UGH.. 4.7 HO is TOAST - Page 3 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > Models > Jeep Grand Cherokee & Commander Forums > WJ Grand Cherokee Forum > UGH.. 4.7 HO is TOAST

Warrior Products @ Oconee Off-Road! 706-534-9955Advance Adapters SYE KitsUCF Halloween Sale - 15% Off Until Midnight on Friday!

Reply
Unread 11-10-2013, 07:38 PM   #31
wjjeep19
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darnice
Huh? to be honest, I have never hear of a 4.7 having a map sensor failure, ever. Now TPS, yes, they wear out, but it does not blow up motors, just replace and good as new. I have 200,000 miles on my 4.7, no map failure no sludge build up, nothing you keep going on about.
Ok you are one person. Im happy for you that you dont have the problem, no one should go through the trouble. But I have heard of times where the 4.7 has had MAP failures, and sludge. To the point where they have been associated with it. Like i said, save the trouble and just another kind of engine in it. The 302 or 5.3 Magnum would be perfect. No addition to the hood and the plus side of going magnum, you keep it Chrysler/Mopar. Im not a Chrysler fan, but I love jeeps so much i made them an exception.

wjjeep19 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-10-2013, 07:44 PM   #32
MichaelS75
Registered User
1999 WJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 131
In case anyone cares. I've got a 99 4.7 and my map sensor AND the connector both failed causing stalling at stops and lurching at steady speeds. Replaced my tps and nothing changed until I got a code for the map sensor and looked there.
MichaelS75 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-11-2013, 04:09 AM   #33
wjjeep19
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelS75
In case anyone cares. I've got a 99 4.7 and my map sensor AND the connector both failed causing stalling at stops and lurching at steady speeds. Replaced my tps and nothing changed until I got a code for the map sensor and looked there.
Why don't people believe me? Im not saying all this to waste time. Guess what people, try going to the dodge forums and tell them the 4.7 doesnt sludge, you'll most likely get barraged with"GTFO".
wjjeep19 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-11-2013, 07:40 AM   #34
Cirruslydakota
Registered User
1999 WJ 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Towson, Maryland
Posts: 1,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjjeep19 View Post

I said put a 302 in it. I did not say the old or new. And unless im incorrect, I am pretty sure they are still 302 Cubic Inches. Aren't they?
No, the old 302 was 4,948 c.c. which would be rounded down to 4.9 c.i. Ford got flamed for calling it a 5.0 when it wasn't. The new 5.0 is 4,952 (302.2 c.i.) so its rounded up to 5.0. So in a way yes, its still a 302 but this time around its a real 5.0 liters if just barely.

