5.7 vortec vs 5.9 mag
No, not an even comparison, because hers weighs 800 pounds more, (altho on a 0-50 run I still beat her with 800 pounds of block and salt in the back) but mine is geared considerably taller, I doubt there is any significant aerodynamic difference. And theres the fact that she has another half a liter of displacement. Im not trying to start an arguement, Im just stating what I know from MY experience.
And not a 350, but my 5.2 also outran an '84 Firebird SC with a 305 and a 4 speed, by at least a car length.
And not a 350, but my 5.2 also outran an '84 Firebird SC with a 305 and a 4 speed, by at least a car length.
I remember an article in a car magazine at the time where the editors road tested an 80 something TA, and were so unimpressed they listed all the cars that would beat it. The list included the Charger 2.2 and warned the Firebird driver not to race any Mopar fwd car with "turbo" emblems.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
From: Morrow County, Ohio
I should hope so...the '84 firebird is a total dog. I think rwhp is like 150 ish.
I remember an article in a car magazine at the time where the editors road tested an 80 something TA, and were so unimpressed they listed all the cars that would beat it. The list included the Charger 2.2 and warned the Firebird driver not to race any Mopar fwd car with "turbo" emblems.
I remember an article in a car magazine at the time where the editors road tested an 80 something TA, and were so unimpressed they listed all the cars that would beat it. The list included the Charger 2.2 and warned the Firebird driver not to race any Mopar fwd car with "turbo" emblems.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Now I don't want to sound like a jerk that thinks he knows it all but it looks like you guys need to learn about chevy 5.7's.
Small block carbed 1967ish - 1986/7
TBI 1986/7 - 1996
Vortec 5.7 1996 - early 2000
Now when comparing them to your truck you only have 4 years that were vortec and they are not as common as TBI. I understand why you compare them since they were made in the same decade. But since the 5.9 went to 2003 i think ? why not compare the 5.9 to the 6.0. Closer displacement but I don't think it would be too fair. The chevy would probably win.
Like I said I am not trying to be a jerk and saying dodge sucks because I know dodge makes good trucks but I am just more biased towards a chevy.
Small block carbed 1967ish - 1986/7
TBI 1986/7 - 1996
Vortec 5.7 1996 - early 2000
Now when comparing them to your truck you only have 4 years that were vortec and they are not as common as TBI. I understand why you compare them since they were made in the same decade. But since the 5.9 went to 2003 i think ? why not compare the 5.9 to the 6.0. Closer displacement but I don't think it would be too fair. The chevy would probably win.
Like I said I am not trying to be a jerk and saying dodge sucks because I know dodge makes good trucks but I am just more biased towards a chevy.
The orginal post was about a chivy forum comparing 5.7's to 5.9's.
I guess from 68-73 we could compare the 5.7 to the 340, then to the '73 360 LA until about '89 when they switched to TBI, and then in '93 when the current "magnum" moniker came out and they switched to EFI.
I have owned and driven (work) Chivy trucks, and I think they suck. Now before you get your undies in a knot, you should know I've owned a bunch of Mopars in my time and there were several clinkers in the lot. I still have a Mopar Bias
I have to have some respect for GM products because I raced against them for years. When you run factored racing, you must know what your competition can or can't do.
And this is a case where "factoring" comes in The Dodge has a good amount of weight over the chivy, and if they were to match race, I want the chivys owner to add about 700 lbs to his truck...and in the front half
I guess from 68-73 we could compare the 5.7 to the 340, then to the '73 360 LA until about '89 when they switched to TBI, and then in '93 when the current "magnum" moniker came out and they switched to EFI.
I have owned and driven (work) Chivy trucks, and I think they suck. Now before you get your undies in a knot, you should know I've owned a bunch of Mopars in my time and there were several clinkers in the lot. I still have a Mopar Bias
I have to have some respect for GM products because I raced against them for years. When you run factored racing, you must know what your competition can or can't do.
And this is a case where "factoring" comes in The Dodge has a good amount of weight over the chivy, and if they were to match race, I want the chivys owner to add about 700 lbs to his truck...and in the front half
Last edited by dsertdog56; Nov 21, 2009 at 11:18 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
I wasn't trying to say chevy is the best and mopar sucks because both made some bad cars and our little baby prowler is pretty quick. I was just trying to say that the vortec 5.7 isn't a very common motor compared to the tbi 5.7. Now I think a dodge 5.9 would probably win against a 5.7 but there are so many factors that go into it. You would have to have almost the same trucks to make it fair.
What makes the dodge weigh more? I have no idea.
What makes the dodge weigh more? I have no idea.
Just for discussion, in what ways are they different? Different as in worse, better..?
Depending on whos specs you read, horespower and torque are the same. Bore and stroke, physical demensions, all similar.
CXS fan, don't despair. I did some comparisons agaisnt each truck, and I know why you are getting hammered. I'm kinda suprised some of the rest of you aren't, (and pardon my skeptisim) or perhaps your mods are helping you.
I actually went into the enemy's camp (shudder) and went over specs as far as hp, torque, gear ratios, etc. Then I compared them to a similar sized Ram.
Everything was VERY close...but one glaring difference stood out. For my truck, its a biggie.
The Ram quad cab 4x4 weighs 667 lbs MORE than the same chivy...:P
In racing, thats HUGE...in fuel mileage...thats a LOT. Handicap it further with a deathflash, heavy oversized tires, and any other faults, and you're in trouuble. Thats about 6/10 a second quicker, or 4-5 truck lengths.
Depending on whos specs you read, horespower and torque are the same. Bore and stroke, physical demensions, all similar.
CXS fan, don't despair. I did some comparisons agaisnt each truck, and I know why you are getting hammered. I'm kinda suprised some of the rest of you aren't, (and pardon my skeptisim) or perhaps your mods are helping you.
I actually went into the enemy's camp (shudder) and went over specs as far as hp, torque, gear ratios, etc. Then I compared them to a similar sized Ram.
Everything was VERY close...but one glaring difference stood out. For my truck, its a biggie.
The Ram quad cab 4x4 weighs 667 lbs MORE than the same chivy...:P
In racing, thats HUGE...in fuel mileage...thats a LOT. Handicap it further with a deathflash, heavy oversized tires, and any other faults, and you're in trouuble. Thats about 6/10 a second quicker, or 4-5 truck lengths.
In a way yes, although the block is very similar. Design wise, it's a rehash of something that wasn't well recieved (or worked much better) the first time.
My guess is either corporate relied on the styling and optional equipment to sell the truck, and/or the 5 year planners had gotten the hemi approved for the next generation Ram.
When I saw the "magnum" designation on the 5.2 and 5.9 motors back in '92 I laughed my *** off, remembering what magnum used to mean back in the day.
It was a marketing ploy that worked well on younger folks, but I don't believe any of us older guys were fooled for a moment.
My guess is either corporate relied on the styling and optional equipment to sell the truck, and/or the 5 year planners had gotten the hemi approved for the next generation Ram.
When I saw the "magnum" designation on the 5.2 and 5.9 motors back in '92 I laughed my *** off, remembering what magnum used to mean back in the day.
It was a marketing ploy that worked well on younger folks, but I don't believe any of us older guys were fooled for a moment.
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 329
Likes: 3
From: FDL, Wisconsin
So I've owned two dodges a 5.2 and a 5.9 and I would say that the 5.2 had no power at all. the 5.9 I can spin the tires from a dead stop and dont get that bad of gas milage around 13-14. I also have friends with chevy trucks and theres a big diffrence between the earlier years before they switched to the vortec. My friend with a 94 chevy said he gets about 13mpg but I could walk all over him with my 5.2 that had no power. And I have a friend with a 98 vortec and his truck get 10-11 mpg but will walk all over mine. I also have to say that after chevy switched to the 5.3 and 6.0 they are no comparison to the second gen dodges. I was driving next to a 1500 chevy with the slanted headlights (not sure what year that is) at 25 down the road and he put it to the floor and squaked his tires and took off. I dont think theres any second gen dodge gas vehicle that can do that. And I also drove my friends parents 04 denali sierra pickup with the 6.0 and that thing throws you back in the seat. HIs parents pull there 30 foot fifth wheel camper with it, and I dont think I've ever seen a 5.9 dodge do that. Im not a chevy fan at all but from what I've seen ths is the way things are
