I have mine and it has been a great engine to have in a truck. I was for the
longest time getting 14-15mpg around town but I do have a problem and that
dropped (in a week) to 11 maybe 12 around town. Still working with the dealer on
that. I had a 318 in my '96 (which i'm getting back) and it was a great engine
also but it doesn't compare (in my opinion, no flames) for smoothness and a more
even delivery of power across the rpm range. Guys have been finding that the Jet
II chip actually works very well on this engine as well as a good cat-back,
intake, and hopefully soon (thanks to bruce at flowmetrics) a larger tb. I'm not
saying that the 318 is not a good engine to have but the 4.7 has proven to me to
be a good performer as well.
Jeff Durling
'01 4x2 QC SLT+
Kyle Kozubal wrote:
> 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