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 vs 5.2

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #11  
Old 04-07-2006 | 02:04 AM
Chopper1's Avatar
Chopper1
All Star
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 928
Likes: 0
From: Va.
  #12  
Old 04-07-2006 | 02:04 AM
badram1500's Avatar
badram1500
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
From:
Default RE: 5.9 vs 5.2

OBD 1 was used up to 1995. not able flash the ecm for performance. OBD 2 came in 1996 The system controls alot more of the vehicles fuctions and can be reflashed with performance tuning. OBD 2 vehicles normally polulte less and get better milage.
 
  #13  
Old 04-07-2006 | 02:06 AM
badram1500's Avatar
badram1500
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
From:
Default RE: 5.9 vs 5.2

thanks for the links chopper.
 
  #14  
Old 04-07-2006 | 02:07 AM
silverram99's Avatar
silverram99
Captain
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 648
Likes: 0
From: Rose Hill, KS
Default RE: 5.9 vs 5.2

ORIGINAL: fishn0788

what is the difference from the 2
I think what muddy blue mean was get a 96 or newer because you can get a hypertech or superchips programmer for it. If you get an older one your options are somewhat limited because you have to get chips or an aftermarked pcm. OBD I and OBD II are the stlyes of diagnostic ports on these trucks.
 
  #15  
Old 04-07-2006 | 02:08 AM
fishn0788's Avatar
fishn0788
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From:
Default RE: 5.9 vs 5.2

thanks for the charts
 
  #16  
Old 04-07-2006 | 02:10 AM
fishn0788's Avatar
fishn0788
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From:
Default RE: 5.9 vs 5.2

ok i see
 
  #17  
Old 04-07-2006 | 02:13 AM
muddy_blue_dodge's Avatar
muddy_blue_dodge
Record Breaker
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
From:
Default RE: 5.9 vs 5.2

yea thats what i meant. i re-read my post and it didnt really make sense- sorry.
 
  #18  
Old 04-07-2006 | 02:17 AM
fishn0788's Avatar
fishn0788
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From:
Default RE: 5.9 vs 5.2

that ok i'm not that good at mechanical work any you would think i am owning a ford
 
  #19  
Old 04-07-2006 | 02:30 AM
20dodgeram01's Avatar
20dodgeram01
Record Breaker
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
From:
Default RE: 5.9 vs 5.2

which ever engine you do decide to go with.. try to find one with a 5 speed.. these trannys last alot longer then the autos and will be less of a headache in the future.. also i would probally go with the 5.2.. you get pretty good gas mileage with only 20 or so less horsepower then the 5.9... but i still which i had a 5.9 just so i can say i had one[:@]
 
  #20  
Old 04-07-2006 | 11:14 AM
JustinJohnson86's Avatar
JustinJohnson86
Captain
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 533
Likes: 0
From: Nashville, TN
Default RE: 5.9 vs 5.2

wow, according to those graphs, I would rather run the 87 octane program on my 2001 5.2 ... the difference between the gain in both are:

Premium - +21 HP + 31 TQ
Regular - +18 HP +35 TQ

I would be missing out on 3 HP but gaining 4 lbs/tq ... I Like torque =D

Oh yeah I'm liking the top speed increase also... 128 MPH ... hehe
 



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17 PM.