|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: dogdays]
#1313092
10/02/12 08:51 AM
10/02/12 08:51 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Pale Roader, have you seen a DOHC Mod motor out of the car? It's wider than it is long.
Yes i have.... I've been all over those things since that twisted thought entered (then exited) my head...
Wide yes, about the same as a hemi (a real hemi), but 425lbs. 320 (net) HP, wicked-efficient and the best sound ov any Detroit engine ever made... in my opinion. You should see the 5.4 DOHC out ov the vehicle... you wanna talk wiiiiiiiiiide...???
Quote:
The 4.7 is a small, lightweight engine and would indeed make a fine A-body motor, or probably fit pretty well in a '30s or '40s Plymouth or Dodge. I'd say you either need to start with the entire stock wiring system and fuel tank, or else plan a different transmission and Megasquirt. That's just a guess.
Stock cams are assembled out of pieces and supply oil to the rockers. I don't know about upgrades.
R.
I still stand by my post that (ironically) it would be cheaper and much easier to swap a Ford DOHC into an old Mopar than the Dodge one. Though again, thats not the point ov the thread.
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1313093
10/02/12 09:08 AM
10/02/12 09:08 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
I realize the temptation of using what you have and using an engine you know the history of. However, for simplicity of installation, a 5.2 or 5.9 would be a more practical choice. From what I've seen/heard, 4.7s are decent engines but there is demand for used ones also. The speed parts for a 4.7 will be very limited and very expensive. Sell teh 4.7 and get a Maggie. 
Parts I seek:
driver doorpanel, 65 Sport Fury, prefer black, needs to be 7-8 on 10 scale, might buy set
16" x 6" Dodge truck wheel(s), from early 70s?, takes 9" dogdish - need for a research job so cheaper is better.
69-73 C-body caliper brackets and/or splashields
Send a PM.
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: radar]
#1313095
10/02/12 12:23 PM
10/02/12 12:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 299
East Brunswick, NJ
finadk
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 299
East Brunswick, NJ
|
I like the 4.7 in my 02 Ram. The only speed merchant for this engine seems to be www.AirRam.com From the looks of their site they really know this engine.
Scott
1956 Dodge Custom Royal Lancer (408 Stroker, 4 Wheel Disc Brakes, Rack & Pinion, 6 speed)
2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab
1976 Corvette
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1313098
10/02/12 05:45 PM
10/02/12 05:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
Its really too bad that more wasn't done with this engine. No real aftermarket, never put in cars, etc. In my quest for a quick, cool-sounding and extremely efficient V8 for my 70 Challenger i want to daily drive i kept coming back to this one. Its small, its light and being a DOHC it will sound wicked with some dedicated pipes, make very good power and kill anything else in efficiency.
because the 5.7 is lighter, physically smaller, more efficient (with MDS), more powerful AND cheaper to manufacture....
sounds like you need a 5.7 in your chally. my '11 charger is a beast power wise (published times are ~13.7 in the quarter, ~5.2 0-60, in a 4250lb car) while getting 22-23mpg in mixed driving over the 8k miles I've had the car...
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: dogdays]
#1313099
10/02/12 05:46 PM
10/02/12 05:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
Pale Roader, have you seen a DOHC Mod motor out of the car? It's wider than it is long.
The 4.7 is a small, lightweight engine and would indeed make a fine A-body motor, or probably fit pretty well in a '30s or '40s Plymouth or Dodge. I'd say you either need to start with the entire stock wiring system and fuel tank, or else plan a different transmission and Megasquirt. That's just a guess.
Stock cams are assembled out of pieces and supply oil to the rockers. I don't know about upgrades.
R.
mod motors are huge...especially the 5.4's....they're physically bigger than a 460 ford...
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: patrick]
#1313100
10/03/12 07:59 AM
10/03/12 07:59 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Quote:
Its really too bad that more wasn't done with this engine. No real aftermarket, never put in cars, etc. In my quest for a quick, cool-sounding and extremely efficient V8 for my 70 Challenger i want to daily drive i kept coming back to this one. Its small, its light and being a DOHC it will sound wicked with some dedicated pipes, make very good power and kill anything else in efficiency.
because the 5.7 is lighter, physically smaller, more efficient (with MDS), more powerful AND cheaper to manufacture....
sounds like you need a 5.7 in your chally. my '11 charger is a beast power wise (published times are ~13.7 in the quarter, ~5.2 0-60, in a 4250lb car) while getting 22-23mpg in mixed driving over the 8k miles I've had the car...
