 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / August 2006Rear end ratios 3.21 vs 3.92
I'm considering a new Dakota and was wondering whether to go with a 3.92 or the standard 3.21 rear end. Most of my driving is city and I occasionally pull around 5-6K pounds, but not frequently. Will the 3.92 have a gas mileage impact around town? I know it will on the highway but how bad will it be? >I'm considering a new Dakota and was wondering whether to go with a 3.92 or >the standard 3.21 rear end. Most of my driving is city and I occasionally pull >around 5-6K pounds, but not frequently. Will the 3.92 have a gas mileage >impact around town? I know it will on the highway but how bad will it be? Go here: http://www.trailerlife.com/towratings/2006/TowingRatings_p20_33.pdf I don't think you will find any Dakota that is rated to 6K with a 3.21:1 ratio, regardless of engine, transmission, or cab style for which you have not stated your intentions. Frank >>I'm considering a new Dakota and was wondering whether to go with a 3.92 >>or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Frank I wonder if that list is wrong. The user manual for my 2000 RAM 2500 CTD lists upper towing limits list about 15k for automatic and 19k for manual. This list shows the 2006 line for only about 13k for both. If that is correct I think I will try to keep my 2000 truck lomg as possible. GB  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>I'm considering a new Dakota and was wondering whether to go with a 3.92 >>>or [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >GB If you want a point of reference you can go to the trailerlife.com home site and look up the 2000, see if it matches your user manual. Seems backwards though, most of the towing capacities derate the manual transmission. You also should consider the Gross Combined Vehicle Weight rating, which is the weight of the vehicle, load and tow. Usually less than the tow ratings when you deduct the other stuff. My Dakota is rated at 4800 for towing, but if I look at it from the GCVWR standpoint, drops to about 3900. Frank > If you want a point of reference you can go to the trailerlife.com > home site and look up the 2000, see if it matches your user manual. > Seems backwards though, most of the towing capacities derate the > manual transmission. In the case of the Dakota, I think that is because the largest engine is available only with automatic transmission. In most of the larger trucks, an NV4500 or Getrag manual is available that will take pretty much whatever you throw at it. >I wonder if that list is wrong. The user manual for my 2000 RAM 2500 CTD >lists upper towing limits list about 15k for automatic and 19k for manual. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >GB The list is right on.... you have a 3/4 ton RAM, dude... lol My 01 Dakota with 4.7/auto/3:55 and 2wd is rated as max row 5100# Change to a 4:10 rear end and it's max goes up to 6,405# but that just means that it will get that much weight moving from a standstill.. It doesn't mean that it can STOP it or that the wheelbase is going to get longer or the suspension beefier to CONROL it.. YMWV Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm >>I'm considering a new Dakota and was wondering whether to go with a 3.92 or >>the standard 3.21 rear end. Most of my driving is city and I occasionally pull [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Frank Yes and quite honestly, a Dakota will have a bit of a hard time with a 6k trailer and a 3.91 at times and be a lost cause with a 3.12. Take factory tow rating with a grain of salt here. Figure on about 60 to maybe 70% or the "rating" in the real world. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com >Yes and quite honestly, a Dakota will have a bit of a hard time with a >6k trailer and a 3.91 at times and be a lost cause with a 3.12. Take >factory tow rating with a grain of salt here. Figure on about 60 to >maybe 70% or the "rating" in the real world. I guess I always thought the manufacturer rating would be quite a bit lower than what you could actually comfortably tow. But thanks for the advice. >I guess I always thought the manufacturer rating would be quite a bit lower >than what you could actually comfortably tow. But thanks for the advice. You have it backwards, it is a lot higher than you can comfortably tow with those vehicles. The only ones accurately rated and with some reserve are the diesels and Big Block powered P/U's (Like old Dodge V10's, old Ford 460's and GM 454's and 8.1's and Ford V10's somewhat too. