Your power house only puts out 245hp/335lb vs230/300 which with add ons I match that and more. The trans has a taller first gear in 44re. The info I found is for 235/75/15 not 31/10.50/15. With options I can tow the same as the 360. From what I have heard I don't think I want that big of a trailer if I can't get it to stop. Have friends sell theirs because the Durango had issues stopping their boat going to the river.

 

Well I've never had an issue stopping heavy loads, like 8000lbs with factory brakes and no trailer brakes. Now the taller first gear is worse for acceleration and towing than a shorter. Now I have put many 5.2's to shame, even in dakota's. Now we can argue all day but the fact is that if we wanted to talk bolt on's the 360 has the biggest gains. The power is at the peak, the 360 puts down your peak power over about 2000rpms. I will give you this, the 360 has got to be one of the worst de-tuned engines of the 90's but it doesn't take much to get 400+lbs of torque. I guess we should have hydra wade in and settle this since he seems to have torn into these engines before..............

Funny part is this argument over the 5.2l is irrelevant because they person that started this thread is leaning towards one to new to have it.

 

First off your incorrect in many areas so let me clear up the confusion:

1. A 5.9L only came in 2 versions in the 1st Generation Durango.
1. The regular and and most R/T models.
2. In early 2000 a few 5.9L were made that required 91+ octane because of a special tuning, however the engine is still built internally the same.

Engines

• 1998–2003 — 5.9 L (360 cu in) Magnum V8, 245 hp (183 kW) & 330 lb·ft (449 N·m) of torque
• Early 2000— 5.9 L (360 cu in) Special Tuned Magnum V8, 250 hp (190 kW) & 345 lb·ft (469 N·m) of torque (R/T Model Only)
• 1998–2000 — 5.2 L (318 cu in) Magnum V8, 230 hp (170 kW) & 300 lb-ft (410 N-M) of torque
• 2000–2003 — 4.7 L (287 cu in) PowerTech V8, 235 hp (175 kW) & 295 ft·lbf (400 N·m) of torque
• 1999 — 3.9 L (238 cu in) Magnum V6, 175 hp (130 kW) & 225 lb·ft (305 N·m) of torque

2. You cannot make more out of less. Sure you can add a few bolt on's and get into the same range, however you are going to have a hard time matching the 5.9L unless you do some real serious builds, but if your going to do that then your better off stroking the motor and installing the larger head therefore turning it into a 5.9L. Besides, the 5.9L easily converts into a 408 stroker which would blow the doors off the 5.2L or 5.9L. What I'm getting at here is ya you can mod anything, but you only have what you have.

3. You can easily change out the gearing in the trans of the 46RE, or simply just re-gear the entire thing. Thing is you still only have 1st and 2nd gearing that are taller, but that's it. So if you could boast the same torque as a stocker with actual modifications you could pull ahead, however your trans would run hotter and you would loose power. But then again do the same mod's to the 5.9L and you would still walk away from the 5.2L, so that point is again void.

42-44RE TRANSMISSION GEAR RATIOS

² 1st 2.74:1
² 2nd 1.54:1
² 3rd 1.00:1
² 4th 0.69:1
² Rev. 2.21

46RE TRANSMISSION GEAR RATIOS

² 2.45:1 (first gear)
² 1.45:1 (second gear)
² 1.00:1 (third gear)
² 0.69:1 (forth gear)
² 2.21 (reverse)

4. By having 235's you should have the 3.55 ratio for best power/fuel. However if you have the 31's you should have the 3.92's again for power/fuel. If you do the math on the conversion you will see my overall point as per the rpm's of the motor.

5. With what options? The fact of the matter is the trans won't hold up like the 46RE because the internal clutches (ect) are smaller, hints the smaller trans. Not to mention you don't boast the same numbers as the 5.9L. Again your point is void.

6. You cannot tow as much with a 5.2L as you can with a 5.9L period. Whoever told you that is full of crap!

This is what I could find on the 5.2L, however it is in your owners manual in case I am incorrect.
5.2L (f) 4300
5.2L (g) 5600

Yours is a 1998, and in 1998 they only produced the Durango in 4X4, so with that said there are the numbers.

Yea I think the brakes could have been better built.....LOL

 

Thanks hydra for the clarification.
Been lookin' at summit and they have good slotted rotors and ceramic pads for cheap. I think I've put a lot of wear on my brakes pulling over this last year and its about time to change em'.

 

was that only for the 5.9 or was it for the 5.2 also. I have 3.55 gears and 235s right now (my dad ordered 235s instead of the 31s last time for some reason), but I checked the build sheet and even though it was specked with 31s from the factory it still came with 3.55 gears. WTF?

 

3.9L came in 3.92 only from my understanding, but every other motors came in both 3.55 and 3.92 depending on the build, as well as Chrysler Corporate 8.25 and Chrysler Corporate 9.25 in both LSD and Open gearing. The Chrysler Corporate 8.25 with LSD is very rare, but the Chrysler Corporate 9.25 LSD is easy to find.


Anyway, the dealers could change the builds around simply by replacing the tires and flashing the ABS CAB. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3! The only thing was a tow package, but they wouldn't have messed around with that or gearing.

 

I checked my build sheet and I have the 9.25 rear end. I know that the speedo and everything was recalibrated for the 235 tires. I think those were put on because they were narrower and bit better in the snow now that I think about it. Oh, and I don't have LSD

 

Ya know the right tire will do good just as good in snow as its narrower counter parts. I love my 31x10.50s

 

yeah, but I wasn't the one writing the check so I didn't have much room to compain. That and I think my father might have been a little jealous that my durango had bigger tires than his silverado

 

Well my dad picked out tires (they were 31 to keep it factory) and said I could pay the difference if I wanted something else. So I did to get the duratracs, I thought it was nice he offered to pay at all since he helps with gas and completely pays the insurance.