Acceleration w/ 5.9L
#21
01-27-2006, 02:21 AM
RE: Acceleration w/ 5.9L
I'll Chime in here...though I have a '99 Durango 5.9 (non R/T).
Mine has 3:55s is a 4x4 and has great throttle response...better than my '04 hemi truck!
The large size tires will definelty kill gear ratio, thus response. And I do not know of ratios below 3:55. Most were 3:55, 3:73, or 3:92.
The weight difference between a truck and Durango can't be that significant?? Are you tuned up?
I don't say that flipped. Truly, I was surprised what a set of plugs, wires and rotor did for mine every 35k miles or so.
...just a thought
Mine has 3:55s is a 4x4 and has great throttle response...better than my '04 hemi truck!
The large size tires will definelty kill gear ratio, thus response. And I do not know of ratios below 3:55. Most were 3:55, 3:73, or 3:92.
The weight difference between a truck and Durango can't be that significant?? Are you tuned up?
I don't say that flipped. Truly, I was surprised what a set of plugs, wires and rotor did for mine every 35k miles or so.
...just a thought
#22
01-27-2006, 02:26 AM
RE: Acceleration w/ 5.9L
how about that death flash thing i dont know much about somone else will be able to tell you about it more but from what i know it resets your PCM timming to stop pinning but you also loose power. Somone tell me if im off my rocker lol
and just so you know LT285/75R16 = (LT)Light Truck, (285) 285mm wide, (75) 75%of the 285 mm tall {whitch are close to 31's}, (R) Radial, (16) i6 in rim
and just so you know LT285/75R16 = (LT)Light Truck, (285) 285mm wide, (75) 75%of the 285 mm tall {whitch are close to 31's}, (R) Radial, (16) i6 in rim
#23
01-27-2006, 02:35 AM
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Acceleration w/ 5.9L
ORIGINAL: 20dodgeram01
yeah i understand.. i have a 2001 5.2.. but i rode in a 97 5.9 and it didnt really feel like it had to much pick-up at all.. i could probally take him.. but what i understand is they only have probally 15-20 more horsepower.. and with that bigger engine thats a lot more weight
yeah i understand.. i have a 2001 5.2.. but i rode in a 97 5.9 and it didnt really feel like it had to much pick-up at all.. i could probally take him.. but what i understand is they only have probally 15-20 more horsepower.. and with that bigger engine thats a lot more weight
#24
01-27-2006, 02:46 AM
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Acceleration w/ 5.9L
I'm not sure if its related but sometimes when I start my truck up and then at higher speeds when im maintaining a certain speed I can hear a rattling. Could that have something to do with the catalytic converter and maybe its one of those bad ones chrysler made in that group of years?
#26
01-27-2006, 03:14 AM
Record Breaker
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Acceleration w/ 5.9L
i have a 2001 5.2 with 3:55's.. i rode in a 97 5.9.. not sure what gear ratio it was but it didnt feel like it had much pull at all.. had about 80,000 miles on it so there was probally plenty of things wrong with it.. im not sure.. but i do know is my truck is slow as hell in the low rpms.. doesnt really start picking up till around 2500-3000
#27
01-27-2006, 02:39 PM
Professional
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Acceleration w/ 5.9L
I know my 97 318 with 3.55's has always been able to whoop all over my brothers 98 360 with 3.92's. I beat him when they were new and I've beaten him since he rebuilt his engine and I have 247,000 miles on my truck while he is only at 175,000 with a newer tranny and rebuilt engine.
#28
01-27-2006, 03:47 PM
All Star
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jax Fl.
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#29
01-28-2006, 12:12 AM
All Star
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 892
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Acceleration w/ 5.9L
Well put, I never had a 318 come close to spanking ol'blackie. I had one beat me off the line but not after I hit 2nd gear.
ORIGINAL: kossuth
WHAT??? The 5.2 and the 5.9 share the same type of block, heads, intake, and so on a so forth. I can't say for sure they are the same castings but I'm very very certain that the weight difference between a truck equipped with a 5.2 vs a 5.9 is minimal to none. I had a 96 ram with a 318 in it and I will tell you that yes it was a good running truck. I will also tell you that my 01 truck which is outfitted much like my 96 minus the 01 having a 360 would STOMP the 318. To the original poster if your truck seems absolutely gutless check things out. Various things like the cat being clogged, a leaking intake plenium, and having the death flash and effectively neuter your truck. Also gearing like someone else said plays a huge part in it. If your friend with the 5.2 has 3.92's in the back and you have 3.55's he would have a mechanical advantage on you due to gearing.
ORIGINAL: 20dodgeram01
yeah i understand.. i have a 2001 5.2.. but i rode in a 97 5.9 and it didnt really feel like it had to much pick-up at all.. i could probally take him.. but what i understand is they only have probally 15-20 more horsepower.. and with that bigger engine thats a lot more weight
yeah i understand.. i have a 2001 5.2.. but i rode in a 97 5.9 and it didnt really feel like it had to much pick-up at all.. i could probally take him.. but what i understand is they only have probally 15-20 more horsepower.. and with that bigger engine thats a lot more weight
#30
01-28-2006, 04:36 AM
Record Breaker
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts