AN: 4.7 officially gone (corrected)
As Allpar predicted last year, Chrysler ended production of the 4.7 liter V8 engine last week at the Mack Avenue plant. The engine, dubbed Corsair during development and officially named Next Generation V8 when launched, was Chrysler’s first truly new V-8 since the 1960s. It had better power and gas mileage than the Magnum 318 V8 it replaced; a new truck V6,the 3.7, was based on it, replacing the 3.9. The engine was used in Jeeps and Rams alike. Refinements included significant revisions to the induction system, reduced reciprocating mass via a lightweight piston/rod assembly, reduced accessory drive speed, and electronic throttle control. A midlife upgrade provided a dramatic increase in power, to 302 hp. Full details are on our 4.7 engine page. Chrysler has announced that the Mack I plant will produce Pentastar V6 engines.
View the original, full post
1 - 20 of 98 Posts
Joined
·
56 Posts
A salesman at my local CDJ dealer tried to tell me, back during the Diamler years, that the 4.7 was a M-B engine. I think that M-B did have a 4.7 V8 at the time.In those days anything associated with M-B was susposed to elevate Chrysler to new heights, funny how time illumiates even the darkest of places.
A great engine in my book....I have 310,000 on my 2001 4.7L with no repairs and only one accessory failure, the AC clutch assembly failed at 285,000.
No ignition, fuel or coolant failures. Heck, the waterpump, starter, alternator are still going which shows how the reduced accessory speed drive really helps reliability.
No ignition, fuel or coolant failures. Heck, the waterpump, starter, alternator are still going which shows how the reduced accessory speed drive really helps reliability.
Joined
·
1,078 Posts
Would it be a good candidate for an old Mopar F-Body?
Joined
·
214 Posts
I had the 3.7 and 4.7 in dakotas. Great engines! Best part of both trucks for sure 
Joined
·
889 Posts
Buh-bye!
Joined
·
14,401 Posts
The "problem", or the obstacle to overcome, is the 4.7 went to a different bell bolt pattern, so you must use a modern transmission AND the computer engine management system to allow both the engine and trans to communicate. Of course that isn't a mandate, but the engine wont reach its full performance AND fuel consumption potential by running without it.Mike V. said:
It would be a good candidate for a swap into a Wrangler...except there are Hemi kits that do that and result in more power and fuel economy.
Joined
·
1,249 Posts
Can You Say "P E N T A S T A R " ?
Go Down about 1/2 this "Scoop" Posting .
http://www.chryslerretirees.com/scoop/
or at http://www.freep.com/article/20121110/BUSINESS01/311100024/Chrysler-to-add-jobs-at-Mack-plant
TMD
Go Down about 1/2 this "Scoop" Posting .
http://www.chryslerretirees.com/scoop/
or at http://www.freep.com/article/20121110/BUSINESS01/311100024/Chrysler-to-add-jobs-at-Mack-plant
TMD
Joined
·
1,249 Posts
Aaa Haa I've Been Gone Over a Week. Last Day March 28th.
But that OK TSEP is Still Making 1770 a Day, 6 Days a Week + Worked a Shift Last Sunday (800+ Engines).
TMD
But that OK TSEP is Still Making 1770 a Day, 6 Days a Week + Worked a Shift Last Sunday (800+ Engines).
TMD
Joined
·
1,669 Posts
Wasn't a bad engine, perhaps a little neglected once the Hemi came around. However, I still can't believe Chrysler went through all that trouble to engineer, build and certify the 2013 Rams to have this engine for such a short run.
I had a 2000 Dakota with that 4.7L Eight: ran well off the line but 'died' at speeds much above 60 MPH. Supposedly the 2008+ motors are much stronger.
As per some other posters on this thread: what ultimately killed the 4.7L was the 5.7L Hemi and friends.
As per some other posters on this thread: what ultimately killed the 4.7L was the 5.7L Hemi and friends.
Joined
·
12,401 Posts
You are 1000% correct, Bearhawke!Bearhawke said:
1 - 20 of 98 Posts
