Hey Ray
Are you going to do a engine swap on your Dak?
Are you in the midst of your 360 build up? Send us some info on what's going on with your build. Also send pics too if you can
Sent on the go from my Peek.
www.getpeek.com
-------------------------------------
DML Digest<owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net> wrote:
DML Digest Saturday, February 27 2010 Volume 05 : Number 3991
The subjects discussed in this digest are:
==========
Re: DML: A518vsA618
DML: Oil Pans Dak vs Ram
DML: Re: Oil Pans Dak vs Ram
DML: RE: Oil Pans Dak vs Ram
Re: DML: Re: Oil Pans Dak vs Ram
RE: DML: Re: Oil Pans Dak vs Ram
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:20:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Kramarsky <dkramarsky68@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: DML: A518vsA618
Thanks Azie
It was only just a few years ago that I too didn't know much about the Chrysler transmissions that are in the Dakota trucks. It was through people like Ray Block and others on this list that I learned plenty.
more details: the A518 is very similar to the 727. Chrysler added an over-drive unit to the 727 ( which makes the tranny a bit longer ) and called it the A518.
Dan K.
Vehicle 1: 1992 Dodge Dakota Club Cab LE Color: Two-tone silver Engine: 5.2L EFI Mods: Home-brew CAI, March pullies, K&N Filters, Relocated IAT, DynoMax Turbo Exhaust and Hi-Flow Cat. Race weight: 3700 lbs.
Photo: http://static.flickr.com/42/84856795_c18903d10f.jpg
Vehicle 2: 1993 Ford Crown Victoria LX Color: White Engine: 4.6L EFI Mods: none yet.
Photo: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2726734706_3f511ec702.jpg
- --- On Thu, 2/25/10, DML Digest <owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net> wrote:
> From: DML Digest <owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net>
> Subject: DML Digest V5 #3990
> To: dakota-truck-digest@twistedbits.net
> Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 9:00 PM
>
> DML Digest Friday,
> February 26 2010
> Volume 05 : Number 3990
>
>
>
> The subjects discussed in this digest are:
> ==========
> DML: A518vsA618
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:42:21 -0600
> From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11@mchsi.com>
> Subject: DML: A518vsA618
>
> Dan K. writes:: >> A618 came out in
> '96. It was briefly
> called the 47RH. But in '96 the designations went
> from
> A518/A618 to 46RH/RE and the 47RH/RE
>
> biggest difference: it has an all steel 5-pinion
> overdrive carrier unit.
>
> article on history:
> https://home.comcast.net/~ehostler/A518/Part_2.pdf
> <<
>
>
> Thanks Dan.. I book marked the article for future
> reference..
> Nice looking Dak you got there..
>
> "Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism,
>
> WAR has Never Solved Anything."
>
> Azie
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of DML Digest V5 #3990
> **************************
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:13:47 -0600
From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11@mchsi.com>
Subject: DML: Oil Pans Dak vs Ram
Ray B. writes:: >>Regarding your 5.9 install...
Oil pan from a 5.9 Ram Van is a perfect fit in the Dak....as is a pan from a
'98-newer 5.9 Dak. (actually same part #) <<
Well I watched the yard pull the 5.9 from a '95 Cab/chassis
Ram 3500 & I bought my '95 Dakota new & they are not the
same.. Won't fit. Perhaps the Van is different.. The 5.2 pan
worked OK. Just ticked me off that I didn't pay closer attention
to the difference and had to lift the engine back out and
change the pan..I think the Ram3500 pan will hold a couple
more quarts of oil than the 5.2 Dak will.
>> Where did you find info that '96 5.9 was internally balanced?
Never heard of such a thing before! <<
Al's Transmission shop in Athens, Al. Been buying torque
converters from them for 40+ years.. His book has a special
notation on the '96 being the 1st year of internal balance for
the 5.9.. List the same P/N for the 5.2 & 5.9 in '96 & that is
the same P/N as for all Magnum 5.2's according to Al.
I've used the weight kit to weld to the TC on a few occasions,
but I didn't want to chance it on my truck that I depend on
for all my daily transportation. The ones I used it on were
for folks or car lots that had no intention of keeping the vihicle
for any length of time. Balance is something I'm kinda
paranoid about.
"Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism,
WAR has Never Solved Anything."
Azie
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:22:49 -0500
From: "Mike Sykes" <mikesykes@cox.net>
Subject: DML: Re: Oil Pans Dak vs Ram
>>Al's Transmission shop in Athens, Al. Been buying torque
converters from them for 40+ years.. His book has a special
notation on the '96 being the 1st year of internal balance for
the 5.9.. List the same P/N for the 5.2 & 5.9 in '96 & that is
the same P/N as for all Magnum 5.2's according to Al.<<
This information isn't accurate. The 5.9 was still externally balanced in 96
all the way up until it's demise. I wouldn't count on a parts book for
information that could end up leading to a very expensive mistake. =/
- - miggity
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:31:45 -0500
From: "Ray Block" <BPracing@wowway.com>
Subject: DML: RE: Oil Pans Dak vs Ram
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Azie L. Magnusson
>
> Ray B. writes:: >>Regarding your 5.9 install...
