Why not just put the 340 in there and blow away all of the 360's? (We all
know that the 340 was a HOT motor...even without the 6-Pack.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet4.buffnet.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet4.buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Ed Estoppey
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 10:29 AM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: Re: Re: 318 - 360 engine difference
the hell with this!!!! im gonna get a 340, cut 2 cyls off (patch it up with
some
duct tape and bubble yum) and have me some real mean V6.. he he.he
Ed
Bob Tom wrote:
> At 05:58 PM 8/17/99 EDT, you wrote:
> >You've just given me an idea for another great mod, any idea how much for
> >the short block ? Thanks, Ted O.
>
> >In a message dated 8/17/99 8:51:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> >gary.shook@wcom.com writes:
> >> so if you're trying to upgrade a 5.2 to a 5.9, really all you need is
> >> a short block, and move your heads, intake & TB over from the 5.2..
>
> In mopar mags, short block Magnum 5.9L assemblies are advertised for about
> $1300 U.S. ... I assume that this means all the internals are included.
>
> If you bought one of these assemblies ($1300) and move the existing top
end
> parts from your Magnum 5.2L (no cost), what would the end result be?
Larry
> Shepherd who writes the Factory Connection column in Mopar Muscle says
that
> there's only a 15-20hp improvement from a 5.2 to a 5.9, and that most of
> this gain is due to a better exhaust system on 5.9. You would have the
> increased torque which comes from the longer stroke in the 5.9 block
though.
> I would also guess that, in order to bring the improvement out, you'd also
> have to use the 5.9 PCM. At best, for the cost of the 5.9L block,
computer
> and exhaust system, you'd equal the power output of the 5.9.
>
> On the other hand, if you added the Magnum R/T package (cam, hi-po
computer,
> valve springs, retainers, headers, cat-back, dropin K&N) to your existing
> 5.2L ($1300-$1500), you would end up with 275-285 hp at the crank, 25-35hp
> more than the stock 5.9 and about 370ft lb of torque at the crank, about
> 30-40 more than the stock 5.9.
>
> Just another possible option to consider although with a SC you'd have to
> pass on the hi-po computer (retard timing rather than advance timing).
>
> Bob
> Burlington, Ontario
>
> '97 CC Sport, 5.2L, 3.55, auto., 4x2, flame red
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:15:52 EDT