|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Raced a new Grand Cherokee V8 last night
Had a good race with a new Grand Cheerokie V8. Not sure what V8 it had, but probably the 4.7? When the light turned green we both punched it, I had her (yes a girl was racing me) off the line as the rears on my Ram squealed wildly, and at about 20mph we were even. After that I slowly pulled away from her. It was a pretty good race. I had her the whole time, which I was satisfied with.
How does those Grand Cherokee's run? Are they quick or big and slow? I'm wondering how well my truck fairs. I don't have a track around here and no G-tech. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
it depends on the model you raced, there is a Grand Cherokee Unlimited, that just kicks some A$$, they can run high 14's stock!! if not that than i don't know, although i have seen some quick ones myself.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
That was me and I backed off so you could win
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
So you're a woman? A woman named Don? Or is it Dawn?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Only on fridays Dawn
Naww you busted me |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
The 01 Grand Cherokee's had only one available V-8, the 235 hp 4.7. However, for '02 you can get an optional H.O. 4.7 that I think is around 270 hp(can find any figures on it), and like JOSHT said are capable of high 14's stock!!
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
There was a Grand Cherokee at the track last night that ran 15.95. I asked him what he had, but all he knew was that he had a V-8. It looked like a newer Grand Cherokee though...
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
well the new 4.7HO has 260hp and 330 ft/lbs of torque...the torque is the highest point of the jeep gc the OVERLAND is the top model..it comes standard with the 4.7L HO.
just so you know next year the 02 ram and dakota will have the 4.7L HO... kirkyg |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Magnum Monster
Cool . Good job on the kill. Do you remember if it was a new style or older style??? Cause the newer styles are pretty quick. You should really get a G-tech and post what you're running. Cost $130.00. Later
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
raced 1
raced light to light a couple times and I was able to always pull ahead but once we got on the highway it smoked me after about 60 mph.
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
hp gettin you....
new engines are rated higher in hp after you get the rpms up in the mid 4500's its kicking ass. kirkyg |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
yes sir that was definately it. wasn't even close on the highway
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
i guess the ping flash got to you too...
maybe your tranmission was leaking :P kirkyg |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks Hill! Yeah it was a newer one. Looked like a 2000 or 2001 Grand Cherk. Said V8 in gold lettering. I'm sure it was the regular 4.7. Gives me some confidence in my Ram. I think a Mopar PCM is up next for my truck.
BTW, A G-tech is a great idea. I should get one of those. I would love to know my 0-60 and 1/4 times. All I know is my truck is running super right now. I'm very pleased with it's performance. Weather has been nice, too. Been around 60-70* F, so not as much heat to suck in. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
cofidence in your ram? 4.7L raced you good?
hehe kirkyg |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Magnum Monster
Quote:
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Yeah, I knew the GCs were fast, even with the 4.7 V8. It was a good race, despite my Ram weighing alot more. Hey Kirkyg, bring your 5.2L computer flashed truck up here, and then I'll get an easy win! Although that wouldn't be much of an accomplishment.
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Hey guys.
The '98 Grand Chrokee Limiteds were tough. They available for that year only with a 5.9 !! I had a 1996 GC With a 5.2 liter, K&N FIPK & tranny shift kit. It had BFG all-Terrains & 3:73 gears. It was no Corvette but it hauled & would easily whip my Off-Roadster I now have. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
magnum, even with the 4.7L? you stated that incorrectly its because of the 4.7L
racing me would be a freakin breeze i blow in the wind when it comes to racing blow in the wind that is created by the car/truck passing me that is hahaha! kirkyg |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Weight have something to do w/ it?
kirkyg...did you think about the fact that MM's Ram weighs anywhere from 800-1100 pounds more than a Grand Cherokee? Nah, you'd just rather make 'comments'.
There is no need to bring everyone else down just because your Ram is a slow POS. Jeez, it's getting easy to predict what you'll say. 4.7 and 45FRE over and over and over. I'm just waiting for my buddy to get his '02 QC with the 4.7 so I can smoke him w/ my 'dinosaur' 360! Hell, I'll even do it on the road! He will be able to stop better than me though, he heh. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
YEA 360 ALL THE WAY!!!!! Scew that 4.7 with that OHC crap you can have that copy cat ford motor. OVER HEAD VALVES, and if chevy can make an OHV run so can dodge.
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
yes i did think about that...
the 4.7L is a very well designed engine...i'm sorry if you feel that some anchient engine that notoriously pings and has a 25+% drivetrain loss with a tranmissions that has a warranty work rate of about 92%. the 4.7L and the 45RFE fix the problems with the old stuff...maybe reliability while keeping power doesn't mean anything to you guys but it does to me. kirkyg |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry folks, I can't help it.
Boy kirkyg, you have some links or backup material for those numbers?
Back to the point of the post, though, MM won the race w/ his 360 even though he had a 800-1100 pound weight disadvantage. He has very minor modifications. This was against the glorious and wonderful 4.7L in a lighter Grand Cherokee. What does this, if we invoke logic into the equation, tell you? It tells me that an equivalent (reg cab, short bed 4x4) 2002 Ram which I would guess would have a 700-1000 greater weight than a Grand Cherokee would have gotten blown away. The same engine in a heavier vehicle is going to be slower...make sense? I've never said that the 4.7 is a bad motor. It's just not enough for a Ram. Great for a GC or Dakota/Durango. Reliability means a lot to me. Reliability with a 90+ Ram has never been a problem for me, and I've personally had 4. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Amen to that, Jk_Allen! You make a good point, a Ram with the same dimensions and weight as mine with a 4.7 would of gotten smoked in a race w/ a Grand Cherokee. I'll keep my 360, thank you very much, although it's an "ancient dinosaur". As the saying goes, THERE'S NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT!
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
jk_allen,
well lets work some math (im really not trying to be rude here so dont take it that way!) 5.2L v8 averages LENIANTLY 170rwhp (1 - (rwhp / flywhp) ) = driveline loss 1 - (170 / 230) = 26.1% driveline loss for a 318 46RE auto. 4.7L in a dakota dyno's usually 200-205rwhp but were going to say 195 to be reasonable and consistant. 1 - (195 / 235) = 17.0% driveline loss for a 287 45RFE auto. on average the 287 puts out 1 mpg higher in town mileage and 2 higher mpg on the highway. kirkyg |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Argh!
Where are you getting those numbers from? Your equation looks correct, but you still haven't provided a source for your RWHP numbers. For all I know, you are pulling them outta the air. Even assuming your numbers are correct, that still doesn't change the fact that given the same horsepower and gearing heavier vehicle will accelerate slower than a lighter vehicle. So, a 4.7 in a Ram is not going to accelerate quicker than a 4.7 in a Dakota or Grand Cherokee. This was the main point of my previous post, and you seem to have missed it altogether. As far as mileage is concerned, we'll have to see what it does in a Ram. Until someone has one awhile and can give us concrete numbers anything said to that extent is purely speculation. The weight and aerodynamics of a Ram are going to be different than the other vehicles that have had the motor in it to date, so the mileage they are getting, while maybe an indication of good things to come, are not valid numbers when it comes to a Ram. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
nono i agree with you on the weigh issue thats fact not debateable...however im saying the 4.7L is putting more power down than the 318 and possible as much as the 360 just because of the tranmission.
kirkyg |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
there are about 3 guys on the dakota board that have dyno'd their 4.7L auto's
all came in 200-205 hp so i used 195 just to be safe in case they were lying and upded it a bit...but the likely hood of multiple dak users lying about their dyno is not good. kirkyg |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I have a '00 JGC with the 4.7l V8. 100%stock. I also have a 94
JGC with the 5.2l V8. It has the K&N FIPK, 3" exhaust, Accel coil, 235/75/15 w/3.73s Full Time 4wd. I plan on getting a G-tech soon. I'll run them both and post the numbers. Then I'll post after I add K&N FIPK, 3" exhaust, and the computer to the 4.7l. I can tell you that the '00 FEELS faster than the '94. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
good someone to confirm this...how long do you think it'll be till you can get it tested?
kirkyg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Grand Cherokee Exhaust on Cherokee | bjoehandley | Jeep Chat (Wrangler, Cherokee, etc...) | 0 | 07-19-2004 12:04 AM |
Raced Rice last night "WTF" | DSUV59RT | Durango Chat | 6 | 01-29-2002 07:52 PM |
Raced Rice last night WTF!! | DSUV59RT | Rumors and Gossip, etc... | 2 | 01-29-2002 06:40 PM |
Raced Rice last night WTF!! | DSUV59RT | Street Warrior Forum - great street race stories..... | 2 | 01-28-2002 08:16 AM |
raced a 94 z28 last night | tobs440 | Dakota Truck Forum | 5 | 12-30-2000 08:35 PM |