modern 5.2 FI roller engine cylinder ridge ?

-
rustytoolss

rustytoolss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
972
Reaction score
72
Location
Clinton, Ohio
I maybe able to get a FI 5.2 roller engine and the A518 for free. This engine has a ton of miles on ,over 200,000- maybe 300,000. I've heard the due to the higher nickel content used in the modern blocks...that cylinder ridge problems are not that common.
Don't want to haul it home, if there is a good chance that it will be junk.
 
We've had a bunch of high mile (200k+) 88-93 v8 trucks/vans the couple i had heads off of did not have a feel able ridge and had cross hatch in the cylinder despite feeling wore out. They all "ran OK" but wore out is more than just having cylinder ridge. I think with that many miles its a re-builder regardless.
 
X2. I've torn down a number of these, lost count, 5? None had anything of a ridge
 
Trojmn said:
We've had a bunch of high mile (200k+) 88-93 v8 trucks/vans the couple i had heads off of did not have a feel able ridge and had cross hatch in the cylinder despite feeling wore out. They all "ran OK" but wore out is more than just having cylinder ridge. I think with that many miles its a re-builder regardless.
Click to expand...
I don't mind honing, re-ringing and replacing all bearings and doing head work...just don't want to need to bore and buy replacement pistons. Not in my budget..
 
Higher nickel content is a myth. "They have what they have". Period. The two main reasons for the great wear characteristics for ALL modern engines is modern EFI and modern oil formulations. Chrysler has never cornered the market on casting iron better than everybody else. That's just not true.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Higher nickel content is a myth. "They have what they have". Period. The two main reasons for the great wear characteristics for ALL modern engines is modern EFI and modern oil formulations. Chrysler has never cornered the market on casting iron better than everybody else. That's just not true.
Click to expand...

I suspect its mostly thin ring packs more than anything.
 
Trojmn said:
I suspect its mostly thin ring packs more than anything.
Click to expand...

That's a very possible contributing factor. I say it's not Chrysler specific because I've torn down several later model 5.0 Fords with well over 200K that still had cross hatch, so as much as we want to thump chests over it being a Chrysler thing, it simply isn't.
 
RustyRatRod said:
That's a very possible contributing factor. I say it's not Chrysler specific because I've torn down several later model 5.0 Fords with well over 200K that still had cross hatch, so as much as we want to thump chests over it being a Chrysler thing, it simply isn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah i agree, its a industry thing.
 
I watched a reputable shop order standard high compression pistons for a 187K block, hone it reassemble with new cam and heads for 450 hp.
 
I forgot to say that the 5.2 is a Magnum truck engine, if that makes ay difference. Thanks for all the input guys :)
 
rustytoolss said:
I forgot to say that the 5.2 is a Magnum truck engine, if that makes ay difference. Thanks for all the input guys :)
Click to expand...

It's entirely possible. Really, the only way to know for sure other than myths and urban legends it to cut a hunk of block off and send it to be analyzed. There are just so many stories about this and that, there's no way to verify it. All the domestic blocks must be pretty strong, because you don't see a rash of block failures from any of the automakers.
 
should be ok if it was a EFI motor
what year? it makes a difference on the trans electronics (or no electronics)
how many pins on the electrical connector?
 
Trojmn said:
Yeah i agree, its a industry thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you think for one minute that casting processes don't improve over time, you got another thing comin. The quality of the actual process has improved, but I would be very surprised to see some kind of high nickel content anything. Before anybody disagrees with that again, stop and think for a moment just how expensive nickel is. Nickel welding rod ain't cheap. Mass production of cars is all about saving money and cutting corners.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Yes, if you think for one minute that casting processes don't improve over time, you got another thing comin. The quality of the actual process has improved, but I would be very surprised to see some kind of high nickel content anything. Before anybody disagrees with that again, stop and think for a moment just how expensive nickel is. Nickel welding rod ain't cheap. Mass production of cars is all about saving money and cutting corners.
Click to expand...

