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.

5.9 Fuel Economy Rebuild

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #31  
Old 02-25-2016, 07:42 PM
Adobedude's Avatar
Adobedude
Adobedude is offline
All Star
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Corrales, New Mecico
Posts: 907
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ham Bone
Just put 4.10s in it. Why bothering towing anything without them.
Why?

I knew this would come up...I have 4.10s for my Ram's Dana 60, I bought them before I towed with it because I read the same advice you just handed out...

I'm not going to tow at 65-70 with the OD ON....With the 3.55 gears and OD OFF, I'm around 2500 RPM at 68 mph. Perfect.

That's why.
 
  #32  
Old 02-25-2016, 07:47 PM
Adobedude's Avatar
Adobedude
Adobedude is offline
All Star
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Corrales, New Mecico
Posts: 907
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by dapepper9
I mis-spoke. The spintechs don't come in 1-1/2, instead it's actually only 1-3/4 unless you get the longtube Dakota headers and they'll have clearance issues. Pacesetter is only longtube available in 1-7/8 for the rams.


I have the 2bbl m1, 1.5" JBA shorties, and a 52mm tb and the powerband is strong throughout. Good down low and up high and everywhere in between.
It's the 2bbl M1, but the shorties aren't much better than stock manifolds...It's the Y Pipe that's the killer...Try to snag some LT's and be happier.

FYI...get ready to take it all back to stock if the EPA get's its way this July, vote Republican, I dont care who it is.
 
  #33  
Old 02-26-2016, 10:37 AM
Big Green 360's Avatar
Big Green 360
Big Green 360 is offline
Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Adobedude
It's the 2bbl M1, but the shorties aren't much better than stock manifolds...
Based on what data. . . your gut feelings?? Scroll up to page two and read the link I posted where stock manifolds vs shorties vs longtubes were tested.

Originally Posted by Adobedude
It's the Y Pipe that's the killer...
Afraid not. It's the old can of beads style catalytic converter that's the killer.

Originally Posted by Adobedude
Try to snag some LT's and be happier.
Again, as others have already told you, it depends on your application. I started this thread with the words "fuel economy" in the title. . . that should be your first clue. If I wanted to sacrifice 2-3 mpg just to have an additional 15 horsepower for the 0.05% of the time I have the engine at 3500 rpm, I'd have done a lot of things differently.

This isn't the 1970s where the butt-dyno and Joe-Bob engine builder's secrets to horsepower reign supreme. This is the age of empirical data and scientific testing. Try to catch up.
 
  #34  
Old 02-26-2016, 10:59 AM
Big Green 360's Avatar
Big Green 360
Big Green 360 is offline
Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Here are the pics of my first attempt at porting and polishing.

The finished vs the untouched head:
5.9 Fuel Economy Rebuild-mvzzxgg.jpg


Before:
5.9 Fuel Economy Rebuild-gqdrpbd.jpg

After:
5.9 Fuel Economy Rebuild-hhffbcj.jpg


Before:
5.9 Fuel Economy Rebuild-kbaqsk0.jpg

After:
5.9 Fuel Economy Rebuild-c3pytob.jpg


Before:
5.9 Fuel Economy Rebuild-eek97ay.jpg

After:
5.9 Fuel Economy Rebuild-ytixzxo.jpg



I plan to take the combustion chamber and exhaust port to a mirror level of polish, but this is my progress so far.
 
  #35  
Old 02-26-2016, 11:47 AM
Ham Bone's Avatar
Ham Bone
Ham Bone is offline
Champion
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Posts: 4,072
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Big Green 360
Based on what data. . . your gut feelings?? Scroll up to page two and read the link I posted where stock manifolds vs shorties vs longtubes were tested.


Afraid not. It's the old can of beads style catalytic converter that's the killer.


Again, as others have already told you, it depends on your application. I started this thread with the words "fuel economy" in the title. . . that should be your first clue. If I wanted to sacrifice 2-3 mpg just to have an additional 15 horsepower for the 0.05% of the time I have the engine at 3500 rpm, I'd have done a lot of things differently.

This isn't the 1970s where the butt-dyno and Joe-Bob engine builder's secrets to horsepower reign supreme. This is the age of empirical data and scientific testing. Try to catch up.
The stock y-pipes on these trucks before 2000 are absolutely terrible. There are dyno charts around here somewhere.


A working unclogged cat has very little detriment on anything short of a race engine.
 
  #36  
Old 02-26-2016, 02:33 PM
Big Green 360's Avatar
Big Green 360
Big Green 360 is offline
Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ham Bone
The stock y-pipes on these trucks before 2000 are absolutely terrible. There are dyno charts around here somewhere.
The entire exhaust system on the gen 2 ram is terrible. Manifolds are terrible, Y-pipe is terrible, the catalytic converter is terrible, crush bent tubing is terrible, the gigantic muffler is terrible, location of each of these components to each other is terrible, etc. Each of these acts as a bottleneck to flow, and thus power. I haven't seen the specific dyno charts you mentioned. I'd be interested to see them if you could post a link.


