Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





New Dodge 5.7 Hemi

1235711

Comments

  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    Thanks for the post. I think you'll find the argument will be (has been) that the Dodge 4.7 motor cannot realize the EPA ratings based on accumulated anecdotal experiences. I agree with you that the EPA test sequence is the only non-variable equal state measurement system that can be reliably used to compare makes and models.

    A general comment: Besides being influenced heavily by driving technique, the other problem with unsolicited anecdotal reports is verification. Some people with an emotional attachment or disaffection to a make or model will either remember the very best, or the very worst. Then of course there are those who knowingly give false information, those who will exchange personal integrity for a momentary feeling of superiority. There is no better example than the subject of automobiles of how some are religiously allegiant to certain auto marques and/or wage disparagement against others. Unfortunately, these and other influences exist among the unsolicited anecdotal reports and there's really no way of screening them out. In addition, if a person is not getting the gas mileage they think they should be getting, the response is often to first blame the vehicle, despite the fact that the driver is the primary influence on gas mileage. After all, who wants to believe that they are responsible for poor results!

    Listed below are the EPA fuel mileage ratings of the most popular trucks. Tell me if you notice anything about the ratings:

    Make/Model engine/trans type fuel city/highway

    Ford F150 2WD
    6 cyl, 4.2 L, Man(5), Regular 17 20
    6 cyl, 4.2 L, Auto(4), Regular 16 20
    8 cyl, 4.6 L, Auto(4), Regular 16 20
    8 cyl, 4.6 L, Man(5), Regular 15 19
    8 cyl, 5.4 L, Auto(4), Regular 14 19
    Ford Ranger 2WD
    4 cyl, 2.3 L, Man(5), Regular 24 29
    4 cyl, 2.3 L, Auto(5), Regular 23 26
    6 cyl, 3 L, Man(5), Regular 19 23
    6 cyl, 3 L, Auto(5), Regular 17 22
    6 cyl, 4 L, Man(5), Regular 17 22
    6 cyl, 4 L, Auto(5), Regular 16 21
    Chevrolet S10 Pickup
    4 cyl, 2.2 L, Man(5), Regular 22 28
    4 cyl, 2.2 L, Auto(4), Regular 19 25
    6 cyl, 4.3 L, Auto(4), Regular 17 23
    6 cyl, 4.3 L, Man(5), Regular 16 24
    Chevrolet C1500 Silverado 2WD
    8 cyl, 4.8 L, Man(5), Regular 16 20
    6 cyl, 4.3 L, Man(5), Regular 15 21
    6 cyl, 4.3 L, Auto(4), Regular 15 20
    8 cyl, 4.8 L, Auto(4), Regular 15 19
    8 cyl, 5.3 L, Auto(4), FLEX-FUEL, Gasoline or E85 Gas 15 19
    8 cyl, 5.3 L, Auto(4), LM7, Regular 15 19
    Dodge Dakota 2WD
    6 cyl, 3.9 L, Auto(4), Regular 18 19
    6 cyl, 3.9 L, Man(5), Regular 15 21
    8 cyl, 4.7 L, Man(5), Regular 15 20
    8 cyl, 4.7 L, Auto(5), Regular 15 20
    8 cyl, 5.9 L, Auto(4), Regular 13 18
    Dodge RAM 1500 2WD
    6 cyl, 3.7 L, Man(5), Regular 16 21
    6 cyl, 3.7 L, Auto(4), Regular 15 20
    8 cyl, 4.7 L, Auto(5), Regular 14 19
    8 cyl, 4.7 L, Man(5), Regular 14 19
    8 cyl, 5.9 L, Auto(4), Regular 13 17
    Nissan Frontier V6 2WD
    6 cyl, 3.3 L, Man(5), Regular 17 20
    6 cyl, 3.3 L, Auto(4), Regular 17 20
    6 cyl, 3.3 L, Man(5), Premium 15 19
    6 cyl, 3.3 L, Auto(4), Premium 15 19
    Toyota Tacoma 2WD
    4 cyl, 2.4 L, Man(5), Regular 22 27
    4 cyl, 2.4 L, Auto(4), Regular 22 25
    4 cyl, 2.7 L, Auto(4), Regular 19 21
    6 cyl, 3.4 L, Man(5), Regular 19 24
    6 cyl, 3.4 L, Auto(4), Regular 17 20
    Toyota Tundra 2WD
    6 cyl, 3.4 L, Man(5), Regular 16 20
    6 cyl, 3.4 L, Auto(4), Regular 16 19
    8 cyl, 4.7 L, Auto(4), Regular 15 19

