| From | Message |
GREG K
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/06/2006
14:28:02
|
 Subject: 2003 gasoline 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
i have had two people tell me that they have a 2003 dodge ram with a 5.9 motor thats a gasoline motor did dodge put a 5.9 motor in the new body style rams thats a gas motor. i thought that when dodge came out with the new body style rams thats they started out with the 5.7 hemi
|
daddio
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/06/2006
15:02:29
|  RE: 2003 gasoline 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
according to what i've read the 5.9 gas was available for a ram 1500 in '03.
|
Super bee
GenI
12/07/2006
00:49:56
| RE: 2003 gasoline 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
i think 04 was the first year of the Hemi 1500
it debuted in the heavey duties, it also debuted in the new body style
new body style HDs started in 03, the following year they put the 5.7 in the 1/2s
a guy i work with has a 2002 ram 5.9,
i do beleive the 5.9 was still the bigger v-8 in 2003
1990 sport RC SB, 1995 318drivetrain, 3.92 gears (came with truck) Powertrax "traction system", 95 dash/steering wheel, hearthrob exhaust, headers, cutout after y-pipe, necessary electric fan add-a-leafs, 30x9.5 mud tires, cranked T-bars, AR 39 15x8 rims, grill guard, roll bars
|
STS
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/07/2006
14:45:07
| RE: 2003 gasoline 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
And it was, For some odd reason they Hemi wasn't released then due to the heads warping or so I could, could have been due to production problems.. But form what I know it does not get any better millage than the older LA Magnum!
|
Kowalski
GenIII
12/07/2006
18:09:43
| RE: 2003 gasoline 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
"LA Magnum" ?
Two different motors.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
Super bee
GenI
12/08/2006
00:59:57
| RE: 2003 gasoline 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
the mileage is not the big attraction to the hemi vs 5.9 choice
mileage is the same
its the extra 100 hp that is the biggest attraction
1990 sport RC SB, 1995 318drivetrain, 3.92 gears (came with truck) Powertrax "traction system", 95 dash/steering wheel, hearthrob exhaust, headers, cutout after y-pipe, necessary electric fan add-a-leafs, 30x9.5 mud tires, cranked T-bars, AR 39 15x8 rims, grill guard, roll bars
|
STS
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/13/2006
15:52:14
| RE: 2003 gasoline 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I ment LA, or Magnum. I seem to forget that LA's are much older.
Really the Magnums can achive over 17 MPG while the Hemi can only match that with 4 cly deactivated. So tell me which engine is really better. A high reving car engine in a truck or a engine with true low end toruqe?
|
jayb
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/14/2006
18:45:40
| RE: 2003 gasoline 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree with STS. the 5.9 MAGNUM has more low end than the hemi. They only produced the new hemi in trucks because of the common american misconception, "more peak power means better towing/hauling".
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/28/2006
07:19:47
| RE: 2003 gasoline 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree on the torque. Torque is what makes a good work truck. HP makes for a good street toy.
Same argument for the 5.9 vs. 5.7L holds true for the 5.2 vs. 4.7L. I'm not sure where the 4.7L would be at home in. It doesn't rev high enough to be a good sports car engine and it's lacking too much bottom end to be a good truck engine.
|
Dan M
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/28/2006
12:27:04
| RE: 2003 gasoline 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
I personally think the 4.7L is a good fit for the dakota, but not a ram. If I were to get a ram, I'd definately get the hemi. The milage is the same and it's more HP. I had no problems towing 2500-3000 lbs in my 4.7L QC dakota that weighs close to 5200 lbs with my fiberglass shell, tool box and me driving it.
- Dan M
|
R/TBlues
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/28/2006
13:03:13
| RE: 2003 gasoline 5.9
IP: Logged
Message:
Dan M,
You're probably right about the 2500lbs behind the 4.7L. I was pulling over 7000lbs (up to 10K)with my 93 V8 Dak w/auto. The rated payload on that truck was 2000lb. It barely wavered going up the moderately steep hills where I live. When I tried pulling 7K with my 2002 with 4.7L auto it struggled big time. I could not drive it with the O/D and the cruise on. As soon as it would shift into O/D the RPM's and the speed would start falling and it would have to down shift. I never had this problem with my 93. I have since traded that in for a 2000 R/T. I added air bags to the rear suspension to accomadate the loads I carry.
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
