I went to 3 yards that were open yesterday looking for the right ECU to swap in, did not find one. (need a 49 state 4.7 AT one) I did come across a CA emissioned 4.7 5sp 4WD though... thats 1.5~2.0 mpg right there lol...

The only thing I came away with was the overhead info display with Homelink... $7. Word has it there is only 1 wire that needs to be added if it is not already there, will investigate this once the truck is back up & running. Planning to test this in the Ram since it is the same

 

New potential plan in the works... linking in this thread that has details...

ECU swap 2002 4.7 - DodgeForum.com

 

Did anyone read this? Some pretty interesting info in there...

 

I've read it just now, but in my opinion is all logical....

You can't run an na engine with a fixed intake manifold at all speeds at best performance.
You have to take a middle way, this is what the engineers are doing, they design an intake manifold which will be operating were most people have the need to.
Like in the report, you can tune for more torque or more hp in the top end, can't have both at optimum performance.

What changed in the years with our manifold was they shortened the runner length, wich results in a stronger top end ( HP ) and less Torque down low.
I made up my mind and don't think i will be satisfied with the 2008+ manifold, i do think i will lose torque between 1500-3000 rpm's.
I don't care about HP's in the top end, i like the power output like it is right now, even though more is better..... i do not want to loose torque down low.

When you could make a variable intake manifold, like you did on the Ram you get a better overall running engine, so this will definitive improve the torque curve, as long if you can find the sweet spots.
The resonator or multiple resonators, seems to me, work like a buffer of available air, when needed it's waiting right there to fill the gap, under high performance or load of the engine.

 

The Ram's mod is on the air box not the intake manifold (IM).

Reading that writeup the thought came to mind to drill a hole in the end of the IM and add a resonator to it. Set it up so 1) it doesn't leak and 2) so that the box attached to the port could be swapped out to experiment with it for best bottom end performance. While out on Sunday I came across a '05 IM that was already pulled, just sitting there with the TB... was tempted to grab it but like you, I dont know if the benefit would be what I am after. The only way to know for sure would be to swap it in and try it. As you know, I have bigger problems at the moment lol.

 

Yes, i know, you have to sort the PCM out first....

I think the resonator function is accompliced in the intake pipe, between inlet and filter housing and before the TB, but it could be made at the manifold itself off course.
Like in the report they notice there are 2 different set-ups for the resonator, parallel or inline.

I think it's all trial and error, to find which setup would work and which don't, and than in terms of where to put a resonator, the size off the resonator, how many resonators to accomplice the goal.

Like you said before it might be an idea to make a set up and measure the flow like you did with the electric fans, it's just a lot of work to try different set-ups.
It seems to me longer runners create more torque, but it's all a balance between filling and exhaust off the cilinder, standard exhaust pipes generate backpressure which helps with sucking the exhaust gasses out and air in.

I wish i could help you out and try different methodes, but i can't get the manifolds over here at a decent price to experiment, otherwise i would buy a 2008+ manifold and would try to make a kind of valve in a by-pass to create longer runners used in the 1500 to 3000 range where this bypass, either closes gradually when revving up to 3000 rpm's or make an on/off kind valve somewhere at 3000 rpm's, although i think this will create a shock while driving instead of a smooth transition.

 

The test setup would have only worked for measuring the outflow at the port with forced air in while using the TB spacer. Not sure it would benefit to do that setup for the resonator since there is no piston involved in it like on the live engine. What I'd do is just set it up and test 2~3 different sized resonators and see what the cause & effect is. There is also the port on the MIT that could potentially be used for a resonator. Any of that would be a long ways off, need to get the truck back on line soon, with or without HPT tuning.

 

Yes i agree, you could see changes but only which work better or less in comparison.

Been talking to a guy who owns an American truck shop over here, just found out he has a Dakota R/T himself.
They are dealer for HP Tuners in the Netherlands, and he just told me the JTEC can't be done, only NGC.... i told him otherwise, but he doesn't agree.

He wants to buy mine.... and has one coming over from the States.

But anyway seems to me he has lots of knowledge of our trucks, said i would gave him a visit someday. ( not for selling mine btw )

 

Lots of JTEC threads going on...

Search Results - HP Tuners Bulletin Board


this is what got me... 2002 Dodge Dakota 4.7 is listed...

HP Tuners Now Offering JTEC Support!

 

Yes i know Steve, we both had verified it was available, there are more problems by the looks of it on the HP site.