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380
    dusty,

    you forgot to post the 4x4 numbers...those are what interest me the most! by the way, do you get a dollar for everytime you use "anecdotal" in a post? :)
  • mledtjemledtje Posts: 1,123
    It looks like the fullsize and midsize trucks (6s and 8s) all get about the same mileage, and the smaller trucks (4s especially) get 20-40% better mileage.

    An automatic hurts the mileage of the 4s quite a bit, but only costs about 1mpg on a V8.

    The one engine that gets the worst (and 2nd worst)mileage on the list is the old 5.9L Dodge. No suprise there.

    The 4.7 is about the same as similar Ford and GM engines. 1mpg difference could be as little as .1mpg and being on the break point for rounding off. Not enough to make an issue of.

    Surprising to see the Frontier and Tundra 6's don't return much better mileage than larger 6's and 8's in larger trucks from Ford and GM.

    I would have expected more variation from brand to brand. But, I guess it takes about the same amount of horsepower to move about the same amount of weight.

    Mike L
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    Exactly!!

    Unlike passenger cars, the very nature of pickup trucks assumes that some population of their owners have purchased that type of vehicle to do work, other than carry passengers. The manufacturers are cognizant of that and design the vehicle as a package to fullfill a specific fitness-of-purpose role. That includes the ability to haul weight, which is a normal and expected thing for a truck to do.

    Americans, being the impatient souls that we are, generally place a high value on performance over such other things as total operating cost. So, despite the difference in displacement and taxable power, the power delivery system is adjusted to provide a level of power and performance for the design's ability to handle loads. In practical terms this means that smaller displacement/power engines get higher numerical axle ratios, smaller tires, and in general an engine tuned that maximizes it power in the normal driving range. This is why the delta between larger engine/power and smaller engine/power fuel consumption is so low. Despite the emotion, the laws of physics must apply.

    Where this phenomenon is most observant is in the differences between the V6 motors and smaller V8s. You will note that all manufacturers of large trucks have this same pattern.

    Some major pieces of information that are missing in order to really makes sense and practical meaning out of this subject, are the the 0-60 mph times and some other measurement that can demonstrate the engine/vehicle ability to perform with or without a load for each engine-vehicle combination.

    The total performance measurement of any truck platform does not stop with fuel consumption, but also includes GVW capability, load size handling ability, and performance under load. These could be measured with a equal state test measurement criteria that would be a more realistic and meaningful way to compare different vehicles.

    Back in the '30s and '40s someone designed a incline test for commercial vehicles, where a ladened or unladened vehicle was timed trying to climb a hill. A little simple by today's standards, it at least was one way to compare the hauling ability of different vehicles.

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • hersbirdhersbird Posts: 323
    The Dodge 5.9 may barely be the worst gas hog on that list (actually the worst pickup on the EPA list is not a 5.9 Dodge but a 10 city/12 highway 2500 Chevy 2wd.) but it is by far the oldest design. It is a Mopar LA design which came out in 1964. The small block Chevy went out of production in 1999 but started 9 years earlier. The 5.9 will still be used in 2004 so even if it stops production after that it will be with-in 5 years of the beloved Chevys run. Technically the 'A' series motor that preceded (started in 1956) the 'LA' motor was very similar and shared many parts. If you count that as the first Mopar 'small block' then the current 360 design is older then the chevy 350 was in it's last year 1999. Compare that Dodge motor engineered in 1964 to the Chevy motor engineered in 1999 (4.8 and 5.3) and a 2 mpg difference isn't that bad. An interesting side note to this is that the 5.7 Hemi is so close to being a LA 5.9 with new heads it's scary.

