5.2 good/bad?

wizbang360 · #1 09-13-2005, 01:40 AM

Soooooooo I tried a search for the 5.2 liter and could not find anything, good/bad? Does it matter, I have a bad streak with engines, 4cyl Jeep wrangler, 2.8 v6 cherokee etc, I seem to always get the worst engine possible, plz tell me I did'nt do it again!!

dak0ta_g33k · #2 09-13-2005, 02:20 AM

5.2 gets almost the same mpg as my 3.9. i'll say its the second best (in displacement terms), the only bigger stock engine for a dakota is the 5.9. but i'd be happier with any v8 over my v6 with the way i drive.

horatio102 · #3 09-13-2005, 04:50 AM

The 5.2 is a great motor. Easy to work on, lots of aftermarket (not as much as a 302 or 350, but a close third), and quite tough. Fuel economy isn't as good as the 4.7 and power (stock) is about the same.

Kensai · #4 09-29-2005, 05:11 PM

Also, the 5.2 is a proven engine (318 cu inches) and been around for ages. The 4.7's are still new technology in Dodge's history of engines. I would love to see the 5.2 make a come back and replace the 4.7. I bet the 5.2 can generate alot more power and still be a longer lasting engine compared to the 4.7. Maybe one of these days, they might make a 5.2 hemi to replace the 5.7 hemi?

DanDB64 · #5 09-30-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Kensai

Also, the 5.2 is a proven engine (318 cu inches) and been around for ages. The 4.7's are still new technology in Dodge's history of engines. I would love to see the 5.2 make a come back and replace the 4.7. I bet the 5.2 can generate alot more power and still be a longer lasting engine compared to the 4.7. Maybe one of these days, they might make a 5.2 hemi to replace the 5.7 hemi?

Why a 5.2 Hemi? Thats by far the most pointless change they could make. The Hemi is a complete different configuration than the 318/360, the combustion chambers are SEMI-HEMIspherical... Also, you cannot replace the 4.7, that too would be a bad idea. Unless you are hardcore into aftermarket parts and crap like me (and the 4.7 really DOES have an aftermarket). But most people keep their trucks stock or buy basics like intake/exhaust. These people would much rather be driving with an engine making the same power as a 318, only more efficiently. The DOHC is a pain in the anus though.

Blackdak04 · #6 09-30-2005, 05:35 PM

5.2 more powerful than a 4.7? nonsense. The 4.7 motor was built to replace the 5.2/5.9 for a better fuel economy as well as produce the same amount of power and although the 4.7's can't be as built as the 5.2/5.9..YET the motor is still fairly new. I've seen Turbo 4.7's that CRANK. If you are looking to buy a 5.2 I have one for sale. It's the 5.2 blockand is out of a '74 CHARGER. and stock it can be built up to 300hp / 350ft-lbs with all stock settings... let me know if your interested I have almost all the parts aside from the intake, carburator and a newer oil pan.

and 5.2's are AWESOME motors.

Kensai · #7 10-02-2005, 01:57 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: DanDB64

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Kensai

Also, the 5.2 is a proven engine (318 cu inches) and been around for ages. The 4.7's are still new technology in Dodge's history of engines. I would love to see the 5.2 make a come back and replace the 4.7. I bet the 5.2 can generate alot more power and still be a longer lasting engine compared to the 4.7. Maybe one of these days, they might make a 5.2 hemi to replace the 5.7 hemi?

Why a 5.2 Hemi? Thats by far the most pointless change they could make. The Hemi is a complete different configuration than the 318/360, the combustion chambers are SEMI-HEMIspherical... Also, you cannot replace the 4.7, that too would be a bad idea. Unless you are hardcore into aftermarket parts and crap like me (and the 4.7 really DOES have an aftermarket). But most people keep their trucks stock or buy basics like intake/exhaust. These people would much rather be driving with an engine making the same power as a 318, only more efficiently. The DOHC is a pain in the anus though.

