That's just it though ... before you start making major mods like intake,
cams, heads, headers, etc etc you first have to decide what you want and
where you want the torque curve to fall.
I don't think the HO cams and HO intake are a terribly good combination for
MAX gains .. they gain a moderate amount all across the board, but they're
not matched to work in unison .. they are matched to pick up on the other's
weakness.
The HO cams have a shorter intake duration and higher lift than the stockers
.. making them torquer cams (well, more so that the stock ones at least).
whereas the HO Intake has shorter intake runners than the stocker, making it
tuned for best volumetric efficiency a few hundred RPM (maybe 700-1000RPM)
higher than the stocker ... its just not an ideal combination for maximum
gains.
-- Canuck -------------------------------------------- Y2K, 4.7L, 2wd, 5spd, The Ultimate K&N HomeBrew, Flowmaster CatBack, Home Ported TB, Electric fan conversion, 180 therm., Redline synth., IAT adjuster, HO Cams, HO Intake http://www.twistedbits.net/WWWProfile/dakota/Vyikam1jjgNN6""Saint"" <saint1958@cox.net> wrote in message news:JDEFLJGNMJLMLMJBGHDJIEJJCHAA.saint1958@cox.net... > > You can get CAMS regrind by allot of local speed or auto machine shops. The > cost various from who you talk too. Depending on your requirements, you > have them regrind for more torque and less HP. This will help the bottom end > to get going. > > However, I would be cautious before doing this since I have a truck that > takes only second in first gear before hitting the RPM wall. > > However, congrats on your install. Just amazing how many Mopars fanatics > learns new talents and help to keep the image of Dodge alive with real > performance. > > --------------------------------------------- > Steven St.Laurent > 2003 Dodge Hemi 5.7 Ram 2500 Quad > 2000 Dodge Dakota Hemi (Some idot hit the vehicle) > 2000 Roush Ford TT-Mustang (1 of 2 beta vehicles) > 1999 Chevy Astro (A.K.A. GM Junk) > 1993 Geo Tracker (Amazing vehicle that keeps running) > PROJECT CAR: > 1992 Suzuki Swift GT (fastest stock sub-compact at 160HP/1775lb vehicle) > Intercooled Turbo - 350HP FY-03 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ------------------ > Future Purchases: > 2004 Dodge Ram SRT-10 with a V-10 (replace the Suzuki) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net > [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net]On Behalf Of Canucker > Trucker > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:50 AM > To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net > Subject: DML: Re: RE: Re: 4.7L HO intake manifold > > > :) .. weeeell ... I suppose I could elaborate a bit. > > I installed the Cams and intake separately so I could judge the gains from > each mod (most people do them both at once). I did the cams first, then the > intake. > > As for the cams, they were incredibly straight forward to install. I > followed instructions I downloaded off the Speedtweaks site in the tips and > tricks section (Thanks Bernd & Tom!). I got a picture and dimensions of the > wedge tool from someone on the web (maybe even a DMLer - Glen I think his > name was) and then made my own out of wood (which I wrapped in a plastic bag > to avoid wood chips in the engine). > > The only snag with the install was the driver's side valve cover was a HUGE > pain in the a$$ to get off. Took close to 3hrs of just pissing around. > Once I got it off once though, it was a snap to get on and off again. Lots > of guys remove all sorts of stuff like the fuel rail, power steering pump > etc etc to get it off, but I didn't have to in the end. After that, it was > all smooth .. except my buddy grounded the alternator to its housing when he > hooked it back up (had to disconnect the wire to help move the wiring > harness outta the way of the driver's side valve cover). That blew a > fusible link no biggy. > > After the cams were in ... initial reactions was :-o!!! I drove around for > a few weeks with just the cams. Great low end gains. good mid range gains, > maybe a bit of top end loss. If I was idling around in first gear (or even > second actually) then put my foot through the floorboard, the tires would > light up every time. it was great! > > The cams took .15-.25 seconds off my G-Tech times but made runs really > really inconsistent due to traction issues. Also got a 15hp G-Tech > horsepower increase. Gas mileage went up a bit too if I drove nice. > > Next I did the intake. Suprisingly easy to do as well. Only took a few > hours from parking the truck in the garage to