    As far as meeting or beating EPA estimates I have one of the exact trucks on dusty's list and I can easily beat the EPA estimates. I can also easily go way under them. Another big difference is what some consider city driving compared to highway driving. If you live in a big city with long runs of streets with 45 mph speed limits and few stoplights you might see pretty awesome city mileage. If you live on a slow, narrow winding hill that you have to lug up and ride the brake all the way down your mileage will look pretty pathetic. I went from a rig that supposedly got much better mileage then my 5.9 Dakota to the Dakota and didn't notice any change in my fuel costs. The old motor had to work to get up the hill and the Dakota just idles up it. Even my 98 neon which we once got 46 mpg on a long trip from California to Montana, was epa rated at 29 city and 41 highway. It could only get 20mpg on my daily city hill climb commute. Considering my Gas hog 5.9 and the fact I only drive 8000 miles per year of which 95% is this daily commute and I hardly consider fuel mileage when shopping for my 'work' rig The neon was only saving me $300-$350 per year in gas! That is comparing a tiny 4 cylinder/5speed compact, to about the worst truck on the list. If you are worried about 1 mpg difference between a 4.7 Dodge and a 4.7 Toyota then you better put 100,000 highway miles a year on you rig for that to even be a consideration.
  • mledtjemledtje Posts: 1,123
    The Chevy small block is still in production.

    In 2000, it was still available in the Old Body Style pickups and vans. The vans continued to use it through 2002. And it is still used in medium duty trucks today. At this rate, it may never die!

    1955-2003(at least) = 48+ years. Wonder if the new LS1 style engines will be around that long?

    Mike L
  • akjbmwakjbmw Posts: 231
    Hersbird.

    Good post.

    That is the type of qualifying information about the driving conditions that really provide the usable data to compare personal results or choose a type of vehicle. However "anecdotal" it may be.

    Some may drive only on the flat. I don't.
    Some may do only the city parkway at 45 with few stops. I don't.
    Some may do only city streets with a stopsign at every intersection. I don't.
    Some may always leave the stopsign/stoplight with full throttle or in geezer mode. I do both with inconsistency.
    Some may always have a max capacity load or run empty.

    Having similar gas mileage on the flat is one thing, but pulling a long grade without getting run over and still getting reasonable mileage is a plus. As is doing the same thing with a load. This is the area that there are apparently greater differences.

    Bring on the Anecdotes. Just keep adding the usefull details.

    Keep on post'n.
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380
    for those of you that would like to see the 4.7l get better mileage...check out this article from last summer...

    (cut and paste from daimler media site)

    Small Changes to Engine, Vehicle Add Up to 25 Percent Better Fuel Efficiency

    Auburn Hills, Mich., Jun 13, 2002 - Chrysler Group researchers are using a series of small steps in engineering to produce a giant leap in fuel efficiency that could benefit consumers in the not-too-distant future.

    With a series of engineering changes to Chrysler's standard gasoline-powered, 4.7-liter V-8 engine, researchers have produced an engine with 14 percent better fuel efficiency. The cost of those changes: less than $200 per engine. The project has been nicknamed the MAGIC engine, which stands for Multiple Approaches to Great Internal Combustion. The improvement in fuel efficiency was achieved with no sacrifice in emissions, power, cost, weight, engine life or other engine characteristics such as noise, vibration or harshness.

    "We call it the MAGIC engine, but it's really pure engineering," said Thomas Moore, DaimlerChrysler Vice President and head of the Liberty & Technical Affairs advanced technology research group in Rochester Hills, Michigan. "Our goal was to demonstrate that all these little changes actually work in the real world and add up to major improvements in efficiency. Today we can say that it all works."

    Eight different design and engineering changes were made to the standard engine. "Most of these changes are not new, and individually, they produce miniscule gains in fuel efficiency," Moore said. "The idea of the MAGIC engine is to package them all together so the overall gain is significant."

    As a next step, Chrysler engineers packaged the MAGIC engine into a Dodge Durango SUV with several additional design changes to enhance fuel efficiency. That vehicle, project Apollo, achieves an overall improvement in fuel efficiency of 25 percent. Total additional costs for project Apollo are only about $500 per vehicle.

