When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
by 2000 they weighted the flexplate instead of the torque converter. 46 RE used same torque converter with both engines. older ones (pre 96 I think was the change) they both used the same flexplate and different converters between those engines.
OK... So both the points you just made are consistent with comments made when I asked the same question on the ram forum, which is good. Do you have any ideas? Do you think the weighted flex plate might be the problem?
It is present, but less severe while stopped. The guys on the ram boards have helped me determine that I have a weighted flex plate that the 5.2 should not have.
Well what did the 5.2l come out of? If it was from a ram then it was in front of a 46re already. If it was from a dak/durango it was in front of a 44re. Its sounds like a balancing issue. The flex plate should not have been changed out, the 46re should have bolted up with out an issue.
Don't know what the motor came out of. They could have reused the original flex plate, which is what I think happened. They don't know they switched from a 360 to a 318, I have come to the conclusion that they put a 318 in thinking that was the original motor size. I found the weight in question, I pulled the inspection cover off and I took pictures of it. They are all on the thread I made in the 2nd Gen ram forums, I don't know how to link to it on my phone.