If you have some time: http://m.autoblog.com/2009/12/28/dee...ll-new-5-0-v8/

Also that paultry 215 in 2001 wasn't that bad compared to other engines from that time. Our 5.2(318) was only making 220 and our 5.9(360) was 250-260 depending on the application. Fords own 4.6 started at 215 in 1990 with sohc and wasn't until it got the P.I. heads in 1999 that it made respectable power (263 or so). Remember, when our Hemi arrived on the scene with 345 HP in 2003 every other manufacturer was caught with their V8 pants down. Ford didn't catch up until 2011 when they finally dumped that boat anchor tall deck 5.4. The updated 4.7 in dakota/ram/durango was 310 by comparison and fords 3 valve motor is mustang form was 300 and 292 in exploder/truck duty form.
__________________
Bear - 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo - 250,000 Miles, BDS 2" lift, Overland rock rails, Dynomax cat back exhaust, 245/75/16 Kumho KL78's, Rebuilt 4.0 @ 244,000 miles.
Apollo - 2008 Mazdaspeed3 - Mazdaspeed CAI, Mazdaspeed CBE, Prosport boost gauge.
Velvet - 2005 Ford Focus ST - Wife's ride
Cirruslydakota is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-11-2013, 08:44 AM   #35
wjjeep19
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirruslydakota
No, the old 302 was 4,948 c.c. which would be rounded down to 4.9 c.i. Ford got flamed for calling it a 5.0 when it wasn't. The new 5.0 is 4,952 (302.2 c.i.) so its rounded up to 5.0. So in a way yes, its still a 302 but this time around its a real 5.0 liters if just barely. If you have some time: http://m.autoblog.com/2009/12/28/dee...ll-new-5-0-v8/ Also that paultry 215 in 2001 wasn't that bad compared to other engines from that time. Our 5.2(318) was only making 220 and our 5.9(360) was 250-260 depending on the application. Fords own 4.6 started at 215 in 1990 with sohc and wasn't until it got the P.I. heads in 1999 that it made respectable power (263 or so). Remember, when our Hemi arrived on the scene with 345 HP in 2003 every other manufacturer was caught with their V8 pants down. Ford didn't catch up until 2011 when they finally dumped that boat anchor tall deck 5.4. The updated 4.7 in dakota/ram/durango was 310 by comparison and fords 3 valve motor is mustang form was 300 and 292 in exploder/truck duty form.
You are a 100 percent correct, but i feel like you are just saying the exact cubic inches of the 302 to be annoying. Its still associated as a 302 whether its .0000001 decimals off. The 5.4 Triton is alright, and hemi is great too, but the 5.4 triton is not my perferred ford engine. My favorite is the 351 Cleveland (Long small block) but the 351 Windsor is not far behind. Oh and as for Chrysler's 5.9, id rather buy AMCs 5.9.
wjjeep19 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-11-2013, 11:34 AM   #36
Cirruslydakota
Registered User
1999 WJ 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Towson, Maryland
Posts: 1,758
Wasn't trying to be a jerk or anything. Blame Ford lol. After all 4.9 doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely as 5.0, just ask Vanilla Ice. "Rollin in my 4.9" haha. The 5.4 triton while durable was serious weak sauce its entire run. Chryslers magnum series engines were great with the exception that they drank unholy amounts of fuel.

Fun fact GM also had a 5.0 (305) so it gets confusing as 302-305 cubic engines is the same displacement. Also the Powertech 4.7 is an AMC design that came along with the purchase of AMC in the 80's.
__________________
Bear - 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo - 250,000 Miles, BDS 2" lift, Overland rock rails, Dynomax cat back exhaust, 245/75/16 Kumho KL78's, Rebuilt 4.0 @ 244,000 miles.
Apollo - 2008 Mazdaspeed3 - Mazdaspeed CAI, Mazdaspeed CBE, Prosport boost gauge.
Velvet - 2005 Ford Focus ST - Wife's ride
Cirruslydakota is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-11-2013, 12:26 PM   #37
Darnice
Registered User
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjjeep19 View Post
Why don't people believe me? Im not saying all this to waste time. Guess what people, try going to the dodge forums and tell them the 4.7 doesnt sludge, you'll most likely get barraged with"GTFO".
Sludge, just like this 4.0

http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f11/4...-crap-1307646/
Darnice is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-11-2013, 07:21 PM   #38
wjjeep19
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darnice
Lol. Ok now gather up every article of 4.0 Sludge to every article of 4.7 sludge (Jeep, Dakota, Durango). I guarantee you'll see staggering numbers
wjjeep19 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-11-2013, 07:28 PM   #39
wjjeep19
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirruslydakota
Wasn't trying to be a jerk or anything. Blame Ford lol. After all 4.9 doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely as 5.0, just ask Vanilla Ice. "Rollin in my 4.9" haha. The 5.4 triton while durable was serious weak sauce its entire run. Chryslers magnum series engines were great with the exception that they drank unholy amounts of fuel. Fun fact GM also had a 5.0 (305) so it gets confusing as 302-305 cubic engines is the same displacement. Also the Powertech 4.7 is an AMC design that came along with the purchase of AMC in the 80's.
Oh no, no hard feelings. I know exactly what you mean. I have a 2002 5.4 triton with 73k miles, lariot, off road package and not a single scratch on it. I will admit that its 5.4 sucks. I wish they would have a manlier engine but unfortunately Shelby only puts his engines in the top of the line cars ( where as hemi will just shove their engine into anything ). Im not really a magnum fan. I will give the 5.3 its credit, but like i said AMC and Ford are my favorites. People think the 350 is good but I dont hear anything about a 351. My family had a Ford Bronco XLT with the 351 windsor that lasted 20 years 250 k. Sure, you had to add a quart of oil in it every week but by that time it was a beater. And let me tell you, you could beat that ford up to nothing but its chasis and that 351 would still be running. (Even though i peefer the 351 Cleveland as opposed to the Windsor in the Bronco)
wjjeep19 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-11-2013, 07:40 PM   #40
wjjeep19
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 252
Maybe I need to adjust what Im trying to say. Im not saying that 4.0s dont and will not ever get sludge. Whoever thinks im saying that they dont get sludge is a fool. Second of all, what Im trying to say is that 4.7s are prone to sludge (doesnt mean they'll get sludge) and they have been known to have MAP system failures. This is not because its simply a magnum, or a chrysler product. It is because of the lack of engineering that went into building the v8. If you dont think so, look at the schematics! Look at the engine design.
wjjeep19 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-11-2013, 10:41 PM   #41
rdkendrick
Registered User
2003 WJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 3,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjjeep19 View Post
Why don't people believe me? Im not saying all this to waste time. Guess what people, try going to the dodge forums and tell them the 4.7 doesnt sludge, you'll most likely get barraged with"GTFO".
Got 177k and NEVER had MAP sensor, nor sludge problems, yet. This poor OP, having to listen to all this opinion, speculation, and general BS. He just wants to know the cheapest way to fix his 4.7. I'd say, reman the heads, if you have a broken rod, replace it and piston, just like someone else said. (Sorry, I can't remember who said it)