I dont think the hemi is more efficient... as a design. With the MDS sure... but i've always thought that was a really stupid idea. Its a cop-out. Rather than actually design a truly modern and efficient engine, they just find ways to use less gas in an inefficient engine? Why not just build a better engine? Ford did. Its just hokey from start to finish i think. I dont want a V8 in my car that becomes a 6 or 4cyl... i want a V8! With a better design i CAN have my cake and eat it too.
Just my opinion. Not a fan.
If they made (and i'm sure you wont hear this coming from anyone else...) a smaller hemi... say around 5.0L... then maybe (though still without the MDS). But sheer size has its drawbacks, and in MY case i just dont need a big engine. The car is light. A 318 could be fast in this car... Hence my recent obsession with the Ford mod engine.
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1313101
10/03/12 09:26 AM
10/03/12 09:26 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
I'm a 5.4 DOHC admirer too. I'm not a big fan of Fords otherwise, but I think a 67 Galaxie or an oddball big Merc would be pretty cool with a 5.4 DOHC Navigator engine.
Parts I seek:
driver doorpanel, 65 Sport Fury, prefer black, needs to be 7-8 on 10 scale, might buy set
16" x 6" Dodge truck wheel(s), from early 70s?, takes 9" dogdish - need for a research job so cheaper is better.
69-73 C-body caliper brackets and/or splashields
Send a PM.
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1313102
10/03/12 11:54 AM
10/03/12 11:54 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Its really too bad that more wasn't done with this engine. No real aftermarket, never put in cars, etc. In my quest for a quick, cool-sounding and extremely efficient V8 for my 70 Challenger i want to daily drive i kept coming back to this one. Its small, its light and being a DOHC it will sound wicked with some dedicated pipes, make very good power and kill anything else in efficiency.
because the 5.7 is lighter, physically smaller, more efficient (with MDS), more powerful AND cheaper to manufacture....
sounds like you need a 5.7 in your chally. my '11 charger is a beast power wise (published times are ~13.7 in the quarter, ~5.2 0-60, in a 4250lb car) while getting 22-23mpg in mixed driving over the 8k miles I've had the car...
I dont think the hemi is more efficient... as a design. With the MDS sure... but i've always thought that was a really stupid idea. Its a cop-out. Rather than actually design a truly modern and efficient engine, they just find ways to use less gas in an inefficient engine? Why not just build a better engine? Ford did. Its just hokey from start to finish i think. I dont want a V8 in my car that becomes a 6 or 4cyl... i want a V8! With a better design i CAN have my cake and eat it too.
Just my opinion. Not a fan.
If they made (and i'm sure you wont hear this coming from anyone else...) a smaller hemi... say around 5.0L... then maybe (though still without the MDS). But sheer size has its drawbacks, and in MY case i just dont need a big engine. The car is light. A 318 could be fast in this car... Hence my recent obsession with the Ford mod engine.
the hemi, without MDS is quite efficent--stick challys don't have it, and still get 26+MPG on the highway.
the hemi is a thoroghly modern and efficient engine in cyl head design, and it boasts some advantages over in-line valve heads like the LSx and the 4.6L SOHC heads-- being a hemi (more accurately a modified pent roof), the valve moves AWAY from the cyl bore as it opens, reducing valve shrouding significantly. having this arrangement also creates a much better short side radius geometry.
it's not a cop-out, it's simple physics. you need a certain amount of torque and HP for steady state cruising, most likely 30-50HP depending on speed and aerodynamics. an engine's volumetric efficiency is higher the closer you are to WOT (less vacuum=less pumping losses). the 90 degree V motor has natural balancing if it's a 2cyl, 4cyl, or 8cyl. so it makes sense to deactivate half the cyls (and keep the air column trapped by not opening the valves, eliminating pumping losses on those cyls) to increase fuel economy. the cyls' deactivate round-robin style, so it's not like the same cyls are shut off for 100 miles in a trip. and on my 2011, going into and out of MDS is seamless. if it wasn't for the "eco" light in the dash, you couldn't tell with stock exhaust. it reacts and refires the cyls in fractions of a second. THAT is having your cake and eating it, too. there is no natural engine balance on a 60 degree V6 where you could deactivate cyls, that's why it's not done--there's have to be some external means to cancel vibration....I'm surprised car companies haven't looked at a 90 degree V4, with cyl deactivation, honestly. most likely it's a packaging issue, as it would be a lot harder to package in a transverse, FWD arrangement.
and there is a certain elegance of design with a pushrod OHV V engine that you lose once you go to OHC. and just because it's a OHV cam-in-vee motor doesn't mean you can't do variable valve timing, or even multivalve heads...