    Areas of improvement are:
    Increased compression ratio (4 percent) -- resulting in greater efficiency and lower emissions -- through:
    + Intake port air-gap thermal barrier.
    Chrysler Group has applied for a patent for this innovative feature.
    + On-demand piston oil-squirters
    + Precision cooling system
    Charge motion control (5 percent). Use of swirl control valves to enhance flame propagation during warm-up and partial load

    This also enables increased EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation)
    Friction loss reduction (4 percent). Design changes to lower friction at no extra cost:
    + Crankshaft offset
    + Reduced oil-ring tension
    + Shortened coolant jacket
    Parasitic loss reduction (1 percent). New design oil pump with reduced internal leakage and reduced friction
    Chrysler Group engineers used the same incremental approach to fuel efficiency improvements in the Dodge Durango SUV fuel efficiency demonstration vehicle. The Apollo project includes the following enhancements:

    A 12V alternator/restarter to allow transparent shutdown and restarting of a warm engine in stop/start traffic conditions (4 percent)
    Improved cooling technologies, including electronic thermostat, electric water pump, transmission temperature management and multi-mode temperature strategy (5 percent)
    Improved undercarriage aerodynamics (belly pans and air dams) and grille shutters resulting in reduced drag (1.2 percent)
    Electro-hydraulic power steering (1 percent)
    "Engineers have been improving the internal combustion engine for 130 years, so big improvements are hard to come by," Moore said. "We made the big improvement one small step at a time."
  • hersbirdhersbird Posts: 323
    I did know the 2500 didn't change style until 2000 but though it used something different. I had completely forgot about the van! I bet both the Chevy and the Mopar LA will continue to be used in certain special applications like RV chassis, and in certain markets like Mexico. You can just use up old stock even when the production lines have changed over to new parts. Or better yet, send all the factory tooling down to somewhere like Mexico and let them pump them out for another 40 years like the old VW bug!

    The problem with those changes posted above to gain 25% increased fuel economy for $500 is that they need to be done in mass production from the factory line. You can't just go down to the local NAPA with $500 and expect to make your Durango get 25 mpg rater then 20 mpg. There also also sure to be a few downsides to the changes as well, there always have to be downsides right!

    How did this thread ever get so far off track to focus so much on 4.7 mileage? Is the Hemi so intimidating to the Chevy, Ford, Toyota crowd that they have to spin the subject to something else? The 5.7 Hemi should get 2 mpg better then the 5.9, which means it's EPA rating should be very similar to the 4.7 (which I think we've proven is pretty much par for the course.) This will go up even more if they use the cylinder deactivation in testing now. So mileage will be decent, and when you compare it to the power produced I think it's pretty outstanding. It really the value of the 5.7 ($1200 over the v-6 and $800 over the other v-8) compared to it's incredible torque and HP is just unmatched by GM and Ford. The Ford has a few supercharged 5.4s making more power (for big $$$) and chevy has a soon to be released special SS 6.0 making equal power (also big $$$). But Dodge's 5.7 is starting at that 345 hp. What do you think will happen to those power number if they decided to tweak their motor for more power? Then this inexpensive motor will also soon find it's way in an all aluminum version into mainstream cars as well (the next Intrepid, and 300.) It seems with some simple performance attention from the factory the 5.7 hemi will make more net HP then even the 426 street Hemi did, even considering it was underrated. I don't think it can match the race Hemi's numbers (it was waaaay under-rated), but if it's making 345 net in it's first offering, then that's what about 410 gross? So it would need to get to about 460 gross to match what a street Hemi actually produced. Better cam, intake and exhaust manifolds, and PCM tuning to require 91 octane should get it there simply by changing it's torque curve from one set up for 2500 series truck towing, to one set up for high rpm HP (which is the main reason Chevy HP number look as good as they do.)
  • mledtjemledtje Posts: 1,123
    It is sometimes hard to remember what the original subject was when replying to messages.

    The Chevy 2500s changed when the 1500s did. It is just that they continued the old body style trucks a couple of years into the new body style production. I have no idea why they did that, but they did.

    The 5.7 Hemi looks like a great engine. But, so did a whole series of Ford engines - that are long dead! Only time will tell if the engine is as good as it's specs make it appear. I hope it is the best engine ever! Everyone should hope it is a great engine. Because, that will force all the other manufacturers to make better engines to compete, and then everyone wins!

