On 11/28/2009 07:00 AM, Brian wrote:
>
> You are talking about the Banks Sidewinder Dakota, and they didn't have to
> move the firewall three inches back, they did that for better weight
> distribution, since it's purpose was high performance racing applications.
> I've seen a couple other 5.9L Cummins transplanted into GenIII Daks without
> having to move the firewall. Just like I've seen the Viper V-10
> transplanted into Daks without any major structural changes.
>
>
That's what I get for quoting a magazine article from years ago. ;)
>> The GC 3.0 I have no idea on... any of the listed choices is going to be
>> a wiring nightmare, though.
>>
>
> No more of a wiring nightmare than transplanting any other motor into a Dak
> that it wasn't designed for. You'll have to use custom gauges and what ever
> computer controller works with your set up. There are enough people who
> have done diesel swaps into other vehicles he can get an idea of what will
> work and what won't.
>
Dropping a 360 into a 318 equipped Dakota, or even a 3.9L V6 one, is
much easier than any of the oil burner options, but of course are not
what a person is trying to accomplish with a diesel swap. I don't
understand the desire myself, as diesel is almost always more expensive
than even premium gas is in my area, sometimes by a large margin,
offsetting any fuel economy gains you might achieve. I'm sure other
areas are different, though. A friend who lived in Chicago told me that
if you saw gas for $3.00 a gallon in town, you could drive 15 miles into
the surrounding countryside and have it be $2.50. He attributed it to
the difference in political party majority, but I don't know if that's
true or not. ;)
Dropping a Cummins from a Ram into a Dakota isn't going to make the
chassis able to handle any more weight in the bed, or tow more either.
So I'm curious, what's the reason, just more raw torque kicking you in
the back? Long term reliability? Off road torque? Or just the
"coolness" factor?
I'm assuming that you'd have to change the rear end as well. If you
wanted 4x4 capability I doubt the little 7.25" in the front of the
1st/2nd gen Dakota or even the ones from the later gens will handle the
torque. I'd think it'd fire the internals of an 8.25" rear end out the
back like shrapnel into the Honda behind you at the first stoplight you
stomped on the thottle at. Not that this is a nessesarily bad thing.
j/k. ;) So I'd assume you'd have to do a swap of the engine, tranny and
rear end if you didn't want to break driveline components. For a 4x4
you'd have to put in the transfercase and a solid axle swap up front,
then all the wiring to make it work.
Probably could do some really cool 4x4 burnouts though...
MattB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 18:23:04 EST