1) fewer moving parts--1-3 less cams (SOHC or DOHC) and a MUCH simpler cam drive arrangement
2) shorter distance between crank to cam drive, means less potential variance in cam drive timing and wear
2) much smaller physically--having the cam in the vee instead of on top of the heads makes for a much more compact design (compare the PHYSICAL size of a 7L LS7 motor and a 4.6L or 5L ford DOHC motor)
bigger displacement=more torque. again, it's that dang physics....give me a 5.7L and the torque it provides when I want and need it, and a 2.85L when I don't....
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: patrick]
#1313103
10/03/12 12:14 PM
10/03/12 12:14 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
Quote:
the hemi is a thoroghly modern and efficient engine in cyl head design, and it boasts some advantages over in-line valve heads like the LSx and the 4.6L SOHC heads-- being a hemi (more accurately a modified pent roof), the valve moves AWAY from the cyl bore as it opens, reducing valve shrouding significantly. having this arrangement also creates a much better short side radius geometry.
I'll agree that the new hemi head has been optimized/updated for modern vehicles. Yes, the hemi combustion chamber layout is good for large valve sizes with minimized shrouding, and therefore high-rpm breathing. Yes, teh MDS adds to MPG -- but so do the single and double-OD ratios in the trans.
I believe I read somewhere years ago that the hemi combustion chamber was the worst for thermodynamic efficiency, due to high surface area. It also has to have a pop-up piston to get acceptable CR (as a hemisphere has greater volume than a wedge), and that popup impedes flame travel. I'd speculate that it therefore is less tolerable of lean mixtures, which are harder to burn.
Perhaps that's teh angle that Pale Roader was referring to?
It would be interesting to see BSFC of a 5.4 Ford, 5.3 and 6.0 LSX, and 5.7 hemi - as-is, without MDS or other features. And of 4.7 vs 5.2 Maggie.
So did we decide on the original 4.7 installation question??? 
Parts I seek:
driver doorpanel, 65 Sport Fury, prefer black, needs to be 7-8 on 10 scale, might buy set
16" x 6" Dodge truck wheel(s), from early 70s?, takes 9" dogdish - need for a research job so cheaper is better.
69-73 C-body caliper brackets and/or splashields
Send a PM.
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Fury Fan]
#1313104
10/03/12 12:48 PM
10/03/12 12:48 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mi,U.S.A.
mike s
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mi,U.S.A.
|
The 4.7L and the Sohc Fords are closer to 40's BMW tech than anything modern.Yes they have modern fuel and ignition systems but that is all.2007 4.7L and up uses a poly chamber (yes that poly) and dual spark plugs. Hemi is much cheaper to build and I mean much cheaper.
GM noted this and did not build a Sohc V-8 instead building their LS series.Modern,light and powerful (torque) pushrod V-8's.
Overall the LS and Hemi are more efficient than the overhead cam designs.Remember these all were built to power a heavy truck and that also limits the fuel economy.
Lastly a small hemi (5.0L) would have been a great idea but the new V-6 does the same thing with only a small torque and h.p. loss without building yet another size Hemi.BTW 25 hwy mpg with the 8 spd in the truck.Not too shabby.
Leave the gun.......take the Cannoli's....Mike
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: mike s]
#1313105
10/03/12 01:31 PM
10/03/12 01:31 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
dogdays
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
|
Re: Ford mod V8s
My knock on the mod motor is this:
When Ford designed the mod motor they were too pessimistic about their ability to sell or possibly certify a large smallblock so they made the bore spacing too small (3.937"). While this made a nice short engine front-to-back, it didn't leave a lot of room for expansion. So when the cry came for more power, they couldn't add a lot to the bore size, instead they had to stroke the engine. So now they have a 330 cubic inch engine with a 4.165" stroke. Even a 273 block with a 4" crank, also about 330 cubic inches, has a shorter stroke.
Part of the thrill of a DOHC engine is that it breathes well and the lightweight valvetrain allows it to rev much higher than typical pushrods. But having a DOHC head on a 4.165" stroke is kind of like putting racing flats on a shot putter.
End of lecture.
R.
Last edited by dogdays; 10/03/12 01:35 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: mike s]
#1313106
10/03/12 01:32 PM
10/03/12 01:32 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,552
Michigan
Kiddart
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,552
Michigan
|
getting back to topic, I know the concern is the ECM but why couldnt or has anyone tried to see if Mopar performance has a drive by wite throtel body for the 4.7 to then use the conventional ecm like the 5.7 does. Or could you just use the FAST system to do both fuel and spark?? I have a 4.7 flex fuel in my ram and it sure would be real cool to run the same motor and fuel system in my abody, flex fuel and all.