Sent from my iPad using my fingers
rdkendrick is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-12-2013, 05:21 AM   #42
gold01wj
Registered User
2000 WJ 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Toadlena,, Northwest New Mexico
Posts: 314
What he said^
__________________
2000 wj limited quadradrive 4.7 family vehicle-was stock, then lifted 4",now stock again
gold01wj is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-12-2013, 06:31 AM   #43
wjjeep19
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdkendrick
Got 177k and NEVER had MAP sensor, nor sludge problems, yet. This poor OP, having to listen to all this opinion, speculation, and general BS. He just wants to know the cheapest way to fix his 4.7. I'd say, reman the heads, if you have a broken rod, replace it and piston, just like someone else said. (Sorry, I can't remember who said it) Sent from my iPad using my fingers
Refer to my comment above yours. Yes I first started off that 4.7 have problems, i still know they do even if a couple people say they havent had any problems (again refer to my comment above yours). Also I said put a 302 in it. After that some butt hurt people started going off about the 302 because I might of insulted them about my 4.7 comment.
wjjeep19 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-12-2013, 11:41 AM   #44
gschris
Registered User
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lamoine, Maine
Posts: 90
sorry to have started a war.. just looking for leads on parts.. came across an 04 Laredo yesterday with some cosmetic issues and a strong running 4.0 for a reasonable price, so I think I will just meld the two together and go back to having a 4.0.. what apparently caused my 4.7s demise was the timing guide exploded and plugged the oil pickup with plastic pieces and starved it for oil.. which makes sense.. I found all kinds of plastic parts in the base, and upon closer inspection discovered some in the pickup tube..
__________________
04 Laredo.. 4" Zone lift, on 265-70-17 Goodyear Wrangler Authorities on 06 Commander wheels..
gschris is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-12-2013, 01:16 PM   #45
wjjeep19
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by gschris
sorry to have started a war.. just looking for leads on parts.. came across an 04 Laredo yesterday with some cosmetic issues and a strong running 4.0 for a reasonable price, so I think I will just meld the two together and go back to having a 4.0.. what apparently caused my 4.7s demise was the timing guide exploded
and plugged the oil pickup with plastic pieces and starved it for oil.. which makes sense.. I found all kinds of plastic parts in the base, and upon closer inspection discovered some in the pickup tube..
You have nothing to be sorry about. Listen, i would like the 4.7 but i dont like what its prone to. Also I have more respect for the inline 6 and its tradition. But on a point i didnt talk about, i have driven both the 4.7 and the i6. The 4.7 is nice and has power but its not very smooth. I dont know how to explain it. Also, i personally like Selec-Trac over Quadradrive. Id rather manually shift it in 4hi and I think it has better control.
wjjeep19 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.
Note: All free e-mails have been banned due to mis-use. (Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.)
Don't have a non-free e-mail address? Click here for a solution: Manual Account Creation
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Tools






Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.