When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Hello dodge friends and family, I am a diehard dodge fanatic myself. Having owned a 1972 dodge dart for my first car and then a 1977 plymouth duster. WOW How time flies...fast forward 20 something years.. now own 3 dodge ram 1500 ram trucks 97, 02, and 03. Love the ram trucks, hate the 4.7 engine. why couldn't dodge leave the beloved 318 in production... So here's my dilemma, 02 ram crewcab had blown motor purchased 03 reg cab with 4.7 to replace it with.
After doing the swap motor cranks over hard. everything went in like a glove now major hick-ups until tried to start...any suggestions..
Welcome to DF
I going to guess the 02 ram has a 4.7 too. The crankshaft pick up tone wheel for the crank sensor may not the same. Do you know what codes the truck is giving?
thanks for the quick reply...no i have not had a code reader to view code defaults...yes the 02 had a 4.7 in it as well. auto transmission is original. however i do have the 03 transmission if needed..
Thanks for welcoming me to the forum...I am hoping to find some answers on my dodge lineup as well as help others. What an awesome age we live in. thanks again.
I'm guessing the motor came out of another truck? I would remove the spark plugs and pressure ck the cooling system and see if you are leaking coolant into one of the cylinders.
yes it did which was running so i know for a fact that it is not that...my question is could the ecu on the o2 be bad..because the original engine actually jumped time and the engine was seized up... would the ecu hold that memory to my new engine and ''think'' that it is still out of time.
thanks,
scott
In addition to last post, the motor that came out of the 03 was never ''opened up''. just unhooked and rehooked all of the wires and hoses. certainly thought this was a pretty straight forward swap.
thanks again for your reply.
scott