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com >Go here: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >3.21:1 ratio, regardless of engine, transmission, or cab style for >which you have not stated your intentions. Thanks for the site reference. I'm planning on a quad-cab, V8 and 5 speed automatic so according to that I'd be limited to 5K with the 3.21 and could go up to 7K with the 3.92. >>Go here: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > could go > up to 7K with the 3.92. I have both a Dakota and an f150. I also have a 6k travel trailer. I would not attempt to pull it with the dakota. as a matter of fact, I wanted to move my trailer about 20 yards to my front yard. My f150 was in the shop. I hooked up the TT to the dakota and I thought I broke the springs, it went so far down. Good luck. >>Go here: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >automatic so according to that I'd be limited to 5K with the 3.21 and could go >up to 7K with the 3.92. That's scarey... my 99 ram with 5.9 gas, auto and 3:55 gears is only rated at 7,200# We haul a 29' Travel Trailer that weighs a little over 6k loaded and there's no way I'd want to try that weight with a Dakota... talk about the tail wagging the dog... *g* Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm >>>Go here: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis >https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm Mac, do you use a weight distribution hitch? Sway bars? If so, your opinion on how much they actually help in controlling the load. Frank >>>>Go here: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Frank A sway bar works miracles. I know THAT from experience. A equalizer hitch also makes a HUGE difference, particularly on a heavy trailer and a light tow vehicle. When I towed the 17 foot Bonair with the Aerostar, if I had 150-200 lbs on the hitch it towned nicely - very little sway - particularly with TRAILER tires, rather than car tires. When I put a bike rack on the back, it was all over the road with 150 tongue weight - not much better at 200. The sway bar tamed it right down, even at 150 - and at 150 tye hitch hight was still very good - so I did not use a distribution hitch. The guy I bought it from used a distribution hitch on his AstroVan. He said without it, the lightweight trailer pushed the van around, or the bumper dragged. With the distribution hitch he could level it out, and have enough hitch weight to tame it down. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >Mac, do you use a weight distribution hitch? Sway bars? If so, your >opinion on how much they actually help in controlling the load. > >Frank Yeah, we have the Drawtite WD hitch... it was what the dealer that we bought the trailer from stocked and we wanted to keep the costs down.. It was intimidating at first, especially when they warned us about "severe injury probable" if you didn't follow all the steps involved in hitching/unhitching the spring bars... turned out to be a piece of cake after a little practice... I remember when the finished putting the receiver on the Ram and hooked up the trailer... the back end of the Ram went down over a FOOT and my wife & I freaked! We thought we were going to have to put air bags or something on it.. The guy looked at our faces and laughed.. said he got that expression every time and not to worry.. he jacked the trailer to level, cranked on the WD bars and let it down and the truck was level.. amazing... We've done several long trips and been through areas with cross winds and such, never a sway... love it! They told us to start at "three links hanging"... that was how many links were free at the end of each chain on the bars... leveled it right out and handled well... As we used the trailer more and added more "gotta bring that" stuff, we noticed that the truck bumper was down a little in the back and tried 4 links free... perfect! That said, I have to do a "if I'd known then" thing: We had assumed that 5th wheels were for huge trailers and 3/4 or 1 ton trucks... If we had known that there were fivers that were even shorter than our travel trailer and being pulled all the time with 1/2 ton trucks, we would have gone that route... YMWV Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm >>Mac, do you use a weight distribution hitch? Sway bars? If so, your >>opinion on how much they actually help in controlling the load. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis >https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm Thanks, I need to set up my Dakota to tow just under 4K. Will probably go with a WD hitch. Probably marginal, however, if I don't think it will stand up to it I'll trade the truck up to something with more guts. Frank > I'm considering a new Dakota and was wondering whether to go with a 3.92 or > the standard 3.21 rear end. Most of my driving is city and I occasionally pull > around 5-6K pounds, but not frequently. Will the 3.92 have a gas mileage > impact around town? I know it will on the highway but how bad will it be? Go with the 3.92. It will have almost no mileage impact around town. The transmission will upshift to the next to keep the rpm's in right range. You