I agree. These engines are probably never going to be valuable as
collectors' items. There is another way one can think of the term
"classic": design. They should retain a great deal of utility and value
as rock-solid, well-built power plants. A reliable engine such as the LA
series doesn't stick around relatively unchanged, and in huge production
numbers, for decades without a large dose of solid engineering behind
its design. I take great comfort in knowing that the Magnum 318 in my
'94 Dak shares that lineage.
With that in mind, how about the 727 (and its progeny) or the 833 as an
example of classic design?
Tim
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net [mailto:owner-dakota-
>truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of david.clement@verizon.net
>Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 4:50 PM
>To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
>Subject: Re: DML: 5.2L (magnum) a classic?
>
>
>Never heard of any engine being refered to as a "classic" and the
magnum
>series
>of engines were made by the millions so it's not going to be valuable
like
>say
>a 426 Street Hemi where total production was only a few thousand. And
even
>the
>street hemi value has dropped dramatically since MP released crate
motors,
>short blocks and blocks. The engine now only has any real value to some
one
>doing a restoration where the original engine is gone but wants the
next
>best
>thing a proper date code engine.
>
>Also, car/truck engines in general are not collectable items like say
old
>steam
>engines are. I would venture to say that a magnum engine in 30 years
will
>have
>the same value as the 30 year old LA 318 I have out behind the garage
which
>I
>can't give away.
>
>I can't imagine how the production date in it self would make an engine
>more
>desirable other than it being used to restore a vehicle of like
vintage.
>Like
>Jon mentioned the desirability of an engine is normally tied to design
>changes
>that occured during the production life that would make it a better
engine.
>
>Dave Clement
>99 SLT+ CC 4x4
>
>
>
>In article <di1bi0$3pe$1@bent.twistedbits.net>, jon@dakota-truck.net
>writes:
>>
>>
>> Dan Kramarsky <dkramarsky68@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> : Point 1: If the production years for the Magnum 318 are now over,
>and
>they were only
>> : made from 1992 to 1999, then wouldn't THAT make them a potential
>classic
>in a few
>> : decades? I mean most likely DC will never make Magnum 318's
>anymore.
>It will be the
>> : 4.7L taking its place. Correct?
>>
>>
>> Technically, DC is still building them, but as 360 crate motors -
>> but yeah, you're right, they aren't building them in a production
>> sense (that I know of - who knows what they might be doing in other
>> countries).
>>
>>
>> : Point 2: Would having a motor from the first year of it's
>production be
>any more or
>> : less a potential classic in a few decades than the rest of the
motors
>produced? For
>> : example, is having a first year production LA 273 engine (1964),
any
>more a
>classic than
>> : an LA 273 from any other year of it's production life?
>>
>>
>> I think there is more to it than just the age; for example as far
>> as the big block motors go, the desireable years are in the 1968-1971
>> range or so, because that is when they were making the most power,
they
>> often used forged components instead of cast, etc. I don't know if
that
>> answers your question at all, just figured I'd throw it out there.
:-)
>> I guess what I am trying to say is that having the first model year
of
>> a particular engine is certainly an interesting statistic, but there
>might
>> be other factors which would make a later year more desireable. (For
>example,
>> for the few years that the Buick Grand National was around, the motor
>> seemed to change from year to year, increasing in power each time.
The
>> last model year of that particular car (somewhere around 86 or 87 I
>think?)
>> had the most powerful engine, so that is probably the most desireable
>car.
>>
>> Bringing it back to the Dakota realm, an '87 Dak is interesting
from
>the
>> "first model year" standpoint, but many folks would likely rather
have
>> a '92 or '93 since that was the best year for power. (Or they might
>> prefer an R/T.)
>>
>> Ok, I guess I've rambled enough for now! :-) You can all
>> slap yourselves out of the stupor that reading my message just
>> caused and move on to the next post. ;-)
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Jon-
>>
>> .-- Jon Steiger --- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com --.
>> | '70 Barracuda, '90 Dakota Convertible, '92 Ram 4x4, '96 Dakota |
>> | '96 Intruder, '96 Kolb FireFly, '99 Cherokee, '01 Ram 3500 |
>> `----------------------------------- http://www.jonsteiger.com --'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 01 2005 - 09:50:03 EST