    Mike L
  • hersbirdhersbird Posts: 323
    Since when did Ford ever have a promising line of motors? They put out a couple of unique very low production race motors, but otherwise they were all pretty much run of the mill stuff. The Current Chevy LT1 is a great motor but they just don't put it in enough applications. Now that the Camaro and firebird are gone, it's just the vette! It will show up in the new GTO which is promising, but why not as an option on the 1500 silverado? The 5.7 Hemi is slated to go in a wide range of Cars and Trucks. You don't need a whole line of motors when one does it so well. I mean you can keep a few other 4 cylinder and 6 cylinders around, but you really don't need any other v-8's. The 4.7 is pretty much useless now. The 5.7 gets equal gas mileage, makes much more power, is physically very similar in size and weight, and even though it cost more as an option it actually costs less to manufacture. I also understand that some of the 2500 Hemi Rams that have been dynoed have shown over 300 HP to the wheels, even as high as 320, which means it makes all of if not more then it's claimed 345hp at the crank.
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    >>The 5.7 Hemi should get 2 mpg better then the 5.9, which means it's EPA rating should be very similar to the 4.7 (which I think we've proven is pretty much par for the course.)<<

    Actually, a 5.7 motor rated at 345 hp compared to a 4.7 motor rated at 240 hp cannot get better gas mileage if doing the same amount of work. The laws of physics dictate that as power is increased and utilized, so does fuel consumption.

    I think what you want to say is that the 5.7 hemi motor might be SPECULATED to get the same when placed into certain a vehicle platform. This assumes that the engine speed will be slowed, probably through final drive gearing.

    I don't remember if any of the new RAM 2500-3500 owners with the 5.7 have commented on fuel consumption yet. Have they?

    Best regards,
    Dusty
  • txyank1txyank1 Posts: 1,010
    several times but I don't recall seeing an answer.
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380
    over at pickuptruck.com several guys have posted some 2500 hemi numbers. one guy with a 2wd truck claims to have gotten 24 mpp on a recent highway trip (absurd). however most of the guys are reporting less than 13 mpg overall. but the inclination to "put your foot in it" has been reported to be rather high so those numbers may not be representative. btw, chrysler claims the hemi is 10 percent more efficient than the engine it replaces (360) fwiw...
  • txyank1txyank1 Posts: 1,010
    isn't much to write home about. 24mpg with a tailwind maybe.
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380
    true, but the hemi has 100 more hp than the 360 and 30 more lb/ft...that does say something!
  • txyank1txyank1 Posts: 1,010
    Makes a body RAMbunctious to get behind the wheel of one. 1/2 Ton, SWB, regular cab and 345HP!!! Yowza!
  • Talked to my salesman today and my Hemi is built and on the train headed to the dealer. Hopefully, I should have it by next weekend. I'm stoked!
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    Do you know when the line started and where your truck is being manufactured?

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • I'm not positive. The dealer placed the order on 11/6/02. The timing must have been good because I was told it would be close to 8 weeks.

    I think it was manufactured in Mexico. I know the motors are built there, but I seem to remember the salesman telling me the truck "could" be made in Mexico. He didn't positively know ahead of time where it would be manufactured.
  • hersbirdhersbird Posts: 323
    Is yours a 1500 series? it should be built in Dodge's St Louis North plant. If your's was a 1500 series Hemi and did already ship you will be about the first in the country to get one! Please keep us posted if your not to busy driving!
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    .............are assembled at the Dodge City plant (Warren, MI) along with the Dakota, the Lago Alberto and the Saltitlo, Mexico plants, and at the St. Louis North plant, St. Louis, MO.

    I believe that order taking for the RAM 1500 with 5.7 Hemi motor began 1 November. My dealer allowed my to see the advance pricing in early October.

    Good luck with your new RAM

    Bests,
    Dusty
  • hersbirdhersbird Posts: 323
    I believe the 1500 Hemi Rams are built exclusively in the St Louis North plant.
  • Naw, it's a 2500. A few days after I ordered mine, I found out for sure the 1500s would be available soon. I probably would have waited had I known it was going to be so quick. I can always use the extra hauling capacity, but I'll bet that 1500 hemi will be the nicest truck on the road.

