Repair-It

I honestly don't think it will be more reliable than the Ranger. Probably less. But it will be a hell of a lot better to drive. Which makes it a better backup vehicle.

kevm14 wrote:Maybe the answer is get the truck which is a better backup vehicle than the Ranger and then pursue a B-body?

That's a pretty good answer.

Research says it has a Chrysler 9.25" rear. That's something.

Can't beat free. If it works out you can use it. If it doesn't you can sell it. I got a kick out of the just rebuilt the transmission 4 years ago so its like new. 1. Sucks that it needed a trans rebuild. 2. The rebuild may be at the end of its service life .

I also love that the 1999 dodge has the 1965 vintage pushrod 318 with almost no updates. GM was into the 5.3L in half tons by then. Is it injected or carbureted?

kevm14 wrote:4,658 lbs. In extended cab long bed form. So it won't be fast but will be able to get out of its own way. Actually it should drive a lot like my Caprice, which would be a huge upgrade from the Ranger. Both in the 20 lbs/hp area.

With the regular bed (I assume 6.5') and extended cab that weight drops to 4,470 lbs, which is similar to a Fleetwood or Roadmaster wagon.

rpaoness wrote:Can't beat free. If it works out you can use it. If it doesn't you can sell it.

That is true. Though I think I would still do a thorough enough drive and inspection of it to determine if this is something I'd be immediately trying to get rid of. Just not interested in taking the time and hassle to do that.

I got a kick out of the just rebuilt the transmission 4 years ago so its like new. 1. Sucks that it needed a trans rebuild. 2. The rebuild may be at the end of its service life .

I think the idea was it didn't get a ton of extra miles after the rebuild so it should be good for a while given that I don't put many miles on the Ranger. Though I'd probably accumulate more with this truck if it is a good backup vehicle and I end up needing one frequently or for a long period.

I also love that the 1999 dodge has the 1965 vintage pushrod 318 with almost no updates. GM was into the 5.3L in half tons by then. Is it injected or carbureted?

I don't really know anything about the 318. I do know it is an old design. I also know none of the Chrysler V8s were ever known for good fuel economy. I thought the 318 was considered a durable engine but I think they are susceptible to all kinds of problems that GM basically licked by the 90s or even late 80s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_ ... um_engines

The Magnum engine is a direct descendent of the Chrysler LA engine, which began with the 273ci V8 in 1964.[1] While the Magnum 3.9, Magnum 5.2, and Magnum 5.9 (1993-up) engines were significantly based on the 239, the 318, and the 360 — respectively — many of the parts will not directly interchange and the Magnums are not technically LA engines; the only major parts that are actually unchanged are the connecting rods.

It sounds like the Magnum is similar in spirit to the Vortec L30 and L31 in 1996. Basically an updated small block. The Magnum 5.2 has basically an identical power and torque footprint as the Vortec L30 (305).

So many oil sealing improvements.

Chrysler's engineers also redesigned the oil seals on the crankshaft to improve anti-leak seal performance.[5][7] The oil pan was also made from thicker steel, and was installed with a more leak-resistant silicone-rubber gasket.

The valve covers on the Magnum have 10 bolts rather than the previous 5, for improved oil sealing.[9] In addition, the valve covers were made of thicker steel than earlier parts, and were installed with a silicone gasket.[6]

Roller cam. How modern. 1.6 rockers! For performance.

50mm throttle bodies. I think the LT1 used 48mm.

Also I think the ECM is speed density. No MAF.

Hey at least this isn't that 4.7L. That thing sure was junk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TorqueFli ... .2F44RE.29

I don't know why they put this in any V8 Ram...