> Oil pan from a 5.9 Ram Van is a perfect fit in the Dak....as is a pan from
> a
> '98-newer 5.9 Dak. (actually same part #) <<
>
> Well I watched the yard pull the 5.9 from a '95 Cab/chassis
> Ram 3500 & I bought my '95 Dakota new & they are not the
> same.. Won't fit. Perhaps the Van is different..
Azie, I understand by now this may be of no interest to you but it may be to
other DML readers.
I agree with you that the 5.9 Ram pan will not fit a Dakota because I have a
5.9 engine (in my garage) from a '95 Ram 1500 and it's rather obvious the
pan will not fit my Dak.
However, I was not "guessing" about the 5.9 VAN pan fitting the Dakota
chassis. I was first told by someone who actually took a 5.9 from a Van and
put it in his Dak that it dropped right in.
Being the skeptic that I am, I did my own research through my friend, the
parts manager, at my local Dodge dealer. The 5.9 Van pans and the '98 up
5.9 Daks use the same pan. They are the same part number but different than
the Ram pans. So, I bought one. Held it up beside my 5.2 pan and it will
definitely fit. Until I get around to changing engines I won't be able to
tell you the exact difference but the Van's 5.2 and 5.9 pans have different
part numbers.
Hope this helps someone. lol
Ray
FWIW, I bought my '92 new (special ordered, even) :)
Photos & specs: http://www.dragtruk.com/ENTRIES/20KM1FD2KWBP.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:36:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: jon@dakota-truck.net
Subject: Re: DML: Re: Oil Pans Dak vs Ram
"Mike Sykes" <mikesykes@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Al's Transmission shop in Athens, Al. Been buying torque
> converters from them for 40+ years.. His book has a special
> notation on the '96 being the 1st year of internal balance for
> the 5.9.. List the same P/N for the 5.2 & 5.9 in '96 & that is
> the same P/N as for all Magnum 5.2's according to Al.<<
> This information isn't accurate. The 5.9 was still externally balanced in 96
> all the way up until it's demise. I wouldn't count on a parts book for
> information that could end up leading to a very expensive mistake. =/
Yep, wasn't the 360 always externally balanced? (Even in the
premag and LA engine days?) I could be wrong, but I thought the
general rule of thumb was 318 is internally balanced and the 360 is
external, throughout the entire run of 40+ years?
- --
-Jon-
.- Jon Steiger -- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com -.
| '96 Kolb Firefly, '96 Suzuki Intruder, Miscellaneous Mopars |
`-------------------------------- http://www.jonsteiger.com --'
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:50:38 -0500
From: "Ray Block" <BPracing@wowway.com>
Subject: RE: DML: Re: Oil Pans Dak vs Ram
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jon@dakota-truck.net
>
> "Mike Sykes" <mikesykes@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>Al's Transmission shop in Athens, Al. Been buying torque
> > converters from them for 40+ years.. His book has a special
> > notation on the '96 being the 1st year of internal balance for
> > the 5.9.. List the same P/N for the 5.2 & 5.9 in '96 & that is
> > the same P/N as for all Magnum 5.2's according to Al.<<
>
> > This information isn't accurate. The 5.9 was still externally balanced
> in 96
> > all the way up until it's demise. I wouldn't count on a parts book for
> > information that could end up leading to a very expensive mistake. =/
>
>
> Yep, wasn't the 360 always externally balanced? (Even in the
> premag and LA engine days?) I could be wrong, but I thought the
> general rule of thumb was 318 is internally balanced and the 360 is
> external, throughout the entire run of 40+ years?
>
>
> ---Jon-
You are correct Jon. The 360 came out in 1971 and has been the only small
block Mopar to be externally balanced. It has always had a cast crank but
the 318's and 340's used forged or cast depending upon year and application.
The 273/318/340 engines have the same stroke. The 360 has a longer stroke
and larger main bearings. The 360's still make great race engines as a
friend of mine has a stock stroke, .030 over, 360 in an Avenger that runs
10.teens in the quarter at 132 mph. Somehow he still wings that cast crank
monster past 7000 rpm! No, it is nowhere near stock....but it has proven
dependable! lol
Ray
Photos & specs: http://www.dragtruk.com/ENTRIES/20KM1FD2KWBP.html
------------------------------
End of DML Digest V5 #3991
**************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 01 2010 - 00:25:27 EST
