More BS from someone who don't know what they are talking about, The 4.7L
will handle any mod that the 5.2 or the 5.9L will take, look How many
aluminum head engines are running NOS now, a damn lot of them are, Chrysler
tested the Kenne Bell SC on the 4.7L duhhhhh what the are you thinking
man, what "Gizmo's" can't the 4.7 take, you list them, I want to see them??
Torque??? hee heee I guess thats why we are seeing 1/4 mile times right
with the RT from the 4.7L!! Advancement,? ok lets see here cubic inch to
hp ratio
4.7L ( .82 hp per cube) 5.9L (.69 hp per cube)
Torque to cube ratio
4.7L (1.02 Ft lbs/ per cube) 5.9L (0.95 ft/lbs/ per cube)
4.7L gas mileage (city 15/ highway 18) 5.9L (city ?? /highway ??)
4.7L hemispherical combustion chambers 5.9L non hemi
4.7L cranck triggered ignition, no plug wires or cap/rotor
5.9L distributor/cap/rotor
I could go on an on, But what I'm getting at is that when DC comes out with
the 5.7L(or whatever the liter is) brother to the 4.7L, There will be no
comparing it to the 360 push rod motor. It will have more HP, and Torque I
bet you!
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Shaun.Hendricks@bergenbrunswig.com
[mailto:Shaun.Hendricks@bergenbrunswig.com]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 2:33 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: DML: Death of the Pushrod
<<<<<<<<< Ya know, I really hate to rain on your "The days of the pushrod
<<<<<<<<engine is
<<<<<<<<over" parade but it's simply not true. There was a reason the 318 &
360
engines lasted for so long: THEY PRODUCE POWER! A pushrod engine will
always
out do an OHC engine for torque purposes. Horsepower isn't everything.
I believe it was a few weeks ago where someone posted up to the list that
they went to the track and a Cummins Turbo Diesel RAM wiped them all out.
Talk about an archaic engine, an in-line six with pushrods and all the
ancient
engine technology that diesels represent.
When you are racing, you want gobs of both HP and Torque. Never give up
one for the other and call it and "advancement", because it's not, it's a
"compromise". Advancement is a gain in all categories, anything else is
just
a 'change'.
The 4.7's represent a more 'efficient' engine. Lighter and quicker to
respond, but they can't handle all the gizmos people like to tack onto them
like nitrous and such: they are aluminum engines with the weaknesses of an
aluminum engine. Because the engine is already near it's peak efficiency,
there's not much you can do to it to make it "better".
The 5.9 and 5.2 engines will always be able to out power the 4.7 in both
HP
and Torque, but not until they are brought up to the efficiency level of the
4.7 engine. That requires aftermarket goods. There is no substitute for
cubic inches save and entire engine concept change... like oh, a turbine...
All car magazine's suck, no matter which one they are. They are puppets
of
their reporters biases and of their advertisers. They always make
compromises
since they can never compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges because
there's really too many differences in vehicles. If someone wants to give
MT
a fair comparison, take a supercharged or nitrous'd R/T to them and tell
them
to whip out the Lightning and go for their tests then. Until then, I
suggest
all you R/T owners should write them a nasty letter and tell them they suck
and their testing techniques are extremely unscientific and biased since
they
don't even have a clue enough to compare proper engine types...
Shaun H.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:18:59 EDT