might notice some decrease on the highway, though. But it's not enough to matter a whole lot. You'll really need that 3.92 gear when you tow. Signature.boB Arrived: 2006 FXDI, Red. 1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged Stolen 11/26/05 in Denver 1HD1GEL10VY3200010 CO License J5822Z 2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92 1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver 1965 FFR Cobra - 427W EFI, Damn Fast. > I'm considering a new Dakota and was wondering whether to go with a 3.92 > or > the standard 3.21 rear end. Most of my driving is city and I occasionally > pull > around 5-6K pounds, but not frequently. Will the 3.92 have a gas mileage > impact around town? I know it will on the highway but how bad will it be? 6k is a helluva load for a Dakota. If you really need that kind of towing capacity, I'd suggest you go to a full size Ram with the Hemi. >6k is a helluva load for a Dakota. If you really need that kind of towing >capacity, I'd suggest you go to a full size Ram with the Hemi. The Ram is too big to fit in my garage, I'd have just a couple of inches to spare. I have a 97 club cab Dakota that fits quite nicely so I'd like to stay with a Dakota. I've used my current Dakota to haul loads in the 5K range many times but never distances over 75 miles or so. It is a 5.2L, 5 speed automatic with the 3.21 rear and doesn't seem to have any great difficulty with 5K, other than getting about 10 miles to the gallon. So I'm thinking a new quad cab 4.7L Dakota will fit the bill quite nicely. > It is a 5.2L, 5 speed automatic >with the 3.21 rear and doesn't seem to have any great difficulty with 5K, >other than getting about 10 miles to the gallon. So I'm thinking a new quad >cab 4.7L Dakota will fit the bill quite nicely. If you had a 3.91 behind current truck you would have a different view and a Dakota QC with a 4.7 and a 3.21 with a 5 k trailer would be a slug and not make a good towing experiance and likely get even worse MPG that you get now. (deeper gears improve towing MPG) ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com > I'm considering a new Dakota and was wondering whether to go with a 3.92 or > the standard 3.21 rear end. Most of my driving is city and I occasionally pull > around 5-6K pounds, but not frequently. Will the 3.92 have a gas mileage > impact around town? I know it will on the highway but how bad will it be? You don't say which engine, but I wouldn't recommend anything under 3.92 with any engine less than 5 litres, and I wouldn't recommend the 3.21 for towing even with the hemi. > I'm considering a new Dakota and was wondering whether to go with a 3.92 or > the standard 3.21 rear end. Most of my driving is city and I occasionally pull > around 5-6K pounds, but not frequently. Will the 3.92 have a gas mileage > impact around town? I know it will on the highway but how bad will it be? My dealer complained the 3.21 9.25" config had considerably higher failure rates than the 3.55 or 3.92. They see a lot of 4.10 failures, but those are likely abuse-based errors from people buying too little truck... I've got a 318 powered NV3500 (5 spd) 3.21:1 2WD 99 RAM 1500 club cab. 1st is too low of ratio for serious weight and towing - you'll have to play hot-clutch too get moving. I pulled my 92 Explorer XLT on a U-haul 'full' aluminum car trailer behind it, running in 3rd (3000ish RPM) and 4th maintaining 55-60 mph. Two weeks later the transmission failed. *shrug* Personally I'd get 3.92 or 4.10 gears if I had to do it all over again... The fuel economy hit is small (and may actually be negative overall if you do a lot of city driving, or 45-55 mph back-roading) and the overall drivability of the truck improves so much, especially when towing or hauling. JS > I've got a 318 powered NV3500 (5 spd) 3.21:1 2WD 99 RAM 1500 club cab. > 1st is too low of ratio for serious weight and towing - you'll have to > play hot-clutch too get moving. I pulled my 92 Explorer XLT on a U-haul > 'full' aluminum car trailer behind it, running in 3rd (3000ish RPM) and > 4th maintaining 55-60 mph. Two weeks later the transmission failed. > *shrug* Oh man! Do I need to quote you boasting about how you abused that tranny again? "I tend to downshift hard with the throttle closed pulling some EXTREME vacuum." But anyway, you said that the shift lever (inside the cab) on that thing always felt hot. I have the same 318/NV3500/3.21, and mine never gets hot. I think your trans had something wrong from the beginning. >But anyway, you said that the shift lever (inside the cab) on that thing >always felt hot. I have the same 318/NV3500/3.21, and mine never gets >hot. I think your trans had something wrong from the beginning. THe lever can get hot for variuos reasons so that is not much of a indicator but a NV3500 with a 3.21 axle is a LD towing setup at best ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com >> I've got a 318 powered NV3500 (5 spd) 3.21:1 2WD 99 RAM 1500 club cab. >> 1st is too low of ratio for serious weight and towing - you'll have to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > always felt hot. I have the same 318/NV3500/3.21, and mine never gets > hot. I think your trans had something wrong from the beginning. I think it did too. After the swap I had noticeably less driveline slop (ie - stick it in say 1st gear, e-brake off, push the truck back and forth) which had been there from the beginning. The "downshift hard" post got blown out of proportion. What I meant by that was "sometimes I close the throttle at like 5000 rpm - that should cause maximal suckage in the intake manifold". One doesn't have to 'abuse' the transmission to do that, at all. The 'hard' part wasn't about grabbing the stick and cooking the synchros. IIRC the original post was concerning intake plenum gasket replacement methods and their longevity... But, I will say - I have babied this transmission a lot more than the original. I also haven't hauled any Ford Exploders behind it since then either. That combo was about 2200 lbs over the book tow rating for the 1500 w/ 3.21 (the book says "3100*"... the * says "not suggested for towing")... I have a real hard time believing the Dakota weighs that much less, which makes me call BS on a similar driveline in it truely being able to handle 6000# towing. Now, if you want to discuss me abusing the engine.. well... No argument. Its gutless-wonder-gas-guzzling a.s deserves all the whupping it gets and has ever got. I'm certain the new NV3500 will survive a properly driven 360 - just a matter of finding a flywheel (a gasser 360/NV4500 flywheel may work) and getting that junker 318 out of the way. :) JS >>> I've got a 318 powered NV3500 (5 spd) 3.21:1 2WD 99 RAM 1500 club cab. >>> 1st is too low of ratio for serious weight and towing - you'll have to [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >JS There was a time when the 318 was a good motor and strong running too. It will respond well to the proper tweaking but honselt the biggest thing hurt your combo is axle ratio because if you had a 3.73 or a 3.91 behind it you would have a completely different opinion of it because a 318 lacks torque because of displacement and deeper gear offset this. (even a 3.54 would help) ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com >>>> I've got a 318 powered NV3500 (5 spd) 3.21:1 2WD 99 RAM 1500 club cab. >>>> 1st is too low of ratio for serious weight and towing - you'll have to [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > The SnoMan > www.thesnoman.com Out of curiousity, what would it cost, from a shop, to change gearing in a 4x4. > >>>> I've got a 318 powered NV3500 (5 spd) 3.21:1 2WD 99 RAM 1500 club cab. > >>>> 1st is too low of ratio for serious weight and towing - you'll have to [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Out of curiousity, what would it cost, from a shop, to change gearing in a > 4x4. That would require a rebuild of both axles and at around $800 a piece (depending on area), it would cost far more than it would be worth. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> >>>> I've got a 318 powered NV3500 (5 spd) 3.21:1 2WD 99 RAM 1500 >> >>>> club [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > That would require a rebuild of both axles and at around $800 a piece > (depending on area), it would cost far more than it would be worth. Whether it is worth the money or not is completely subjective. You can only say that it wouldn't be worth it for you. > >> >>>> I've got a 318 powered NV3500 (5 spd) 3.21:1 2WD 99 RAM 1500 > >> >>>> club [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > Whether it is worth the money or not is completely subjective. You can > only say that it wouldn't be worth it for you. You are correct, I should have said probably cost more than it would be worth and then you have to add it if the shop actually knows what it is doing here. Changing those gears is not just a slap in thing and if they are not set up properly, you can kiss those new and expensive gears goodbye. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >>> >>>> I've got a 318 powered NV3500 (5 spd) 3.21:1 2WD 99 RAM 1500 >>> >>>> club [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > Whether it is worth the money or not is completely subjective. You can > only say that it wouldn't be worth it for you. I ask since I may be in for a rear end rebuild in the future, therefore I would be committing to that axle anyway. Therefore, an additional axle doesn't sound as bad as just saying both axles at $800.00 >That would require a rebuild of both axles and at around $800 a piece >(depending on area), it would cost far more than it would be worth. Not sure where you are getting this, You do not need to rebuild the axle becuase moct of the time the bearings in it ar fine unless the are subject to neglect. so they can be reused. You can get gears for both axles together for about 300 total on internet and you should be able to get them installed for a total of 400 to 600 bucks because they are not hard axles to work on. The last thing you want to do is get parts from a dealer or have work done there too as you will get scalped. Use a Yukon or Precision gear for axles if you do it and stay away from richmond because they are about a B grade replacement at best. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com > >That would require a rebuild of both axles and at around $800 a piece > >(depending on area), it would cost far more than it would be worth. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > away from richmond because they are about a B grade replacement at > best. LOL, you are kidding, right?????? Have you ever done this because from what I'm reading above, I doubt it. Please tell me labor wise, what exactly is the difference between swapping gears and a rebuild. I'll give you a hint, the carrier bearings and if you are working on the DC 9 1/4 rear, you would be an idiot not to replace both the carrier and the pinion bearings anyway and save yourself the grief of having to replace them at around 60,000 when they tend to fail. Otherwise, the labor and steps required are EXACTLY the same and when you replace the pinion (just like in a rebuild), the time required jumps up because now you have to set the pinion depth all over again which can be time consuming when done correctly. If you know someone willing to do it for $300 and who actually knows what they are doing, post the number and address as that really is a bargain. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> >That would require a rebuild of both axles and at around $800 a piece >> >(depending on area), it would cost far more than it would be worth. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > willing to do it for $300 and who actually knows what they are doing, post > the number and address as that really is a bargain. Tom, I know this means nothing coming from me but "congratulations" on your promotion. Your spot in the group has been taken by the SnoIdiot. <VBG> Denny >> If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Denny LOL > >> >That would require a rebuild of both axles and at around $800 a piece > >> >(depending on area), it would cost far more than it would be worth. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Tom, I know this means nothing coming from me but "congratulations" on your > promotion. Your spot in the group has been taken by the SnoIdiot. <VBG> I don't know why you would think that as I have nothing against you. My only fear is what exactly I have been promoted to :-) SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >LOL, you are kidding, right?????? Have you ever done this because from what >I'm reading above, I doubt it. Please tell me labor wise, what exactly is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >willing to do it for $300 and who actually knows what they are doing, post >the number and address as that really is a bargain. Most 9.1/4 failure are due to neglect because people think that you do not even need to check or change rear axle lube and if you do this, you may have problem. I messed around with a up 67 charger with a very warm 383 in it and a 4 speed 30 years ago and it had the early 9 1/4 rear axle in it and it took a terible beating without failure. The 9 1/4 is not weak rear end but it is prone to trouble if you never change the fluid in it (which most do not do. Change the fluid after a few K miles when new and then even 15 to 20 K after that if you play hard and it will hold up fine but most seem to think that it never needs changing. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com > >LOL, you are kidding, right?????? Have you ever done this because from what > >I'm reading above, I doubt it. Please tell me labor wise, what exactly is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > not even need to check or change rear axle lube and if you do this, > you may have problem. I agree that most people never think to check or change the axle lube and because of that they should be built to be able to deal with it. In over 20 vehicles that I have owned I have never changed the oil in a single one of them and never had a rear axle start making noise at all, never mind at 54,000 miles with the exception of my 97 RAM and this truck was babied for the first 70,000 and for the most part, still is. The fact that it is becoming "known" that the 1500 series RAM tends to have rear axle problems at around 60,000 miles pretty much shows it to be a problem with the rear rather than a maintenance issue. > I messed around with a up 67 charger with a > very warm 383 