4.7HO vs 4.7

[Daveo]

Hi all. This is my first post here. I have a 2006 Club cab Dakota. 4.7HO 3.92 gears with 5sp auto. I am a little dissapointed with the power. I traded in a 1998 5.2 auto with 3.55s. The 98 felt quicker than my 06 in the first two gears. I know the 98 was a lighter but after paying $800 extra for the HO I thought it would be stronger. This may have been covered before but can someone tell me the difference between the HO and regular 4.7. Looking under the hood I see the HO on the right cylinder head but would like to know what else has been done. The 98 would spin all the way through first and the 06 only lays down about 10'. Maybe the weight is to much to overcome.

David

[lvramcummins]

the HO has a different cam i think. im sure Freelantz or somone will chime in and give you an exact answer

[Daveo]

Thanks, I look forward to hearing from them.

David

[MulesHemi]

Im intrested to know as well.....

[2k2_AtlanticBlu]

http://www.wjjeeps.com/ho_engine.htm Also,:http://www.wjjeeps.com/engine.htm
The H.O. has torque management, it isn't the engine that is weaker, it is the pcm holding it back. Your '98 didn't have it so that is why it was stronger feeling.

Andrew

[powerfulhemi]

The H.O. 4.7 has 260 HP versus 230 for the standard 4.7, and 310 ft. lbs. of torque versus 295 for the standard 4.7. those are the advertised numbers I found. 2 things account for the little bit of extra HP and torque; a little different cam profile and the calibration of the ECM. That's all I could find. But my H.O. is getting the same fuel economy as a standard output 4.7, so I like that.
The power delivery of this engine is very deceiving. No, it doesn't feel blindingly fast in acceleration, but it's got what feels like an incredibly wide, usable powerband, and I can tell my truck would tow 5000 lbs really well. My old Dakota with a 5.2 struggled with 4000, at least in my opinion it did.
And I have seen a graph of HP/Torque curve of the 4.7L H.O. that came directly from Chrysler to one of the development engineers where I work. Believe it or not, the engine actually puts out a little higher numbers than what they advertise. Mine gets better and better the more miles it gets, and it's adequate for me, but is it worlds better than the standard 4.7L?? I'd say not. It pulls pretty good though, and it's very smooth, and it's fuel efficient.

[powerfulhemi]

And my truck is all wheel drive, so in first gear when you hit the gas hard it is managing traction, and it does feel kind of weak, but that's how it's designed to operate to eliminate slippage. But it's only first gear, once it goes into second it smooths out and really begins to yank!!!
I need to read a little more on the torque mangement of it, I don't know too much about it.
I'm gonna say it again though, and you guys are probably gonna get sick of reading it, but I LOVE THIS TRUCK!!! A more perfect vehicle for me could never have been built. Dodge did a wonderful job on this truck :)

[Daveo]

I didn't mention fuel mileage. It's pretty bad IMHO. I get 17 hwy and 14 in town. My 5.2 1998 got 19 & 15. I do drive with a heavy foot so the town is expected. The hwy I guess is hurt by the 3.92 rear end. But I didn't buy it for fuel mileage. I bought it to run. Maybe my expectations for this truck were to high. I waited a year to order this truck just how I wanted it.
Don't get me wrong I really like this truck. I just wish it would pull harder. I think a lot of it has to do with the engine mgmt system. For example in second gear at 4700 RPM it's like a switch gets turned on to add 50hp. This does not happen in first. Dodge must have the system set to save the tranny in first gear.
Right now I have 5800 miles on it. For the 6000 mile oil change I am going to switch to Mobil 1 and put a K&N filter in it. Maybe this will help a little. If the computer is holding it back maybe not.
Keep the answers coming guys. I would like to hear any insight on this HO 4.7.

Thanks,
David

[powerfulhemi]

No, I disagree. I think the fuel mileage is great for a nearly 5000 lb truck with a 3.92 rear end in it and AWD. Compared to the Hemi I had, this thing sips gas while at the same time performing adequately.
The 4.7 HO and 4.7 comparison that someone posted in this thread is a few years old, and I believe Dodge has commonized a number of those parts now for both engines.

[graythang]

Well I'm getting ready to order my replacement Dak (07) and I decided that I want to change the 4X4 (shift ion the fly) part time) to the full time AWD transfer case for $395.00 extra. Guess what, you can't get the full time AWD with the HO. The full time is only available on the 4.7 standard Flex Fuel engine but not the HO and that makes no sense. So I'm not sure if the HO is all that much of a performer than the standard 4.7 and since my present lemon run so bad I can't tell the benefit of an HO. Can anyone give me their opinion on the HO benefit in terms of performance differences?

[graythang]

Do you have AWD on an HO? It's no available on the 07s with HO just the new Flex Fuel standard 4.7. I’ve been thought this ordeal with the dealer all week.

[powerfulhemi]

My truck is a 2006 Dakota R/T 4x4 with the 4.7L HO and AWD. Maybe in 2007 you can't get it, but in 2006 you could. If I were you I'd go to the Dodge website and try to build the truck you want. About 60% of the time the salesman don't know what they're talking about so do your own research.

[graythang]

The Web site is cryptic for now and is not fully ready for all options select.
I called DC direct on their customer support line and they said it will be available soon for the O7s. They change the transfer box to a new model number and it is said to a heavier duty than previous ones. Still that should have nothing to do with mating it to a HO. I'm waiting as long as I can before ordering but I believe I will be forced to order real soon because of the miles I'm putting on the buy-back Dak.

[Daveo]

I don't have much luck on the Dodge site. I went to Edmunds.com to research before I ordered mine. It was accurate on price and packages. Mine is a two wheel drive by the way. SO I did not worry about which transfer case. I did however have to get a Laramie to get all the options I wanted. An SLT would have been OK with me but I could not get the HO without stepping up. I also found out there is a new blue in 2007. Now i wish I would have waited. My 98 was Intense Blue. The 06 is Patriot blue. It does not shine like the Intense blue. Now they have Electric Blue Pearlcoat. Next they will fit a Hemi in one and I will really be PO'd.

David

[loosescrews]

I have Raider V8 4.7, duro Cross double cab or 4 door. Love the truck, However Mpg could be better in traffic/city I just got 11 mpg.

:gr_patrio

[FreeLantz]

I will have to agree with powerfulhemi (twice in one day -- crazy! :D) on the power versus fuel economy of the H.O. in the AWD Dakota. Mine is an '05, and all I've done to it is change out the muffler to a Flowmaster three-chamber muffler, and install a K&N air filter. So my results shouldn't be much different than any stock Dakota Quad Cab with AWD and the H.O. from '05 to '07. I love the power this truck has. Yeah, it's not great in first gear, or at least it does not throw you back in the seat like the Hemi Rams. But in the higher gears it is really impressive. Passing power is fantastic. I also recently towed a big trailer (car hauler) with two ATV's on it from here to Hallettsville and back, and thought it did great towing -- though I did notice a big decrease in fuel economy running in the tow/haul mode.

All things considered, here I am at 15,500 miles and still haven't had a single problem with the truck. Not one glitch of any kind. I'm loving it! :tup: It's gonna be hard for me to talk myself into just turning this one in at the end of the lease -- I may end up buying her outright. :)

[powerfulhemi]

WHAT???? Freelantz agreed with me again?? This world must be about to end everyone!!
Seriously though, I stand by what I said previously, and I really can't wait to get a sizable load behind this thing and see what it'll do. I have all the confidence in the world that it will make my previous 2nd Dakota feel very weak by comparison, and I'm not just talking in terms of power but also in handling, and chassis stiffness. When I had 2200Lbs. in the bed of this thing, All I did was smile the whole way I was so impressed.

[Daveo]

Well I know have 7,000 miles on my truck. that's about what I put a year on one. I have switched to Mobile 1 oil but I still don't have the K&N. I can't decide if I just want to put a filter in it or the whole system with the tube. maybe this summer. The performance has improved some. It really likes cold weather. I can also tell a difference between the octane ratings in the gas. I have been running the cheap stuff and adding octane boster. If I forget the boster I can tell it getting on the highway. The entrance ramp is not near as much fun.
I do like the truck. the extra stuff that came on the Laramie package will spoil you. The seat heaters and the steering wheel radio controls are the two best things.
Now if I could only get it to spin all the way through first. I would be happy.

