Durango R/Ts made before 10/20/2000 require premium fuel. Those built after
that date have the standard PCM and run on 87 octane.
Ryan Stewart wrote:
> Well, I hate Mags, but when MT tested their first Durango R/T it ran .2
> quicker in the quarter and 0-60. ANd the 4.7 had lighter wheels plus no
> running boards too, and the 5.9 was still faster. They were using their
> quickest times outta all the 4.7s they tested BTW.
>
> Also, 5.9s do NOT have to have premium fuel except in the Durango R/T and 98
> Jeep Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited.
>
> -Ryan
> 99 DA RC R/T
> Used 87 till Performance PCM.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Sevrence, Sean
> (S.J.)
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 12:42 PM
> To: 'dakota-truck@buffnet.net'
> Subject: DML: Now towing capacity (Was 5.9 availability)
>
> Hey Jason!
>
> That's a good thought, but it's not quite accurate.
>
> My bro-in-law worked at JTE (Jeep Truck Engineering) here in Detroit where
> they developed the distributorless system we have today on the 4.7L. At the
> time, they were debating whether to produce the Durango R/T. They put the
> 4X4 5.9L Durango against the 4X4 4.7L Durango for a quarter mile battle.
> Identical trucks except for the engine and the 4.7L won. He didn't give me
> the numbers and has moved on since then so he can not get them. This is to
> answer the quickness, not pulling capacity.
>
> As far as towing goes for our Dak's, the brochure shows a difference of only
> 300 lbs for GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating -- truck, trailer, cargo,
> passengers, fuel, french fries, change, etc.) 10,800 for 5.9L and 10,500 for
> 4.7L both with a 3.92 rear end auto and manual. They have the same value of
> 9,200 for the 3.55 rear end (the manual can pull 9,500 lbs). The vehicle
> weights are needed to calculate which engine can pull more. I had my dad
> look up the weights of the QC SLT 4X2 for each engine. The 5.9L weights 190
> lbs more than the 4.7L. Therefore the 5.9L can pull 110 lbs more than the
> 4.7L. That answers which engine can pull more.
>
> This still leaves the question of while pulling 6,500* lbs which does 0-60
> the fastest. My answer is who cares? Just kidding <G>. It depends of the
> non-pulling days you drive your truck. Highway driving is similar (within
> 0.5mpg at 60-65mph), while in the city the 4.7L has an advantage of about 2
> mpg. With the 5.9L requiring premium gas, it will drain your wallets much
> faster than the 4.7L that can run 87 octane.
>
> *6,500 lbs is 10,500 GCWR subtract my 4.7L CC 4X2 SLT 5spd weighs in at
> 3,997 lbs. Please find out your vehicle weight before attempting to pull
> this much weight!
>
> HTH!!
> Sean
> '92 RC Sport 3.9L 5spd - 250,000mi!
> '01 CC SLT+ 4.7L 5spd 3.92 LSD Mobil-1!
> http://www.twistedbits.net/WWWProfile/dakota/DnuuSncssJujU
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Woodruff, Jason P [mailto:Jason.Woodruff@West.Boeing.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 11:46 AM
> To: DML (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: DML: 5.9 availability
>
> I get the feeling the heavier the truck the more the 5.9L will out perform
> the 4.7L. If I really wanted to go fast in a QC or a 4x4 or the super heavy
> weight 4x4QC I'd opt for a 5.9L.
>
> I went towing 4500#'s a month ago and I noticed I was missing 73 cubes. So
> even though I have no numbers to prove it, I think the 5.9 will out Torque
> the 4.7L. Which translates in faster times for heavier trucks.
>
> Jay W
> 4.7L Auto Sport+ C.C. 2wd Black
> Mods Profile page at
> http://www.twistedbits.net/WWWProfile/dakota/Re5X8z5la@Ix2/profile.htm
>
> ---original message---
>
> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 07:40:59 -0700
> From: Stlaurent Mr Steven <STLAURENTS@mctssa.usmc.mil>
> Subject: RE: DML: 5.9 availability
>
> John, those numbers are only there not to disturb the R/T advertisement and
> owners. The real truth is the dyno, John. Put both trucks on the Dyno Jet
> and you will see that they both pull almost the same at the wheel. The only
> exception is the 4.7 pulls the TQ through out the RPM range versus the R/T
> quick TQ duration.
>
> Why would ChryCo do this? MONEY$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> I know, I have done it on my truck and did a comparo and the results are
> there to prove it.
>
> - --------------------------------------
> Steven St.Laurent
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:01:32 EDT