Ok, I know this place is focused on the 94+ Rams and other recent-generation cars, but I wanted to correct some technical errors in the text and forums.

1) Dodge Ram 50 should have its own forum. Right now they're forced to post in the First Gen ram forum. They share NOTHING with the Ram - they're rebadged Mitsubishi Mighty Max pickups, and have Mitsu engines.

2) The Ramcharger was originally based off the Power Wagon, not the Ram, and it was a D/W 100, perhaps 150 (that part I don't know), not the Ram 1500. When Dodge changed the name of the trucks in 1980 (or was it 81?) the 2wd 1/2 ton became the Ram 150, and the 4x4 was the Power Ram 150. The 100 series was dropped somewhere in there, but at no time was the Power Wagon/1st gen Ram a X500, only 3 digits.

3) The Ramcharger was continued in production in 94, but it wasn't available in the USA or Canada due to crash worthiness standards. I saw one in Seattle (with Mexico plates) a few years ago.

4) According to autos.msn.com, the Durango's 5.9 had 345 lb-ft of torque.

5) The total payload should be a lot lower than 9100 since you're going to have tongue weight sitting on the ball.

6) The Dakota first appeared in 1987, as an 88 model iirc. It's totally unrelated to the Ram 50, which continued production from 1979 until 1993.

7) The 318 is a 5.2, not 5.3

8) First year of the Dakota had a 3-speed auto, instead of the 4 speed.

Those are mostly from the Dakota and Durango descriptive text.

I'd love to help with the accuracy wherever I can, so I'll update this thread wherever I find stuff.

 

1) do you think that we have enough activity to warrant their own section? or could i make a subsection?

2) the dodge truck was changed from D/W series to the "Ram" in 1981. i know that in the first few years, the D100 was offered as a very light duty model...i think that it was 84...

3) i have also seen the 2nd gen ram answer to the ramcharger, but the pictures were taken in mexico..however, i know someone who has seen one a few times in the chicago area. im not certain where this bad ramcharger info on here is coming from?

4) i have several sources which state that the torque rating was 335.

5) not sure what this is related to.

6) i have no idea why the D50 is mentioned in the dakota article...i didnt write it.

7) Again, I didnt write it...ill have it fixed.

8) I cannot find anything to back this up..it seems that every source that I can find states that it was a m5 and a4...but if you can provide some backup to that, ill see about having it changed.

Thanks for the heads up on the errors...once we get them all squared away, i will go ahead and have these errors fixed. if you want to send me links where the errors that i cannot find are, on this site...ill either remove them or do some checking into things...as the shorter pieces were not done by me. a while back, the owner had a third party write those short descriptions, and ive fixed a ton of errors...

 

Thanks to the intellitext crap and all the ads I just lost my entire response. [:@]

Anyway,

1) Perhaps we could parnter with a Mitsubishi forum for that one? Redirect to them, since they're mitsubishi trucks?

2) The D/W ran from long before I was born until 1993. The first gen Rams are D/W 150/250/350's as well. In the Durango text - https://dodgeforum.com/models/durango/ - there's a statement saying that the Ramcharger was based off the Ram 1500. It was based off the Power Wagon 150. At no time during USA sales of Ramchargers did a Ram 1500 ever exist.

3) Again in the Durango text it was just a claim that the Ramcharger production ended with the 94 redesign. It was continued, just not available for sale in USA/Canada.

4) Yeah, I thought it was 335 like the Dakotas, but autos.msn.com says it's 345 like the Rams. I dunno, you're probably right.

5) Again from the Durango text there's a claim of 9100 pound hauling capacity, but that's adding payload to tow capacity which isn't accurate.

6, 7) [8D]

8) Again fetched from autos.msn.com - I'll see if I can find confirmation elsewhere.

 

1) ok, we have a sister mitsubishi site, but i dont think that we have ANY truck owners there...maybe some montero owners...but if we do have D50 owners here, i dont want them to feel unwanted...we love all dodges, even when they are built by mitsubishi...

2) the first generation of the "ram" was in 1981..which doesnt make all that much sense because the dodge trucks didnt change much from 80 to 81...the durango did technically replace the ramcharger, right? youre just disputing that the ramcharger was not based on a "ram"...?

3) i wrote that, and i excluded the mexican ramchargers...but i shouldnt have...i will add a piece in to mention that. do you have an idea as to how long the mexican ramcharger existed? was it just 1994?

4) i dont know if im right either, but i have sources...so its their fault, not mine...

5) what is the correct number that i should be using?

8) if you can find background, ill make a note in there...do you believe that it was just the first year?

 

1) Good point. I just wish there was an answer for them.

2) Well the Durango isn't really a replacement, as the Ramcharger was a 2-door full size and the Durango is a 4 door mid-size (well, it's much bigger now). I'm not sure when it quit production in Mexico, but they made them through 2001 anyway (I'd wager that's it, but I've seen a couple of 2004's mentioned, which doesn't really make sense). My dispute is that it should say the Ramcharger was based off the D/W 150, not Ram 1500. Ram 1500's first appeared in 1994, after the Ramcharger ended production in the US.

3) oops, see 2 as well

4) Touche!

5) It should be noted that the payload is close to 1800 and the towing capacity is up to 7300, but they shouldn't be added together and balled together.

6) Got it. drilling through www.dodgeparts.com for the early Dakota auto trans brings up an A998 torqueflight as the only option, which is also known as the 31rh. The 3-speed was available in 87 and 88. In 89 it was replaced by the A500 4-speed.