David

[loosescrews]

I have the K&N 63 series, Mobile 1, still a huge flat spot in low rpm range.

Ther earlier posts mentioned the pcm was holding it back. That is what I think as well.
The question is how do i get around that. the jet chip stage 2 apparantly requires 92 octaine. and I just don't want to run premium gas, unless I am towing or driving in the mountains.

Any suggestions.

[SmokinMirror]

Anyone make a programmer for 06/07 HO,es & Bitches? Sorry couldnt resist.

[2k2_AtlanticBlu]

No

[it's all dodge]

I started out on 87 octane, here at around 1000' altitude, didn't hear a bit of pinging (like my 06 Shivy 9.9 to 1 5.3 did.) I just started trieng 89, and might stick with it until summer, than put the 91 or more in for towing only. My mileage is a bit less than expected, less than the 5.3 Chivy, but maybe it is a tight engine still, I have the less expensive transfer case, while looking at trucks to see what dealers had what online, some other 07s had the other transfer case, $395 differance, if I am correct. Oh, my Chevy sucked gas when you put on the tow mode button, and the ride was differant as well. But it had the wrong gears anyway. And the cruise on the Dodge needs a little work, the Chivy cruise was better on the hills, of course, cruise control isn't really meant for the hills, the dodge will get to down shifting going downhill. Chevy does it by maybe cutting off some spark, or something like that, not down shifting on the slightest of a little hill. The truck would get better mileage IMHO, with a lower 4th gear in the 545, like around a .82 0r .83, instead of the .75. in the .8s would let it go further in 4th before going down to 3rd gear, the current trans is 1 to 1 3rd gear, .75 to 1 4th, and .67 od 5th, 4th and 5th too close together

[biggerhammer]

I have two 07's both daks, wifes is a Laramie with the HO and 3:92's, mine is a club cab with the std. 4.7 and 3;55's, have dyno'd both, hers at 1800 miles, on the chassis dyno, put out 196 hp and 245 lbft tq, whereas mine put out 165 hp and only 210 lbft. of tq, so I can say that is a good difference, mine had 4500 miles on it at the time, hers runs a LOT btter now that she has some miles on it, can't wait to dyno it again. as far as mileage, yes there is a diff. there too, mine gets about 17-18 in the city, hers about 14-15, but I know I tend to lead-foot it when I drive it, hard not to.

[superdart]

..and of course, we now know that a CAI and true dual exhaust will put a standard 4.7 up to her Ho specs (188/247)....of course hers is probably turning over 200hp now.

[wfmitch]

the gas mileage gets worse ive got an 06 quad cab reg 4.7 not sure what gears got 31000 miles on it use to 17 to 18 city and 19 to 20 hwy now get 14 to 15 city and 17 to 18 hwy and thats driving easy letting it shift at about 2000 rpms carried it back to the dealors twice but they say theres nothing wrong with it but talking about pulling i pulled a 16ft 6000lb trailer 400 miles a week for 6 months till i bought my 08 ram with the hemi had no problem pulling it but it diddnt like to stop

[superdart]

I would have to say that if I was planning on pulling any real trailer for any regular amount of time I'd get one with electric brakes, since the Daks are prewired for it.

[it's all dodge]

4900 pounds give or take a bit of total trailer weight I'll be towing, electric one axle brakes, wouldn't run less, WFMITCH, are you using trailer brakes? Speaking of brakes, mine are there, seems like they feel better if you pump them, don't know if it needs bled, or master cylinder size is small?

[superdart]

Well, I have bled 3 different Rams (all 2002s) and every one had a bit of air in the rear brakes.

[wfmitch]

yes ive got trailer brakes 2 axles

[it's all dodge]

I need to find another break drum assy. for my other axle, but anyway, yeah, wonder if I can get the dealer to bleed them? They feel alot better after pumping them, so that tells me they should perform better. Heck, my 83 W150 has about the same size brakes, it didn't do too bad hauling/stopping a 3000 pound trailer with 3200 pound race car with about 1000 pounds of stuff from Col. Springs to Salt Lake City