5.9L Durango vs. 5.0L Explorer 0-60
Robert Miller
the 5.0L Explorer with a 3.73 axle ratio? I need to settle a dispute on the
times. I know Motor Trend had a comparision between the two and with the
4.7L Durango, it was faster than the Explorer, but what about the 5.9?
Thanks
Mike
Danni and Michael Bloom
Around here it is $5 to get in and $5 to run. That way, you REALLY
know whose truck is faster. You might even get addicted to drag
racing! I was hooked the first time I went! Drag racing is more
addictive than cocaine! Grins from ear to ear! I LOVE it!
Michael
Dan
message news:39f16f94...@news.telocity.com...
> You and your neighbor with the Dodge, head to your local grudge night.
> Around here it is $5 to get in and $5 to run. That way, you REALLY
> know whose truck is faster. You might even get addicted to drag
> racing! I was hooked the first time I went! Drag racing is more
> addictive than cocaine! Grins from ear to ear! I LOVE it!
> Michael
Ditto. Take it to the track and put them to the test. Don't rely on what you
hear in the magazines.
Michael is right, IT'S VERY ADDICTING. Don't believe me? Check out our
family's racecar at www.ed500.com
Dan
don
"Dan" <dan...@truvalue.com> wrote in message
news:8sru6u$15p$1...@news.xmission.com...
Zorak03
Explorer catches up and passes it.
MrKennyG
probably running Firestones as well ...
Rick
Zorak03 wrote in message <20001022121027...@ng-cm1.aol.com>...
Zorak03
had one to 110+ a few times and will have it as fast or faster in the future,
also tore apart a few of those riced out hondas
scotth...@mindspring.com
In article <20001025000849...@ng-fh1.aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rick
Rick
Zorak03 wrote in message <20001026140836...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
Zorak03
>
Explorer had 175K miles on it, and at least half of that was pedal to the metal
miles
Mark & Janeane Simpkins
Mark
Rick
and tire rotation only?
Rick
Mark & Janeane Simpkins wrote in message
<39FA5B7B...@ix.netcom.com>...
Mark B. Simpkins
of plugs fuel filter once(due for plugs/wires/fuel filter this weekend,
might replace the serp. belt). A bottle of fuel injector cleaner once in
a while, leather cleaner/condiotioning.... Transmission service at 30K,
60K, and 115K.
You wanted a bottom line, right? $97/year, not including oil changes and
tire rotation(free at CostCo). That does include rest of above, but not
my labor(priceless!).
Mark
Mark B. Simpkins
Mark
David Cooley
Rick wrote:
>
> Those "riced" out Honda's will still be around after 100k miles though.
>
Looks like we found a "Riced out Honda" owner...
Jacob Suter
155k miles, the A4LD finally gave up. This time I think it'll last a little
longer :)
JS
"Rick" <dscr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AheK5.13$G4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Rick
LX and 92 Thunderbird SC. Hey I am a die hard Ford fan and still miss my
mustang and t-bird drastically, but I'll be honest with you, my 96 Civic is
the best damn car on the road. If I had 30k extra sitting around I'd
probably have a nice F-150, but paying $40 to fill up on gas every week
isn't my bag, I'm just a poor military guy. I'm not trolling here, just
arguing intelligently.
Rick
David Cooley wrote in message <3A09D436...@triad.norrspam.com>...
>
>
>Rick wrote:
>>
>> Those "riced" out Honda's will still be around after 100k miles though.
>>
>
Jacob Suter
with that thing... :)
If you want fuel econo, Geo Metro LSi is your friend... Diehard ford owners
can go the fiesta/festiva route.
JS
"Rick" <dscr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2EIO5.656$Qk2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Rick
gives a shit about a Ram, the tranny will shit the bed in that thing soon
enough.
Rick
Jacob Suter wrote in message <8w6P5.19$vL.816@insync>...
Zorak03
>gives a shit about a Ram, the tranny will shit the bed in that thing soon
>enough.
>
>
??????????????????
Jacob Suter
JS
"Zorak03" <zor...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20001112230811...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
Jacob Suter
I'm not a big enough moron to buy a modern Dodge with an automatic.
So whats your point of the "Best damn car on the road"?
JS
"Rick" <dscr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FOIP5.13172$Gd7.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Rick
Ford and have owned other Fords and only one Honda. I will probably buy
another Ford because I like American vehicles, but I have been left too many
times stranded by my Fords and never with my "riced out" Honda. I like the
sound and feel of a good Ford, but I will always look to my Honda for
reliability, probably due to the fact that the only thing I've done to it in
4 1/2 years is put new tires on. Just my opinion of the best car on the
road, take it as you will.
Rick
Jacob Suter wrote in message ...
>Hmm... 318 breaking an NV3500? Nah. Doubt it.
>
>I'm not a big enough moron to buy a modern Dodge with an automatic.
>
>So whats your point of the "Best damn car on the road"?
>
>JS
>
>
>
>"Rick" <dscr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:FOIP5.13172$Gd7.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Zorak03
Rick
Greg DeMent
I ran a simulation on the "Car Test" program, and it shows a 96 explorer xlt 5.0
to be faster than a 98 durango slt 5.9, due to lighter weight. However, it
defaulted to a 3.92 axle for the Dodge, and with that, its pretty close -
probably within the program's margin of error, and subject to how you launch
them. This is with 4spd auto on both vehicles.
Lloyd R. Parker
: If the 4.7L is faster, than the 5.9L should be even more so.
Sorry, C/D found the non-R/T 5.9 had the same 0-60 and 1/4 mile times as
the 4.7.
C. E. White
>
> If the 4.7L is faster, than the 5.9L should be even more so.
I was told the 4.7L Durango was actually faster than the 5.9L
Durango......
Ed
Greg DeMent
must be going on. I'm guessing that the 4 speed transmission keeps the 4.7
in its ideal range at WOT, so it doesn't end up losing ground in an
acceleration contest. Horsepower is similar, and that's the main factor in
0-60. 1/4 mile might end up the same because of crappy aerodynamics at the
far end of the track. It's a theory, anyway. If you go down the
modifications route, than the towing oriented 5.9 should have more room to
improve.
"Lloyd R. Parker" wrote:
> Greg DeMent (dem...@usa.net) wrote:
> : If the 4.7L is faster, than the 5.9L should be even more so.
>
ho...@nospamextremejeep.com
quickly that torque is applied. Torque accelerates, horsepower maintains
speed. Wanna do a burnout? That's torque. Wanna hold 60mph up a hill
while towing? That's HP. Wanna do both? You need both. :)
> "Lloyd R. Parker" wrote:
--
--
Hogan Whittall
'47 CJ2A - 302, C5, 5.38's, yada, yada
'98 XJ Classic - BFG MTs, RS9ks
__________________________________________________________________
This is formal notice under California Assembly Bill 1629, enacted
9/26/98 that any UCE sent to my email address will be billed $50
per incident to the legally allowed maximum of $25,000.
__________________________________________________________________
Bill Funk
wrote:
>strange. The 4.7 doesn't have a comparable torque curve. something else
>must be going on. I'm guessing that the 4 speed transmission keeps the 4.7
>in its ideal range at WOT, so it doesn't end up losing ground in an
>acceleration contest. Horsepower is similar, and that's the main factor in
>0-60. 1/4 mile might end up the same because of crappy aerodynamics at the
>far end of the track. It's a theory, anyway. If you go down the
>modifications route, than the towing oriented 5.9 should have more room to
>improve.
For accelleration, torque is the main factor.
Considering speed, torque gets you there, horsepower keeps you there.
================
Bill Funk
bfunk1 on Ebay
Robert
Greg DeMent <dem...@usa.net> wrote:
> strange. The 4.7 doesn't have a comparable torque curve. something
else
> must be going on. I'm guessing that the 4 speed transmission keeps
the 4.7
> in its ideal range at WOT, so it doesn't end up losing ground in an
> acceleration contest. Horsepower is similar, and that's the main
factor in
> 0-60. 1/4 mile might end up the same because of crappy aerodynamics
at the
> far end of the track. It's a theory, anyway. If you go down the
> modifications route, than the towing oriented 5.9 should have more
room to
> improve.
That is also what I've read about both the Dakota and the Durango. The
4.7L is quicker, both 0-60 and 1/4 mile than the 5.9L. As a matter of
fact the quickest Dakota that C&D tested was a 4.7L Club Cab that was
quicker than the 5.9L R/T regular cab. I think the 5.9L Grand Cherokee
Limited is a bit quicker though than the 4.7L Grand Cherokee. Both of
them are pretty quick though.
--
Robert
Just Me!
give a different axle ration, or even by changing the size of the tires
as tire height increases it changes (lowers) the rear end axle ratio
...example follows
Original Tire Diameter New Tire Diameter Original Axle Ratio
> Effective Axle Ratio
31 38
3.50 2.86
27 32.5
3.50 2.91
<ho...@NOSPAMextremejeep.com> wrote in message
news:EnkR5.25$Y_...@rubicon.extremejeep.com...
ho...@nospamextremejeep.com
engine's output of torque and if you were to put two identical vehicles on
a dyno with the only difference being the gears they would both dyno with
the same amount of torque. On the road, though, gears definitely make all
the difference in the world. :)
In alt.autos.dodge.trucks Just Me! <mhai...@home.com> wrote:
> Torque can also be changed by the swapping out the rear differential to
> give a different axle ration, or even by changing the size of the tires
> as tire height increases it changes (lowers) the rear end axle ratio
> ...example follows
> Original Tire Diameter New Tire Diameter Original Axle Ratio
>> Effective Axle Ratio
> 31 38
> 3.50 2.86
> 27 32.5
> 3.50 2.91
> <ho...@NOSPAMextremejeep.com> wrote in message
> news:EnkR5.25$Y_...@rubicon.extremejeep.com...
Stephen T. Murphy SPAM*.net
gear ratio's in the respective trannies are different. We have a 99
Durango with the 5.2. I havent raced a 4.7 or a 5.9, but the 5.2 gets
out of the way quick enough. I've seen folks boast on the DurangoClub
web site with 5.2's that they have out run a 5.9 or two. With
manufacturing tolerances and the possibility that the 44RE (5.2) has
lower first/second gear than the 46RE (5.9), it would not surprise me
if their boasts are true.
Regards,
Stephen
99 Durango
92 Dakota
71 RoadRunner
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:22:34 -0800, Greg DeMent <dem...@usa.net>
wrote:
$If the 4.7L is faster, than the 5.9L should be even more so.
$I ran a simulation on the "Car Test" program, and it shows a 96
explorer xlt 5.0
$to be faster than a 98 durango slt 5.9, due to lighter weight.
However, it
$defaulted to a 3.92 axle for the Dodge, and with that, its pretty
close -
$probably within the program's margin of error, and subject to how you
launch
$them. This is with 4spd auto on both vehicles.
$
$
$Robert Miller wrote:
$
$> What truck has a faster 0-60 time, the Durango with the 3.55 axle
ratio or
$> the 5.0L Explorer with a 3.73 axle ratio? I need to settle a
dispute on the
$> times. I know Motor Trend had a comparision between the two and
with the
$> 4.7L Durango, it was faster than the Explorer, but what about the
5.9?
$> Thanks
$>
$> Mike
$
Greg DeMent
transmission and 3.92 axle, you can rely on top end horsepower to accelerate,
but weaker low end torque takes longer to get you moving. Seems to me you'd
take longer to cover a short distance, but end up doing just as well in terms of
time to reach a reasonably high speed. Of course, in real life, people don't
always want to stand on it.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Anyone run a 5.2 against the 4.7 or the 5.9?? I'm guessing that the
: gear ratio's in the respective trannies are different. We have a 99
: Durango with the 5.2. I havent raced a 4.7 or a 5.9, but the 5.2 gets
: out of the way quick enough. I've seen folks boast on the DurangoClub
: web site with 5.2's that they have out run a 5.9 or two. With
: manufacturing tolerances and the possibility that the 44RE (5.2) has
: lower first/second gear than the 46RE (5.9), it would not surprise me
: if their boasts are true.
From everything I know, the automatic for the 5.2 and 5.9 have identical
gears. The 4.7 uses the transmission with the second kick-down gear, but
I don't think its 4 ratios for accelerating are much different either.