I am just stating it would be nice to bring back the 5.2 if they continue to shrink the engine sizes as time goes by especially with fuel being so high. The 5.7 hemi replaced the 5.9. The 4.7 replaced the 5.2. The 3.7 replaced the 3.9. And the list goes on. Who knows, maybe a few years, they may shrink the 5.7 hemi to a 5.2 hemi? Have the same or higher power output but save a little more fuel? who knows? Just a nice thought. It would be nice to have a engine in the midrange power section between the 4.7 235hp and 5.7 350hp. I don't count the H.O 4.7 with only 260hp. The H.O. should be the standard 4.7 and maybe have a higher output 300hp 4.7? as a midrange?

Blackdak04 · #8 10-03-2005, 01:23 PM

" I am just stating it would be nice to bring back the 5.2 if they continue to shrink the engine sizes as time goes by especially with fuel being so high. The 5.7 hemi replaced the 5.9. The 4.7 replaced the 5.2. The 3.7 replaced the 3.9. And the list goes on. Who knows, maybe a few years, they may shrink the 5.7 hemi to a 5.2 hemi? Have the same or higher power output but save a little more fuel? who knows? Just a nice thought. It would be nice to have a engine in the midrange power section between the 4.7 235hp and 5.7 350hp. I don't count the H.O 4.7 with only 260hp. The H.O. should be the standard 4.7 and maybe have a higher output 300hp 4.7? as a midrange? "

5.7 replaced 5.9? No. 4.7 replaced 5.2? Yes as well as the 5.9. The 5.7 hemi is SMALL as it is... the original hemi is like a 7.0 liter 426 HEMI
This 5.7 puts out a GOOD amount of power for the fuel consumption. I mean with your older HEMI's (426) you'd be lucky to get 8-10 mpg.. If you want Power don't worry about your fuel. If you want fuel economy get an inline 4.

Now as an owner of the 4.7 I'm proud of that damn engine.. sure 238hp* isn't alot... BUT it makes up for it in the 300ft/lbs. not to mention what you can do to the motor. Turbo it and your at like 400hp/450ftlbs. The 4.7 is an example of what happens when you try to make a fuel economy V8

DakotaStone · #9 10-04-2005, 05:26 PM

I've owned both engines. I loved my 5.2L a lot. As a matter of fact, when I was a kid, we owned a Dodge Van with the 5.2L. I thought it was a great engine then. The 4.7 is a good engine also, though I would almost prefer the 5.2L. Stock it came with 300#s of torque where the 4.7 comes with 290. I hated rainy days with my 5.2L because the wheels would spin in 1st so I would have to start in 2nd.

I found out by word of mouth that if you take and put a remote turbo into a 4.7, it could turn 350 at the wheels and 400 at the crank. Could be a salesman pitch, but it actually makes sense since somebody else told me that the engine could do about that with more air in.

I doubt that Dodge will make a smaller HEMI engine, but it would be nice. I just wish that Dodge would give more hp stock to the daks like they do to the cars with V6's.

DanDB64 · #10 10-05-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: DakotaStone

I've owned both engines. I loved my 5.2L a lot. As a matter of fact, when I was a kid, we owned a Dodge Van with the 5.2L. I thought it was a great engine then. The 4.7 is a good engine also, though I would almost prefer the 5.2L. Stock it came with 300#s of torque where the 4.7 comes with 290. I hated rainy days with my 5.2L because the wheels would spin in 1st so I would have to start in 2nd.

I found out by word of mouth that if you take and put a remote turbo into a 4.7, it could turn 350 at the wheels and 400 at the crank. Could be a salesman pitch, but it actually makes sense since somebody else told me that the engine could do about that with more air in.

I doubt that Dodge will make a smaller HEMI engine, but it would be nice. I just wish that Dodge would give more hp stock to the daks like they do to the cars with V6's.

Problem with turboing a 4.7 is the cost. The 4.7 fuel injection system is totally 1980's technology... Amount of fuel needed is determined by vacuum, so if you were to boost it, you would notice a slight problem as your air/fuel ratio will lean out like crazy netting you a very minimal power gain. And standalone fuel management is expensive, but its worth every penny so I have heard