in it and a 4 speed 30 years ago and it had the early 9 > 1/4 rear axle in it and it took a terible beating without failure. The > 9 1/4 is not weak rear end but it is prone to trouble if you never > change the fluid in it (which most do not do. Any assembly is only as strong as its weakest part and in this rear now, that appears to be the bearings. You can change the best design into crap if you use substandard parts in critical areas and while I would say that the bearings in the DC 9 1/4 rear are not junk, they are not exactly the best available either. > Change the fluid after a > few K miles when new and then even 15 to 20 K after that if you play > hard and it will hold up fine but most seem to think that it never > needs changing. I this were required, then the rear should be designed to make this easier such as a drain plug placed in the bottom of the casing. In a severe duty application I would go along with this but contrary to popular belief in this NG, most people do not fall into that category of usage and my truck absolutely did not fall into that category. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > The fact that it is > becoming "known" that the 1500 series RAM tends to have rear axle problems > at around 60,000 miles pretty much shows it to be a problem with the rear > rather than a maintenance issue. My 2001 Ram has 80,000 on it. I use it quite a bit for towing and no problems. I have changed the diff oil twice since new. > > The fact that it is > > becoming "known" that the 1500 series RAM tends to have rear axle problems [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My 2001 Ram has 80,000 on it. I use it quite a bit for towing and no > problems. I have changed the diff oil twice since new. Like I said, the bearings are not total crap, just not the best available. Perhaps you got lucky and got a good set. They don't all fail, just an unacceptable number of them do. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > >> I've got a 318 powered NV3500 (5 spd) 3.21:1 2WD 99 RAM 1500 club cab. > >> 1st is too low of ratio for serious weight and towing - you'll have to [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > driven 360 - just a matter of finding a flywheel (a gasser 360/NV4500 > flywheel may work) and getting that junker 318 out of the way. :) There was a reason why DC didn't offer a 5 speed with the 360, such as the NV3500 just can't deal with the torque. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >There was a reason why DC didn't offer a 5 speed with the 360, such as the >NV3500 just can't deal with the torque. I do not agree. Typicaly the 360's were in 3/4 ton trucks is likely the main reason that 3500 were not used because the torque difference it not that great between them but the potenail load on them in a 1/2 ton vs 3/4 ton is different. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com >> There was a reason why DC didn't offer a 5 speed with the 360, such as the >> NV3500 just can't deal with the torque. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it not that great between them but the potenail load on them in a 1/2 > ton vs 3/4 ton is different. New Venture rated the NV3500 at 300 ft/lbs The 360 (at least in '99) produced 335 ft/lbs peak torque. Thats 11% more torque than the trans was spec'd to take. Myself, if I do a 360 swap at this point, I'd seriously consider keeping my 318 heads/intake/exhaust in an attempt to conserve fuel. It'd likely help the cruise torque, but it would take away a little peak output... Wonder if the computer would notice? :) I'm starting to suspect something is going bad on that 318 anyways... Oil is going dark a little quick... I'm suspecting rings - could be a head gasket too. Hmm. Who knows. I do have to do something about its fuel consumption though, its down in the 5-8 mpg range again... at $3/gal that sh.ts expensive. Maybe I should just sell it and buy a trailer to put behind my Santa Fe.. Hmm. I'm not sure I'd get enough money to buy a decent trailer and hitch... JS > Myself, if I do a 360 swap at this point, I'd seriously consider keeping > my 318 heads/intake/exhaust in an attempt to conserve fuel. It'd likely > help the cruise torque, but it would take away a little peak output... > Wonder if the computer would notice? :) JS, The 5.2l heads, intake and exhaust manifolds are the same as the 5.9l. The 5.9l will run with your original pcm altho the timing curves are a little different. You may not pass emissions if you have it in your area. Check out hughsengines.com if you want to play with the 5.9 before you make the switch. I've used their cams several times over the years and have always been happy with the results. What I picked out as what I thought I needed and then they told me what I really needed and they were right every time. Denny |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.