...and that is not an even comparison....the slow tbi 5.7 in my old vette would smoke my 5.9 dodge anyday....there,s a huge weight and arodynamic difference....I know my dads 5.4 in his 05 f150 is way more responsive than my 5.9 too....these trucks are all so old now most are beat or suffering in one way or another....

 

the motor 5.9 is very powerful!!! its stupid dodge that hooks the motor up to a bad tranny and crappy gears , now if they were smart and gave it a decent transmission and 4.10 instaed of 3.55 dodge trucks would have suck a better rep

 

and get 8 mpg? The real issue is they suck gas more than thier bigger counterparts....and the hp rating is pretty low for someing this big in the mid 90's....I gotta say though my motor has 140k and runs like a top...doesnt even really burn any oil....in fact its about the only thing on the truck that hasnt needed attention since I bought it....until I noticed the softplug leak today....(found where my slow leak was)

 

Gas mileage loss with gears...I disagree...if you are running larger than stock tires. My 97could get 16 mpg but it had 265 tires on it and no death flash. It would smoke my current truck.
These trucks are hobbled by gearing and deathflash/plenum issues. Sorry, but it bears repeating.
Most bolt ons don't help until these issues are resolved.

Also the 360 is an "oversquare" (bore/ stroke ratio) motor. It has never been efficient since its inception in 1972, when it brought out to replace the big block and later the 340. For some reason Ma Mopar kept it around. I assume that based on the 80s/90s economy, it made sense. Again, the motor has never been more than "average". Perhaps the only difference among the faithful is that back in the day, a carbureted 360 would respond to a few bolt ons better. In a Duster or Cuda ( or later Aspen/Volare chassis) it would hold its own against its competitors of that time. But it needed too much internal work to be a race engine, and Mopar, under Iacocca, was banking on FWD econo rides. Come to think of it, the 360s I owned back then weren't mileage champs either.

Ironic...the 5.3 chivy used to be called a 327. It was a screamer due to its bore/stroke ratio and still is. Sonething else you should know, the average chivy truck is several hundred lbs lighter than the same size ram.

 

I usually don't reply to topics like this but I thought I'd add my own experience.

A good friend of mine has a '98 chevy z71 1/2ton extended cab 4x4 with the 5.7 and 220,000 miles. It has a the factory plow, towing, and off road packages, and an auto tranny. He has added a 3" body lift, 35" tires, K&N CIA, Flowmaster muffler. (I don't know what gearing he has, but I'm assuming it's pretty low because of the towing and off-road packages)

I have pretty much the dodge equivalent of the same truck, a '99 1/2 quad cab 4x4 with the 5.9l mag with 127,000 miles. My truck came with the stock towing package (not that it really matters, all I got out of it was a wimpy tranny cooler), and 3.55 gears. I have 265 tires and a 2" suspension lift. I have added a mopar open element air filter, flowmaster muffler, superchips 3815 tuner, 180* tstat, and 3923 plugs. My plenum is not blown, and I don't have the death flash.

I've raced my truck against his many times, and EVERY time I have been slaughtered. It doesn't matter if it's a stationary start, a 30mph rolling start, or a 70mph rolling start, he always walks away from me. I usually lose by about 3-4 car lengths. The only time I've beaten him was when his speed limiter kicked in at 98mph and my limiter didn't kick in until 120mph.

I know this has a lot to do with the different gear ratios in our trucks, but my truck is a slug compared to his chevy. I'm just sayin...

 

i usually smoke the 5.7 and 5.4 off the line i beat 5.4 totally but the 5.7 usually catches me and passes me around 65 or 70...

 

Yeah, all Tundras and Tacomas are made in the U.S. Tundras in Texas and Tacomas in Indiana. It really pisses me off when somebody says that they are "un-american" when they are built here.
I will say this, though. My mom's Japan-built 07 4Runner is of amazing quality.

Back on topic....
I'd think a 360 Ram vs. 350 Silverado would be a pretty fare match. They are mid 90s truck designs with a motor that is about 30 years old just with FI and other stuff (Although the Magnums are nothing like the old LAs).

 

My truck 1996 1500 5.9 ext with exhaust and CAI vs a stock 04 ford 1500 5.4 4-door, I win on a 1/8 mile track by a cab and im pulling, if im at the track and there is a 5.7 vortec I will make sure I get a pass against him, but after I lower my airpressure

 

Just for discussion, in what ways are they different? Different as in worse, better..?


Depending on whos specs you read, horespower and torque are the same. Bore and stroke, physical demensions, all similar.

CXS fan, don't despair. I did some comparisons agaisnt each truck, and I know why you are getting hammered. I'm kinda suprised some of the rest of you aren't, (and pardon my skeptisim) or perhaps your mods are helping you.

I actually went into the enemy's camp (shudder) and went over specs as far as hp, torque, gear ratios, etc. Then I compared them to a similar sized Ram.
Everything was VERY close...but one glaring difference stood out. For my truck, its a biggie.
The Ram quad cab 4x4 weighs 667 lbs MORE than the same chivy...:P

In racing, thats HUGE...in fuel mileage...thats a LOT. Handicap it further with a deathflash, heavy oversized tires, and any other faults, and you're in trouuble. Thats about 6/10 a second quicker, or 4-5 truck lengths.

 

No, not an even comparison, because hers weighs 800 pounds more, (altho on a 0-50 run I still beat her with 800 pounds of block and salt in the back) but mine is geared considerably taller, I doubt there is any significant aerodynamic difference. And theres the fact that she has another half a liter of displacement. Im not trying to start an arguement, Im just stating what I know from MY experience.
And not a 350, but my 5.2 also outran an '84 Firebird SC with a 305 and a 4 speed, by at least a car length.