As figured from the RT, usually 18-20% loss through the drivetrain, with an
auto. NV3500 runs approx 15%. So a 96/97 5.2L at 230 & 295 ft lbs. =
180-185 hp, and 236-250 ft lbs. My '95 SLT 5 speed did
180 stock (220 hp x .82 = 180.4)...Finally got it up 220 hp at the rear
wheels, and 325 ft lbs. (220 / .82 = Hp at Fly wheel or 268-270 hp). My RT
currently is running 240 rwhp & 345 ft lbs., or 240 / .80 = ~300 hp & 431 ft
lbs.
Figures for the 4.7 with newer tranmission will be similar to the 5.2L, + -
5-6 hp.
Sam '00 RT
(Going for the 325 rwhp that Terry Herrin is running, ALL MOTOR)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Kyle Kozubal
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 2:39 PM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: DML: 5.2L/4.7L HP/TQ
>
>
> Does anyone know what the actual rear wheel hp/torque specs are for the a
> stock 5.2L V8 compared the 4.7L V8? Transmission would be an automatic.
> Here are the specs, but I figured they were measured at the crank:
>
> -5.2L V8(318cu.in.)
> HP: 230 hp @4400 rpm
> Torque: 300 ft. lbs. @ 3200 rpm
>
> -4.7L V8(287cu.in.)
> HP: 235hp @4800 rpm
> Torque: 295 ft-lbs @3200 rpm
>
> Just from what I have read and learned from being on the DML, the
> 318 seems
> to respond to various modifications the best and have the better
> ability to
> increase power(both hp/torque) from these mods. I am NOT saying
> the 287 is a
> poor engine, cause it isnt. My girlfriend have this engine in her 2000
> Durango 4x4, and I just drove a 2000 Dakota Club Cab with this
> engine in it,
> and it had tons of power. Just maybe companies havent found enough mods to
> make which would be benefitial. Please, let's not change this to
> what engine
> is better, cause both a extremely good engines. I am just not 100% sold on
> the 4.7L V8 and would like to offer the opportunity to have my
> mind changed.
> Thanks.
> Kyle
> 93 Dakota 4x4 V6
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:01:46 EDT