To me it's the fact that the fuel mileage and power of a MSD Hemi killed it.. but I too do not know enough about the engine to say otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if the engine is related to a Magnum engine that's been reworked a bit.

 

It was actually around for about 15 years. The first ones came in the 99 Jeep Grand Cherokee, and replaced the 318 in Rams with the next two years. Most of the pre-production work was done at AMC prior to being bought out by Chrysler. The 4.7 was not based on any prior A engine but shared a lot of architechture with the 3.7L V6 (which also began development at AMC). The last 4.7L was built in 2013, so it lasted a while. Also, keep in mind that, in the 90s-early 2000s, most (if not all) fullsize pickups in North America offered Two V8s each (Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge, GMC, etc), so it likely stuck around for awhile just to give some buyers a cheaper V8 than the Hemi. Of course, it's days were numbered after the Hemi developed VCT and MDS on trucks, and then the Hemi gas mileage was the same or better than the 4.7 with more power. Also, the Grand Cherokee was enlarged and gained the Hemi, and the Dakota was dropped, so the smaller V8 was no longer needed.

JS

 

Right, 3.7 and 4.7 were largely co-engineered. The 4.7 would have done better if not for the massive advantages of the Hemi. The 4.7 cost nearly as much, if not more, too. In the end they gave the 4.7 some Hemi features, but it never paid to have it there, with mileage not much better than the 5.7.

Bob Sheaves claimed the 3.7 was designed to replace the 2.5 AMC engine (125 hp) and the 4.7, to replace the 4.0 straight-six.

 

1999-2013 were the years of the 4.7 production run...15 model years!

The 2008 up 4.7 did have over 300 hp vs 235 hp from 99-07(they did have a 260 hp H.O in Jeep and some Dakota trucks 02-07)

 

Changes in engine technologies skyrocketed between 2000 and present day, compared to, say the small block 318 between 1960 and 2003.
The next generation of engines is just around the corner. We haven't really started with 'direct injection' powerplants which may be most successful being intended from the beginning as DI engines.

 

The 4.7 in my 2009 Ram 1500 has been great, with over 104,000 miles now. I tow a 5,000 pound camper and that engine is more than enough, even when heading from Florida out to Arizona and Utah or up into the mountains in Tennessee. No issues with it all to this point.

 

360,000 now on my 4.7L; 2001 Durango. She just keeps on trucking...never been touched...and runs on a Superchips 87 tune.

 

IIRC, back when Allpar was a decent site, and had gobs of information and actual news and not just a forum, I seem to recall reading that the 4.7l was actually more expensive to build versus the Hemi. The Hemi of course was also lighter and more powerful, and I'm not even sure that there was a MPG difference before MDS came online; after the 4.7l was outmatched even there.

The real question is why develop two competing V8 designs? It's not difficult to destroke an engine for a smaller displacement if so needed. They could have made a V6 based off the Hemi as easily as the did the 3.9l off the LA and the 3.7l off the 4.7l. Nothing particular against the 4.7l, just I'll always wonder why waste the money when they could have focused on one engine line instead of two.

 

5.7 L is just better. More reliable, better mpg, more power.
The 4.7L has issues with the heads. It might be different if it was a DOHC instead of SOHC.

 

Everyone thought that a smaller size of v-8´s was the future at the time...well i didnt work out that way.

• parts efficiency, an ohc or even worse a doch uses much more parts and a long and tricky cam drive.
• Packaging, ohc and especially doch´s get way bigger in there size with their wide and high heads and camdrives lenghten the engines.
• more places for oil to leak, either at the camshaft themselfes with a belt drive or an horrendiosly big cam cover with chains.( or the hassle of assembly if the chains are poked thorugh a galley in the block.)

The only benefit of ohc is higher revs and for v-8 of this size everyone whants it rew low in normal use. The same goes for 4 valves / cylinder.
So basically back to the efficient old way and that become the highly succseful 3g hemi, note that esp Ford has tried to sell ohc v-8´s and GM tried with a corvette engine but none has been succseful.

 

I bought a new 1998 Dodge Intrepid ES with the 3.2 liter V-6, which replaced a 1996 Dodge Intrepid equipped with the 3.5 liter V-6. Both had smooth, powerful engines. The 1998 Intrepid was the most comfortable car I have ever owned - and it had a significant amount of interior room (front and rear).

I thought the 3.2 engine was great, but it seemed to only used by Chrysler for a short period of time? Anyone know why?

 

Probably the biggest downfall of the 4.7 was its capriciousness - if scrupulously maintained, and you happened to get a good one it lasted the course. Any neglect and that's your lot - it falls apart fast.

