The only way the 4.7 would pull the same (or more) at the wheel on HP is if
the 4.7 is running through a 5-speed (which according to my numbers is very
feasible, and has been observed by a great many of you). When it comes to
torque, there's no way the 4.7 is kicking out the same numbers as the 5.9,
stock for stock, regardless of transmission choice. Dynos are great, but I
can't take a truck to the dyno when I'm test driving at the dealer. The only
difference between the trucks I tested were the 4.7/auto vs. the 5.9/auto,
and the 5.9/auto combo was *much* more responsive on the low end (especially
so now that the big hunk o' iron is broken in after 11,500 miles with a
little Mobil 1 in 'er - yee haw!).
Sure, I can hear it now, "you shoulda tried the 4.7/5-speed, it 0wnz the
5.9". Yeah, well, I have an injured left knee and drive in stop-n-go traffic
at least ten times a week, plus I tow quite a bit on the weekends. The
5-speed, though highly desired (I traded in a 3.9/5-speed to get this
truck), is not an option for me. Not saying that the 4.7/swizzle-stick
doesn't own, but it didn't fall into my requirements.
Not knockin' you 4.7 fellas, but c'mon let's get real - Gramama Chrysler did
not "hide" an extra 40 lb./ft. of torque in the 4.7, auto vs. auto. Maybe
you're only down 15-20 lb./ft. on the 4.7/5-speed for torque, but that's
about all I can possibly see, being very liberal with the numbers. Even
then, you're going to feel an extra 15-20 lb./ft. on the butt-dyno, down low
especially, which my test drive more than confirmed to me (not scientific, I
know, but there's a reason the 5.9/auto has a higher tow rating, and in my
experience it shows).
BTW, dunno what charts you were looking at, but the torque curve on the 4.7
looked damn peaky to me compared to the 5.9 (which makes sense, since the
4.7 is a semi-hemi revver).
One other unscientific data point - my big hog has consistently whupped on
the neighbors Grand Cherokee with the 4.7/auto combo. I know damn well my
hoss weighs more than a GC, so where is all the extra oomph I need coming
from? Could it be... 360 cubic inches???
Nah, impossible. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from 4.7
owners from here :-).
All in fun guys, don't take it personally, where's my asbestos underwear,
etc. Please note that I own a mud hog, not an R/T. I'm sure Ed has something
to say 'bout that, but he's probably just jealous cuz he didn't get the 5.9
*ducks* :-D.
-- John Bell - '00 QC 5.9 46RE 4x4 NV242 3.92LSD SLT+ *my baby*"Stlaurent Mr Steven" <STLAURENTS@mctssa.usmc.mil> wrote in message news:5F7587961057D211ABE9004095102F780253C8F5@ex.mctssa.usmc.mil... > 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 > System Engineer (IOW/IOS-NT) > PSD, MCTSSA > MARCORSYSCOM, USMC > (Work) 760-725-2506 (DSN: 365) > (Work) mailto:stlaurents@mctssa.usmc.mil > (Home) mailto:saint1958@home.com > "In fact, my work has already proven > itself to be correct. People such > as you just haven't gotten it yet. > (unknown author) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Bell [mailto:dak@mama.indstate.edu] > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:02 PM > To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net > Subject: Re: DML: 5.9 availability > > Stock for stock the 4.7 kicks out 295 lb./ft. torque, the 5.9 puts 335 > lb./ft. torque. I run 4wd and tow. 'Nuff said for me... > > BTW, my truck up and decided its got bawlz over the last couple of days. > Dunno why, just feels like it wants to suck the hood in the way it's pulling > lately. I've actually gotten the *fronts* to chirp on occasion - w00t! That, > and a consistent 14 mpg. Sumpin's up when the 4x4 gets to feelin' froggy > 8-). > > Ron: I think I can get 220 rwhp out of this thing with standard SpeedTweaks > tricks and without a custom PCM. I want to join the Fast4x4 club. Wish me > luck ;-). > > Joke of the day - "The 5.9L Magnum V8 engine with 250 horsepower* is the > ultimate choice for strength and reliability. Standard on Dakota R/T and > available on Quad Cab, this efficient engine...". Heh, heh, he said > "efficient", heh heh... them Dodge boys is funny. > -- > John Bell - '00 QC 5.9 46RE 4x4 NV242 3.92LSD SLT+ *my baby* > > ""Ronald Wong"" <ron-wong@home.com> wrote in message > news:NDBBIHDGKKJOIJDEOCBMAEKIEHAA.ron-wong@home.com... > > Sock for stock your 4.7 does better but I can do more with my 5.9 but the > > 4.7 will catch up.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:01:32 EDT