any other issues I'm not considering? Anyone know how much the 4.7 is
> > rated to tow?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jason>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> > >>
> >
> >
>
> >>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:59:31 EDT