 

pressed in iron valve seals in an aluminum heads, what an engineering blunder. If you pin your valve seats in a 4.7 and keep up on oil changes they will last for 250,000 to 300,000 miles.

 

How long did the 2.7 last?

 

2.7 lasted a reasonably long time, I think right up to the Pentastar. 3.2 was hurt by sludge issues, and it wasn't that much more powerful than the 2.7 or more efficient than the 3.5. It was not really needed, after all. (Cherokee 3.2 Pentastar is today's orphan.)

 

At the time of cancellation it was said the 4.7 was more expensive to produce than the Hemi.

 

It's not that the 4.7L was a particular bad engine. It's just the 5.7L Hemi was so much better in terms of horsepower (100 more), torque and fuel mileage. Yes, the 4.7L had its quirks - you definitely didn't want it to overheat, but with proper maintenance, it was a reliable engine.

 

Yep I think the 4.7 being an OHC design was more complex and expensive to build, the Hemi had more power despite the old style single OHV cam design. I almost bought a 2007 Dakota with that engine, it was a nice driving truck.

 

I've owned 4 4.7's two regular, two HO and never really liked or trusted that engine much. It was far more powerful than the old 4.0, no better on fuel, sounded worse and rarely ran absolutely right. I now have a 3.7 KJ and I find that engine much more satisfactory than the 4.7 despite its purported reputation - and both are related!

 

My 99 Grand Cherokee Ltd. had the 4.7. Car ran great well passed 100k. No complaints with the engine. Had plenty of power for that car. But still not a Hemi.

 

Indeed. Had a 2010 Ram 1500 with the 4.7L as a loaner (actually from Enterprise but the dealership was paying for it) while our Journey was serviced (dealer screwed up the airbag module when performing the recall). The 4.7L was the latest version that got the power boost up to 310 hp. Plenty of power, but my Hemi that was 4 years older, still had more oomph.

 

I never quite understood the point of the 4.7 l V8 or for that matter the 3.7 l v6. The 4.7 generated 5 less foot pounds of torque and a higher RPM than the 318 and it had 5 more hp. So it really didn't help Chrysler to be more competitive against GM's 4.8 l V8 in terms of engine output in its original form. I haven't taken the time to compare the mileage of manuals but I know the 4.7 with an automatic was more fuel efficient; however, the 4.7 also had the 545 RFE transmission versus the 46 RE which I think helped to make some of the difference. If the engine had featured a 4 valve head, I could have seen a point to actually making this and overhead cam engine. Without it, it just seemed like a generic engine that wasn't really needed with the hemi coming out just around the corner or perhaps some technological improvements to the existing LA engine. I acknowledge with the high output version they had one that could beat GM's 4.8 and even have torque similar to GM's 5.3; however, they only used it on the Grand Cherokee and not in the ram. When they put it in the Dakota it had lost a considerable amount of power and no longer really had an upper hand. By the time they really had impressive numbers at the end of its run in the '08 through '13 era, it was no longer important. I will admit it was impressive that it was beating Toyota's four valve per cylinder Plus vvt with an equal size engine with just two valves per cylinder.

Concerning the 3.7 l v6, I never quite understood why Chrysler bothered to do this again with making a 90° v6 out of an existing V8. When the 3.9 was produced as a replacement to the slant six, this was Chrysler's only v6 engine. I never quite understood why Chrysler didn't either offer the 3.8 v6 as the replacement for the 3.9 l v6. The number it produced back in 2001-2002 was slightly better than the 3.7 l v6. While I know there were some problems when they did adapt it to the Wrangler, My understanding is they changed a few things on the RWD versions that harm the reliability of the design. I've seen examples on the internet where people just end up using parts from the FWD versions as the FWD parts were known to be more durable. Therefore, I think if they had stuck with building the 3.8 properly I think it would have done just as good if not better than the 3.7. another thing I often wondered (using the nitro as an example) is why they didn't just use the 4.0l v6 and more truck applications.

Dave z, you said the 3.2 had sludge problems. Are you sure you're not getting The 3.2 in the 2.7 v6 is mixed up? I have never heard of the 3.2 having problems and it was my understanding the what's more or less a smaller 3.5. does anyone know why Chrysler tolerated the 2.7 so long?