firing it up again. One snag > that was my own fault, I forgot to hook up the vacuum line in the back of > the manifold. Fired it up and there was a loud sucking noise .. shut the > truck off and found the problem without any troubles. Fired it up again, > then went for a test drive. > > Reaction after the intake was also :-o!!! The engine would readily rev > right up to the 5000RPM range without even hesitating now. ... the downside > though: most of that low end TQ gain from the cams was gone. It's still > better than stock, but there was a definite loss after the intake. > > G-Tech times are now MUCH more consistent (within .1 seconds each run, > versus a .3 second spread with just the cams). This is because it is much > easier to launch now. Average G-Tech times didn't really change much though > (to my dismay) after the Intake. maybe gained a tenth at best. G-Tech > horsepower also didn't change much .. gained 1-2hp average, but I wouldn't > even beleive for a second that the G-Tech is that accurate. > > Conclusion: > The intake would work much better with a more aggressive cam (KRC's new one > for example) if you're looking for a TQ peak around 3500-4000RPM. With the > HO cams though, I don't think its a very good combination. basically, I > think the cams are designed for low end TQ, but the intake is for higher RPM > gains. put them together, they almost kill eachother. If I had the > time/effort, it'd be interesting to see what just the intake alone does with > the stock cams. I would guess that would be a faster combination with more > high end hp. > > Either way you look at it though, the HO cam/Intake combo is still much much > better than stock. Hands down the best mod so far. > > My advice: > If you're just going to tow, install the HO cams only. > If you're looking to go faster, try just the intake and see what it gains > you. Then install the cams after. > > Realistically though, for just over $300 for the ENTIRE combo, you can't go > wrong. I've wasted that much money on one good night of drinking! > > Sorry for the book ... but you asked for it! ;^) I'm sure that's more than > you ever wanted to know. > > Any more questions, feel free to ask. > > -- > Canuck > -------------------------------------------- > Y2K, 4.7L, 2wd, 5spd, The Ultimate K&N HomeBrew, Flowmaster CatBack, Home > Ported TB, Electric fan conversion, 180 therm., Redline synth., IAT > adjuster, HO Cams, HO Intake > http://www.twistedbits.net/WWWProfile/dakota/Vyikam1jjgNN6 > > > "Art DiRamio" <ADiRamio@opensolutions.com> wrote in message > news:CD14A5E5DC40D611930E00508BDC9E4E47BC1F@exchange.opensolutions.com... > > > > No, No, No... > > > > You can't just say you've done it, you need to provide details! (well, > you > > can, but that's just plain mean ;^) ) > > > > I see you did the cams too. How'd it all go? Are you happy? Any issues? > > > > Inquiring 4.7L drivers need to know > > > > Art DiRamio > > '01 Patriot Blue QC Sport+ Auto HD 4X4 > > 4.7L 3.55s Penda soft tonneau > > '97 Kawasaki Vulcan Classic 1500 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Canucker Trucker [mailto:flamindakman@yahoo.co.uk] > > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:15 PM > > To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net > > Subject: DML: Re: 4.7L HO intake manifold > > > > > > I've done it. > > > > -- > > Canuck > > -------------------------------------------- > > Y2K, 4.7L, 2wd, 5spd, The Ultimate K&N HomeBrew, Flowmaster CatBack, Home > > Ported TB, Electric fan conversion, 180 therm., Redline synth., IAT > > adjuster, HO Cams, HO Intake > > http://www.twistedbits.net/WWWProfile/dakota/Vyikam1jjgNN6 > > > > > > "andy levy" <andylevy@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:aqevvj$8ti$2@bent.twistedbits.net... > > > > > > Just learned that the 4.7L HO manifold can be purchased separately, much > > > like the HO cams. Anyone currently on the list done this? Yes I have a > > > 318, I'm just curious about it is all. > > > > > > > NOTICE: This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual to > whom > > it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential > > or otherwise exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this e-mail is not > the > > intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the > > message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly > > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > > immediately notify us by replying to the original message at the listed > > email address. Thank You. > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:47:25 EST