2nd Gen Ram Tech 1994-2001 Rams: This section is for TECHNICAL discussions only, that involve the 1994 through 2001 Rams. For any non-tech discussions, please direct your attention to the "General discussion/NON-tech" sub sections.

Hughes Power Package

Old Apr 25, 2011 | 12:49 PM
  #1  
Hessian01's Avatar
Hessian01
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Default Hughes Power Package

Hey guys,

I've been looking at the top end power package from Hughes engines, and was curious if any of you have installed it. I have a '96 5.2 Ram, and I'm wondering what kind of numbers I could expect after.

Here is a link to the aforementioned Top End Power Package: http://www.hughesengines.com/Index/p...=&partid=26112

Thanks!
 
Reply
Old Apr 26, 2011 | 12:17 AM
  #2  
CPTAFW163's Avatar
CPTAFW163
Champion
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2
From: Ft Campbell, KY/TN
Default

probably close to this:
http://www.bionicdodge.com/bionic/in...p?topic=9197.0
 
Reply
Old Apr 26, 2011 | 02:26 AM
  #3  
4085spd's Avatar
4085spd
Banned
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 93
Likes: 1
Default

With a 5.2 you may end up with pv clearance with that cams lift(flat top slugs). You may get away with a thickers head gasket but that kills compression and with aluminum heads you should bump up the ratio as aluminum runs cooler. HP wont see much more then 250 rwhp on a 5.2 they just dont respond to mods like a 5.9. 250rwhp is bolt-on power for a 5.9.... Put that combo on a 5.9 your looking at 300+rwhp. I would swap the eddy heads for the RHS INDY iron heads and with the money saved find a 5.9 short block.
 
Reply
Old Apr 26, 2011 | 07:06 AM
  #4  
Hessian01's Avatar
Hessian01
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Default

Eh, I would but I'm trying to get a nice balance of mpg/hp. If I swap the motor, I might as well throw a 12 valve under the hood. Mpgs have been pretty steady at ~12.5, looking to get around 15-17.
 
Reply
Old Apr 26, 2011 | 07:48 AM
  #5  
97tn4x4's Avatar
97tn4x4
Record Breaker
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 0
From: Memphis, TN
Default

A set of 2.02 iron ram heads would be alot mire cost effective IMO. Then just pick you a decent cam. You'd be surprised at the amount of lift they'll take. There's alot more to consider than the lift. It's very easy to "over cam" a 318.
 
Reply
Old Apr 26, 2011 | 09:05 AM
  #6  
HeyYou's Avatar
HeyYou
Administrator
Veteran: Air Force
Community Favorite
15 Year Member
Community Builder
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 87,395
Likes: 4,213
From: Clayton MI
Default

Putting on go-fast parts is NOT going to increase your fuel economy.......
 
Reply
Old Apr 26, 2011 | 09:12 AM
  #7  
Hessian01's Avatar
Hessian01
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Default

Something like this? http://www.hughesengines.com/Index/p...6&partid=22248

More torque and efficiency is more MPGs if you can keep your foot out of it, no?
 
Reply
Old Apr 26, 2011 | 06:05 PM
  #8  
97tn4x4's Avatar
97tn4x4
Record Breaker
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 0
From: Memphis, TN
Default

Yes but it's a very fine line between enough and too much.
 
Reply
Old Apr 26, 2011 | 06:30 PM
  #9  
crazzywolfie's Avatar
crazzywolfie
Legend
15 Year Member
Liked
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,025
Likes: 72
From: orangeville ontario
Default

Originally Posted by HeyYou
Putting on go-fast parts is NOT going to increase your fuel economy.......
at least that kit would get rid of the plenum gasket problem and would probably increase the fuel economy a tiny bit. i would never drop that type of money on an engine kit. you would probably be better off to get a tuner, cam and repair the plenum. the right cam could help your engine breath better and the rest could stay stock.
 
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:08 AM.