|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Kiddart]
#1313114
10/03/12 11:22 PM
10/03/12 11:22 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Tucson, AZ
Furious65
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Tucson, AZ
|
Quote:
Did you try contacting that hemi fever guy?
No, not yet. Probably will Friday as I should know the fate of my truck by then.
Quote:
I am going to do some research and see what i can turn over. if any. 
I appreciate that!
I would really like to run the factory ECM if I'm going to do this. One of the benefits of doing this IMO is the EFI mapping would already be done and I would be able to use the OD trans. Otherwise, it gets even more complicated and expensive and then it just isn't worth it to me.
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Chris2581]
#1313116
10/04/12 09:24 AM
10/04/12 09:24 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 19
Somewhere north of Omaha
BorisT
member
|
member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 19
Somewhere north of Omaha
|
Quote:
Quote:
4.7 is drive by wire, according to my reading.
R.
I'm sure there is a throttle cable on my 02 Ram quad cab 4.7
As there was a throttle cable on the 4.7 powered 2006 Ram QC 4x4 I had and my '04 WJ Grand Cherokee with the 4.7 HO. IIRC, the 4.7 went to DBW in 2008 with the upgraded power. The Hemi changed over several years sooner - 2005 or so.
Last edited by BorisT; 10/04/12 09:24 AM.
68 Plymouth Sport Fury Fasttop
290 HP 383/auto/factory AC
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: BorisT]
#1313117
10/04/12 01:59 PM
10/04/12 01:59 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,377
Ohio
Todd
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,377
Ohio
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
4.7 is drive by wire, according to my reading.
R.
I'm sure there is a throttle cable on my 02 Ram quad cab 4.7
As there was a throttle cable on the 4.7 powered 2006 Ram QC 4x4 I had and my '04 WJ Grand Cherokee with the 4.7 HO. IIRC, the 4.7 went to DBW in 2008 with the upgraded power. The Hemi changed over several years sooner - 2005 or so.
Hemi always have been.
In 2002 when the new DR Body trucks came out they used the 5.9L V8 because the software controller wasnt ready to run the electronic throttle. Not enough room inside of the contoller to run ECT,PCM and TCM functions. But that being said I may be wrong. 
I would still like to see some one use a 4.7L and make it work. It would really make you take a second look.
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: Todd]
#1313118
10/05/12 07:31 PM
10/05/12 07:31 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Tucson, AZ
Furious65
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 36
Tucson, AZ
|
Got the official news that the truck is totaled today. I asked about the buy back price and they said I would have to pay it off myself, then they would pay out on the accident, and then I could buy it back.  Well, I don't have 8k to just pay it off so I guess I will not be doing it. Sorry to waste everyone's time.
|
|
|
Re: 4.7l into classic Mopar?
[Re: dogdays]
#1313120
10/06/12 08:25 AM
10/06/12 08:25 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:
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.
Yes, i'd agree. Part ov the reason why i like them so much is because i AM into smaller, lighter cars now than i was. Anything i'll be driving will do more than fine with 5.0L or less. The 5.4DOHC still seems to work very very well however. In fact, it seems to be one ov those 'freak' engines everyone is talking about in that other thread... it just works, better than we'd think it should. Ov course, the guys that do need more torque are forced to stroke it even further... up to 5.8L i think. Al Pappito, the foremost 5.4DOHC guru has made some monsters... He'd say "My piston speeds would make you puke." I can imagine. But again... Mustangs/Cobras are on the smaller lighter side... and my Challenger would be considerably lighter still. I've since got off that wagon though...
As for the MDS. I still dont like it. Its hokey. Just design a more efficient engine!!! If it changes (effectively) to a 4-cylinder... then it must sound like one as well... and in that case i am most definitely out. I dont care if it runs 9's and gets 40mpg. I'll buy a Honda if i want a 4-popper. And on the efficiency track... my point was more that a modern DOHC V8 should always be more efficient than a (admittedly compromised) 'sort-ov' hemi design, or even the almighty LS-engine design forged by God himself (according to Hotrod magazine and Chevy guys)... though i'll admit i've yet to see the actual math on that one yet.
They are good... and kept within their comfort zone (smaller, lighter cars) they are pretty damn successful.
Now, if i was jamming a modern plant into a 71 Charger, or a C-body, or even something mid-size with an automatic transmission... ... the hemi (or the LS) makes a more obvious choice.
|
|
|
|
|