 

I never quite understood the point of the 4.7 l V8 or for that matter the 3.7 l v6. The 4.7 generated 5 less foot pounds of torque and a higher RPM than the 318 and it had 5 more hp. So it really didn't help Chrysler to be more competitive against GM's 4.8 l V8 in terms of engine output in its original form. I haven't taken the time to compare the mileage of manuals but I know the 4.7 with an automatic was more fuel efficient; however, the 4.7 also had the 545 RFE transmission versus the 46 RE which I think helped to make some of the difference. If the engine had featured a 4 valve head, I could have seen a point to actually making this and overhead cam engine. Without it, it just seemed like a generic engine that wasn't really needed with the hemi coming out just around the corner or perhaps some technological improvements to the existing LA engine. I acknowledge with the high output version they had one that could beat GM's 4.8 and even have torque similar to GM's 5.3; however, they only used it on the Grand Cherokee and not in the ram. When they put it in the Dakota it had lost a considerable amount of power and no longer really had an upper hand. By the time they really had impressive numbers at the end of its run in the '08 through '13 era, it was no longer important. I will admit it was impressive that it was beating Toyota's four valve per cylinder Plus vvt with an equal size engine with just two valves per cylinder.

Concerning the 3.7 l v6, I never quite understood why Chrysler bothered to do this again with making a 90° v6 out of an existing V8. When the 3.9 was produced as a replacement to the slant six, this was Chrysler's only v6 engine. I never quite understood why Chrysler didn't either offer the 3.8 v6 as the replacement for the 3.9 l v6. The number it produced back in 2001-2002 was slightly better than the 3.7 l v6. While I know there were some problems when they did adapt it to the Wrangler, My understanding is they changed a few things on the RWD versions that harm the reliability of the design. I've seen examples on the internet where people just end up using parts from the FWD versions as the FWD parts were known to be more durable. Therefore, I think if they had stuck with building the 3.8 properly I think it would have done just as good if not better than the 3.7. another thing I often wondered (using the nitro as an example) is why they didn't just use the 4.0l v6 and more truck applications.

Dave z, you said the 3.2 had sludge problems. Are you sure you're not getting The 3.2 in the 2.7 v6 is mixed up? I have never heard of the 3.2 having problems and it was my understanding the what's more or less a smaller 3.5. does anyone know why Chrysler tolerated the 2.7 so long?

The 4.7 and 3.7 were necessary and the 5.2 (318) and 3.9 V6 were not going to meet emissions/MPG goals. That's it, plain and simple.
The 3.8 was "car/minivan" engine. The 3.9 was a "truck" engine, so was the 3.7.
The 3.8 was thrown into the Wrangler when the 4.0 went away and was weak compared to the 3.9 in Dakota.
The 3.8 had to be a "smooth" engine. The 3.7 and 3.9 could be rougher if they produced more usable power for a truck application.

Comparing engines on paper ignore things like fit (yes, the engines are similar in size, but is the required space around the engine available?), Space may be necessary for crumple space in collision testing. Second, the output numbers on paper don't show torque/horsepower curves. .A lower HP engine may have a bette rlow speed torque curve.

 

" I never quite understood why Chrysler didn't either offer the 3.8 v6 as the replacement for the 3.9 l v6. The number it produced back in 2001-2002 was slightly better than the 3.7 l v6. While I know there were some problems when they did adapt it to the Wrangler, My understanding is they changed a few things on the RWD versions that harm the reliability of the design. "

• longitudinal engine blocks needs more stiffness and a stronger rear face due to more bending hangingbetween its front end and rear of tranny. Perhaps they were capacity limited on the 3.3-3.9 and had place for the botchered v-8 v6 designs on the v-8 production lines?
• the 2.7 was a lovely engine with just minor but serius design flaws much like the a-604 ultradrive. Once they corrected these it was fine just like the a-604...

 

The 3.8 was reliable in the Wrangler.
The 3.8's output was not sufficient. While it had power, it didn't have torque where it was needed for a Jeep.

It's simple - car and truck engines have different priorities. The 3.8 was smooth for cars. The 3.9 was torquey for trucks.
Wrangler was a perfect example of a good car engine that sucked in a truck-like application. Not from a reliability standpoint but from an output matched to job standpoint.

 

Having owned a 3.7L '06 Dakota that got better gas mileage hauling stuff to and from college then it did by itself.....
Yeah, no, that 3.7 was utter useless. I would've rather had the 3.5L in it's weaker 214hp tune.
The 3.7's paper specs were good for the late 80's, but it's actually a 1975 motor at it's heart. Compass's and Patriots with the 2.4's are faster (even with the Jatco's) and feel torquier then the 3.7 ever did.

 

The 4.7L was a smoother running engine than the 318 or 360 and with the better 45rfe trans, faster than the 360 in a Durango as it put down more HP to the wheels. Mine put 201hp down stock..where a 360 was typically 190 range. It also had coil on plug ignition and underdrive pulley system to keep accessories last longer..and in my experience they have. I'd take one over a 318/360 any day of the week.

 

Wasn't the 4.7 the engine that ran ethanol which had to be available to qualify for government sales?

 

It was an E85 engine, at least in some applications - good point that some bids probably required that fuel use.