Thank you
Kiddart
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Fury Fan]
#1313108
10/03/12 01:52 PM
10/03/12 01:52 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Tucson, AZ
Furious65
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Tucson, AZ
|
Quote:
So did we decide on the original 4.7 installation question???
Still haven't decided yet as the insurance company hasn't had a chance to look at the truck as it got hit again! Parked, on private property, yet some crazy lady ends up hitting it right in the same spot as before! 
I can fabricate whatever mounts I need and wiring isn't an issue for me. The ECM is the main concern for me. If I can eliminate all the BS emissions garbage and ditch the horrible gas tank mess with an ECM flash then I say it is doable. Would it be the fastest or coolest swap, no. However, it would be great for a daily driver vehicle IMO.
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Fury Fan]
#1313109
10/03/12 04:15 PM
10/03/12 04:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
I believe I read somewhere years ago that the hemi combustion chamber was the worst for thermodynamic efficiency, due to high surface area. It also has to have a pop-up piston to get acceptable CR (as a hemisphere has greater volume than a wedge), and that popup impedes flame travel. I'd speculate that it therefore is less tolerable of lean mixtures, which are harder to burn.
Perhaps that's teh angle that Pale Roader was referring to?
It would be interesting to see BSFC of a 5.4 Ford, 5.3 and 6.0 LSX, and 5.7 hemi - as-is, without MDS or other features. And of 4.7 vs 5.2 Maggie.
So did we decide on the original 4.7 installation question???
honestly, the new hemi is a "hemi" in name only. it probably would be more accurate to call it a polyspheric or pentroof engine.
the dual plug config also addresses flame front issues created my the larger surface area.
there's no reason you couldn't do a 4 valve pushrod hemi, either using a forked rocker. you may end up increasing the ratio of valvetrain weight to valve surface area, though, because you have 2 valve stems
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Furious65]
#1313110
10/03/12 04:26 PM
10/03/12 04:26 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
Fury Fan
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,533
Indiana
|
Quote:
I can fabricate whatever mounts I need and wiring isn't an issue for me. The ECM is the main concern for me. If I can eliminate all the BS emissions garbage and ditch the horrible gas tank mess with an ECM flash then I say it is doable. Would it be the fastest or coolest swap, no. However, it would be great for a daily driver vehicle IMO.
Back when I was fantasy-contemplating (which is all I get to do anymore  ) to do a 4.7 I planned on using a Megasquirt-2 and adapting a cable-mount TB from whatever would fit the best.
I'd be surprised if anyone is up-to-speed on deleting all teh stuff you need to disable in a 2005 4.7 ECM (trans, evap system, anti-theft, speed limiter, ABS/throttle overrides, cruise control, and some of the OBD stuff).
Even if so, it's gonna cost as much as a MS-II and you'll spend more effort to hack the OEM harness as if you made/bought a new one for the MS.
BTW - what's the hood clearance situation look like? I presume they weren't designing for that, being a truck-only engine.
Parts I seek:
driver doorpanel, 65 Sport Fury, prefer black, needs to be 7-8 on 10 scale, might buy set
16" x 6" Dodge truck wheel(s), from early 70s?, takes 9" dogdish - need for a research job so cheaper is better.
69-73 C-body caliper brackets and/or splashields
Send a PM.
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Fury Fan]
#1313111
10/03/12 07:58 PM
10/03/12 07:58 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
DaytonaTurbo
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
|
Quote:
I'd be surprised if anyone is up-to-speed on deleting all teh stuff you need to disable in a 2005 4.7 ECM (trans, evap system, anti-theft, speed limiter, ABS/throttle overrides, cruise control, and some of the OBD stuff).
Even if so, it's gonna cost as much as a MS-II and you'll spend more effort to hack the OEM harness as if you made/bought a new one for the MS.
There are only two real downsides to using the megasquirt or any other aftermarket EFI controller in this application. One is the transmission. If you want to use the dakota transmission, the megasquirt can not control it so you would need to either run a different trans unless someone makes an independant trans controller for it. Second is the tuning. The factory efi computer will run the engine smooth as glass and will require you to put no thought or time into that aspect of the conversion. Did you try contacting that hemi fever guy?
|
|
|
|
|
That is the only time I have ever gotten that. However, 16mpg in town and 21/22mpg on the highway at 75mph is the norm and that is with my dirt bike, that pretty much lived in the bed of it, in the back. BTW, bone stock everything on the truck.