Originally Posted by Ham Bone
A working unclogged cat has very little detriment on anything short of a race engine.
The gen 2 ram has a first generation catalytic converter which is sometimes referred to as a "can of beads" style cat. It is a large flat canister packed full of platinum-coated BBs located on the Y-pipe just after the merge. This generation of catalytic converters are well known to be extremely restrictive to exhaust flow. If you just remove it, you'll only see small gains because all the other stock exhaust components each act as a bottleneck to flow in their own right. There are studies that show that a well designed and properly tuned exhaust system loses quite a lot of power to this style of catalytic converter versus the newer generation honeycomb style cats which are far less restrictive, and that even the newest, best flowing cats significantly rob power compared to no cats. So if you're going to keep all exhaust components stock, then the cat by itself isn't going to make a huge difference. But even a mild exhaust upgrade will start to show that the cat is a real impediment to flow.
 

Last edited by Big Green 360; 02-27-2016 at 11:36 AM.
  #37  
Old 02-26-2016, 02:39 PM
Adobedude's Avatar
Adobedude
Adobedude is offline
All Star
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Corrales, New Mecico
Posts: 907
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Big Green 360
Based on what data. . . your gut feelings?? Scroll up to page two and read the link I posted where stock manifolds vs shorties vs longtubes were tested.


Afraid not. It's the old can of beads style catalytic converter that's the killer.


Again, as others have already told you, it depends on your application. I started this thread with the words "fuel economy" in the title. . . that should be your first clue. If I wanted to sacrifice 2-3 mpg just to have an additional 15 horsepower for the 0.05% of the time I have the engine at 3500 rpm, I'd have done a lot of things differently.

This isn't the 1970s where the butt-dyno and Joe-Bob engine builder's secrets to horsepower reign supreme. This is the age of empirical data and scientific testing. Try to catch up.
Ha Ha...You go on ahead and do it your way. FYI, it's against the law to run without a catalytic converter....Hence IT IS THE Y PIPE. And, unless you can trim your fuel, you're probably running rich without one...Try to catch up.

I'll just race my low 11 second NA Dodge Dakota at 7000' DA, because I don't know what the **** I'm doing.
 
  #38  
Old 02-26-2016, 02:45 PM
Adobedude's Avatar
Adobedude
Adobedude is offline
All Star
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Corrales, New Mecico
Posts: 907
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Big Green 360
The entire exhaust system on the gen 2 ram is terrible. Manifolds are terrible, Y-pipe is terrible, the catalytic converter is terrible, crush bent tubing is terrible, the gigantic muffler is terrible, location of each of these components to each other is terrible, etc. Each of these acts as a bottleneck to flow, and thus power. I haven't seen the specific dyno charts you mentioned. I'd be interested to see them if you could post a link.



This just isn't accurate. The gen 2 ram has a first generation catalytic converter which is sometimes referred to as a "can of beads" style cat. It is a large flat canister packed full of platinum-coated BBs located on the Y-pipe just after the merge. This generation of catalytic converters are well known to be extremely restrictive to exhaust flow. If you just remove it, you'll only see small gains because all the other stock exhaust components each act as a bottleneck to flow in their own right. There are studies that show that a well designed and properly tuned exhaust system loses quite a lot of power to this style of catalytic converter versus the newer generation honeycomb style cats which are far less restrictive, and that even the newest, best flowing cats significantly rob power compared to no cats. So if you're going to keep all exhaust components stock, then the cat by itself isn't going to make a huge difference. But even a mild exhaust upgrade will start to show that the cat is a real impediment to flow.
Cats kill any motor, but you might want to have one handy after July 1st, that and all your stock motor parts.
 
  #39  
Old 02-26-2016, 03:55 PM
dbbd1's Avatar
dbbd1
dbbd1 is offline
Record Breaker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,552
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Big Green 360
The entire the gigantic muffler is terrible

.

Sorry to interrupt the "discussion" but why is that huge 55gal drum of a muffler bad? To me, it looks like there should be little restriction in that thing. And, would a thrush hush power do much for my stock system then?
 
  #40  
Old 02-26-2016, 06:47 PM
HeyYou's Avatar
HeyYou
HeyYou is offline
Administrator
Dodge Forum Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Clayton MI
Posts: 82,555
Likes: 0
Received 3,396 Likes on 3,136 Posts
Default

Muffler has little to no effect on power. That HAS been demonstrated with Dyno charts. Unless your muffler is crushed, it just doesn't matter.
 


Quick Reply: 5.9 Fuel Economy Rebuild



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:42 AM.