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.

Budget 5.9 Magnum build..err?...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 13, 2019 | 05:31 PM
  #31  
Tactical Lever's Avatar
Tactical Lever
Thread Starter
|
Rookie
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 56
Likes: 2
Default

Originally Posted by MoparFanatic21
Not only that but the machine work, factoring in my time (which is nonexistent lol), a tune (which I would have to drive 200 miles (plus a hotel) or fly a guy out to get it tuned right, and a few other things. Also jts 707 hp
Nice!

Thinking about it a bit, and it seems that unless I want to change out my upgraded 46RE, that I should stick to about 450 ft./lbs. of torque, and about 400 HP. I'd be pretty happy with that I think. And that being the numbers, maybe I don't really want/need a stroker, and can save some money on the build.
 
Reply
Old Oct 13, 2019 | 05:34 PM
  #32  
Tactical Lever's Avatar
Tactical Lever
Thread Starter
|
Rookie
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 56
Likes: 2
Default

Also wondering what the best option is for fuel delivery. Getting a little conflicting information on easiest/cheapest.

Carb, stock EFI, or tuner with custom tune (what I'm leaning towards)?

Anybody know whether an old Superchips is loadable with a custom tune?
 
Reply
Old Oct 13, 2019 | 09:12 PM
  #33  
HeyYou's Avatar
HeyYou
Administrator
Veteran: Air Force
Community Favorite
15 Year Member
Community Builder
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 87,461
Likes: 4,218
From: Clayton MI
Default

I would want to stick with efi, just for the easy starts, and somewhat better fuel mileage. (I won't call it 'economy', as economy simply doesn't enter anywhere into the picture on these trucks. ) A custom tune will likely run around 600 bucks, or so, (including the tuner). Another option, if you actually need a custom tune, (likely) would be an aftermarket EFI controller...... Something that would piggyback on the existing system would be best, otherwise, you would need to figure out how to run the trans as well.... (another reason for sticking with EFI, I haven't found any standalone controllers for the trans.....)
 
Reply
Old Oct 13, 2019 | 11:00 PM
  #34  
MoparFanatic21's Avatar
MoparFanatic21
Legend
Veteran: Marine Corps
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,098
Likes: 318
Default

Originally Posted by HeyYou
I would want to stick with efi, just for the easy starts, and somewhat better fuel mileage. (I won't call it 'economy', as economy simply doesn't enter anywhere into the picture on these trucks. ) A custom tune will likely run around 600 bucks, or so, (including the tuner). Another option, if you actually need a custom tune, (likely) would be an aftermarket EFI controller...... Something that would piggyback on the existing system would be best, otherwise, you would need to figure out how to run the trans as well.... (another reason for sticking with EFI, I haven't found any standalone controllers for the trans.....)
CANTrolls (the one would made the one for my 8spd) will make anyone but it gets pricey lol.
 
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2019 | 03:58 PM
  #35  
Tactical Lever's Avatar
Tactical Lever
Thread Starter
|
Rookie
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 56
Likes: 2
Default

Originally Posted by HeyYou
I would want to stick with efi, just for the easy starts, and somewhat better fuel mileage. (I won't call it 'economy', as economy simply doesn't enter anywhere into the picture on these trucks. ) A custom tune will likely run around 600 bucks, or so, (including the tuner). Another option, if you actually need a custom tune, (likely) would be an aftermarket EFI controller...... Something that would piggyback on the existing system would be best, otherwise, you would need to figure out how to run the trans as well.... (another reason for sticking with EFI, I haven't found any standalone controllers for the trans.....)
Mine wasn't bad on fuel. The best I ever recorded was a bit over 18 IMPERIAL mpg, but I think that was a miscalculation. But I have gotten 17 a couple times, more commonly 16 and 15. That was with 4.1:1 gears and 35x12.5 Hankook Dynapro MT tires, and a canopy. When I regeared to 4.56, I think I lost a little. I think I carry several hundred pounds more stuff as a rule also. I added an auxiliary fuel tank that holds about 100 US gallons, and usually keep it fairly full, and a full set of tire chains. I was hovering more around 13 lately. Probably could improve on that with a fresh engine, tuned up by a fair bit. Maybe even do better with a high torque build.

I never had a problem running a carb in the winter. Drove a few old vehicles that had them. One had a manual choke, and another needed the pedal to be kicked to engage it. I'm not sure if there was much advantage to an FI engine fuel mileage-wise either. I think more so with engine flexibility. The right amount of fuel at any engine speed and load, that is hard for a carb to match.
 
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2019 | 07:36 PM
  #36  
Tactical Lever's Avatar
Tactical Lever
Thread Starter
|
Rookie
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 56
Likes: 2
Default

Forgot that when I did the front end swap, instead of having the vacuum motor (if that's the right term) engage the 4x4, it's now spinning the driveshaft full time. I suppose that may impact the mileage a little?
 
Reply
Old Oct 14, 2019 | 10:25 PM
  #37  
MoparFanatic21's Avatar
MoparFanatic21
Legend
Veteran: Marine Corps
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,098
Likes: 318
Default

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever
Forgot that when I did the front end swap, instead of having the vacuum motor (if that's the right term) engage the 4x4, it's now spinning the driveshaft full time. I suppose that may impact the mileage a little?
That will at max drop you 1mpg
 
Reply
Old Oct 15, 2019 | 06:28 PM
  #38  
HeyYou's Avatar
HeyYou
Administrator
Veteran: Air Force
Community Favorite
15 Year Member
Community Builder
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 87,461
Likes: 4,218
From: Clayton MI
Default

Carrying around that 100 gallons of gas is most certainly gonna take a bite out of your gas mileage.
 
Reply
Old Oct 15, 2019 | 10:36 PM
  #39  
Tactical Lever's Avatar
Tactical Lever
Thread Starter
|
Rookie
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 56
Likes: 2
Default

Originally Posted by HeyYou
Carrying around that 100 gallons of gas is most certainly gonna take a bite out of your gas mileage.
Yeah maybe... I figure my tank weighs about 150 lbs.; not too heavy, and 350 liters of gas will weigh about 539. Rounding up, and the tank and the fuel might be a bit more...be about 700 lbs. I guess.
 
Reply
Old Oct 15, 2019 | 11:18 PM
  #40  
MoparFanatic21's Avatar
MoparFanatic21
Legend
Veteran: Marine Corps
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 8,098
Likes: 318
Default

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever
Yeah maybe... I figure my tank weighs about 150 lbs.; not too heavy, and 350 liters of gas will weigh about 539. Rounding up, and the tank and the fuel might be a bit more...be about 700 lbs. I guess.
Supposedly 1 gallon weighs 5 pounds..
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:39 PM.