I suppose it depends on which version of the 4.7L you're talking about.
The early one with 230hp and 290ft/lb had a later torque peak
(290ft/lb@3600rpm for the 4.7L vs. 300ft/lb@3200 for the 5.2. The later
ones (dual spark plug heads) had 329lb/ft@3950rpm, more torque but much
higher up the rev range.
It's kind of apples to oranges for me, comparing my friend's 2000 4.7L 5
speed to my '95 5.2 with the automatic. I've never done any serious
towing with my Dakota either, the most I've done is yank fenceposts and
that wasn't much more than letting off the brake and using the trans
creep to yank it.
I'd say mine feels stronger in the mid range (2500-3500rpm) but the 4.7L
has it more up top. The 4.7L had it more accessible though due to the 5
speed. He'd get me from a 20mph roll every time because the $@#$#
tranny won't kick down to 1st from that speed, and with the tires I have
on it 1st gear ain't over until 47mph.
I do remember the time I had about 1000lb of tile in the bed, and I
hardly felt it other than the rear end riding nicer. On his 4.7L he had
about the same amount of concrete edging brick for his garden in the bed
and he had to rev it pretty good to get it up to the speed limit.
Too bad you're not supposed to tow with the MP PCM, that really made a
big difference in the 2000-3500rpm range. I'd take the 5.2L with the MP
PCM over the 4.7L any day.
I'd take the 360 over either for towing, though the only 360 I've
experienced was in a Ram 2500, and it was a dog due to all the weight
and I suspect it had the "Death flash" PCM.
If I ever have to pull my 318 for a reman I can tell you a 360
(330ft/lb@3200) is going back in it's place. The fuel economy can't get
much worse for my commute!
M.B.
On 7/3/2011 7:46 PM, Barry Oliver wrote:
>
>
> I have had my Dak WAAAY over the rating more time than I can count and
> it never sicked this bad.. Hell, I drug a Full size CASE backhoe on a
> 3 axle lowboy trailer with a pintle hook hitch 25 miles down the
> highway when my buddy blew up his F350 and the Dak got the job done.
> I suspect the *trailer* was close to 6K before the tractor...
>
>
> But back on topic, my main complaint is that when compared back to
> back with my Dak with the 5.2, the 4.7 sucks. Many of you have chimed
> in that the 4.7 did OK or got the job done, and that's cool. How many
> of you have had the opportunity to compare the 2 motors back to back?
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 02 2011 - 00:19:27 EDT