    I hope to hear from my dealer in the next day or two. What sucks is I'm out of town, and knowing my luck, my truck will be delivered and I won't get to see it until I get home :(
  • Jason5Jason5 Posts: 440
    While I would certainly love an additional rationalization to choose the Hemi 5.7 over a 4.7, I can't propogate inaccuracies. The last time I checked, the old 5.9 (aka "360") rated 11 mpg for an automatic equipped, 4WD Ram. If the new Hemi adheres to the projected 10% increase--that means about 12mpg. Better, but still far from the 4.7 rating of 14 mpg with the same 5 sp automatic as the 5.7.
    My father's 2002 Ram Quad Cab 2WD with the 5.9 and 4 speed auto struggles to achieve 10-12 mpg in daily driving. In other posts we've discussed the imminent power increases for the 4.7. Just for fun, imagine what applying the hemi architecture could do with the 4.7! 280-300HP and 320-340lb feet? DustyK check my calculations!
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    There must be something wrong with a 5.9 to get 10-12 mpg under normal driving. I have an 01 4x4 quad cab with the 5.9 and I get 10-12 mpg towing a 5500# boat through the mountains. running empty I have never gotten below 12 and that was at -40F and the truck idled longer than it was driven.
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    Jason,

    Actually, the 4.7 is almost a hemi. It's a polyspherical combustion chamber reminscient of the old 318A engines ('58 - '66). The chamber shape would be "hemispherical" with the exception of a flat bulkhead on one side. If I remember correctly, Chrysler engineers determined that a polyhead motor would be almost as efficient as the same engine in hemi form. From a machining and manufacturing perspective they use to be cheaper to make. That's probably not true anymore.

    A "hemi" in the traditional sense should easily produce 1 horsepower per cublic inch on today's pump gas and without multivalve arrangement. This can be raised further, but fuel and emission dynamics will take effect just as it does with wedge motors. Despite what some hemi-haters will tell you, this combustion chamber will show a torque advantage over a wedge.....properly executed of course.

    As far as the 360 goes, I've heard the gamut of gas mileage reports over the years. I think the 360 suffers from its own torque. The people I know who drive them seem to trend toward the zippy driver-type. With the 360's displacement and being a low-speed torque motor besides, it makes sense to me that less than patient throttle control will easily produce low gas mileage numbers (especially in a 5000 lb truck!).

    My 4.7 Dakota has even surprised me. I recently drove a friend's Dakota with the 318 and was able to do a very quick comparison. This is strictly a "seat-of-the-pants feel. The 318 Dakota seemed to exhibit good low-end torque, but lost it's breath in the upper RPM range. But the 4.7 just keeps pulling through it's RPM range.

    For a person my age, this is embarrassing, but a few weeks ago I was challenged by two young testosterone ladened fellows in a brand X fullsize pickup on RT 104. I am glad to report that the 4.7 Dakota was more than an able soldier. The driver later accused my Dakota of being a "5.9 RT sleeper." And maybe it is.

    Best regards,
    Dusty
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    I would have to agree with you dusty. I think most people that get poor gas mileage with the 360 try to drive a 5600# truck like a 3000# car and end up with 10 mpg. Myself I normally keep the RPM below 2300 and get better gas mileage than my old 97 F-150 with the 4.6.
  • txyank1txyank1 Posts: 1,010
    ago, I belive it was Sport Truck Magazine that was doing an evaluation. Possibly for Sport Truck of the Year. Anyway to my surprise the 4.7 Dakota QC was quicker than a SWB Regular Cab 5.3 GM. And I do remember checking to make sure of the year and it was the 285hp 5.3. It wasn't much but it was quicker.
    345hp! Dam, if that Ram just wasn't so heavy! The 1/2 ton Reg. cab is almost as heavy as a GM Ext cab. Personally I've never known anyone who gets decent mpg with a 5.9.
  • Jason5Jason5 Posts: 440
    So...do I ask if that's akin to being "a little pregnant?" Perhaps the comparison is apples to oranges...but if the 4.7 is "almost a hemi" then shouldn't that make it's relatively low HP ratings more suspect? I've heard that the 5.7 Hemi is "almost" but "not really" a hemi in the truest sense of the combustion chamber architecture--but that's not my point.
    We know that some relatively minor changes--increased compression and use of mid grade fuel--make the 4.7 into the 4.7 HO. Pumping out 265 HP (as compared to 235-240) and 325-330 lb ft (as compared to 295-300). Those number meet or exceed, in general, the old 5.9 V-8 in a lighter, more efficient package. I guess I'm wondering what the application of the hemi architecture, dual plugs and recommending mid-grade fuel would garner if applied to the 4.7 or simply a "debored and destroked" 5.7--although you'd loose some efficiency due to the unnecessarily large block and heads in that configuration. Just waxing philosophic I guess...
This discussion has been closed.