A little bit about blocks from 440 Source.

Btw don't forget the magnums use low tension rings besides they being thinner.

"There was also an article from Mopar Action magazine by Andy Finkbeiner of AR Engineering in which they sonic check 20 blocks and come up with the same findings we did. They also explain how statistically 20 blocks is enough of a sample to estimate the rest of the 440 blocks out there. We've tested over 50 with the same results. This article also has some great info regarding hardness of the iron used, in which they find that the earlier blocks do have slightly harder cast iron, by about 10%.

Another issue is block weight, or the quantity of cast iron which is actually used in the block. Like the Mopar Action article, we have weighed many blocks and have found later blocks to weigh more, or have more cast iron in them. Since the reasoning behind thin wall blocks is that the factory used this practice in the late 70's to save money on iron (which is a known fact with SB Chevy engines), the fact that later blocks weigh more shows that Chrysler had no intention of using less iron to save money. Which is great news for us racers and performance enthusiasts.

So, the bottom line? Save and use those late model blocks. And go .060" over with 'em all day long. Also on that note, we know of several machine shops that have been going .060" with late model blocks for over 20 years with no problems."

Would that be our own @AndyF? I do believe it is.
 
Last edited:
RustyRatRod said:
The two main reasons for the great wear characteristics for ALL modern engines is modern EFI and modern oil formulations.
Click to expand...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS. No more fuel wash when cranking with a miscalibrated carb. Yes, technology has improved in the past 40 years, but the pistons are still riding on a film of oil and not a film of nickel. Better oils and EFI.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Higher nickel content is a myth. "They have what they have". Period. The two main reasons for the great wear characteristics for ALL modern engines is modern EFI and modern oil formulations. Chrysler has never cornered the market on casting iron better than everybody else. That's just not true.
Click to expand...
And low tension rings...
 
Wyrmrider said:
should be ok if it was a EFI motor
what year? it makes a difference on the trans electronics (or no electronics)
how many pins on the electrical connector?
Click to expand...
not sure of exact year...but their a matched set. The A518 is an RH series, that I do know.
 
It's all of it. Better oil. Low tension rings. EFI.

Basically, the reduced fuel-wash (removing oil from cylinder wall after the piston descends) from the EFI allowed the low-tension rings to work, which could then be made thinner since they weren't using their own spring tension to seal. Carb swaps on late-model motors can run the rings to the junk pile pretty quick if you're not careful.

I ran Mobil1 in my Neon that finally topped over 400K miles before it swallowed its' own intake valve. Too bad the valve guide can't hold up like the bores. That motor didn't have any ruing ridge, and the bearings looked pretty darn good too.

I'm not afraid of any untouched Magnum motor. Run that thing and don't look back.
 
The 95 and older A518 will be an RH AKA 46RH. 4 speeds, rear drive, hydraulic operation. I think 96 was the change to the RE A518 AKA the 46RE.

The 46RH is the one you want if your going with a carb. The 46RE needs the ECU to operate. Unless someone has come out with a trans controller for it.

On a side note. My grandpa had 350k miles on his 94 dodge ram when he gave it to me. It ran great and had never been torn into. The trans had been rebuilt once. He gave that truck to me and I drove it until it got totaled in a wreck. That engine found it's way into my dart!

He has a 96 that he has also owned since new. It has 460k miles on it and it runs decent. It does use oil and it's low on power. But he is 70, retired and doesn't drive much anymore. That motor has had valve seals replaced to help with oil consumption and the trans was rebuilt once! I bought a 103k mile 5.2 for CHEAP to replace the tired 5.9 but he won't let me swap it out.
 
1994redram said:
The 95 and older A518 will be an RH AKA 46RH. 4 speeds, rear drive, hydraulic operation. I think 96 was the change to the RE A518 AKA the 46RE.

The 46RH is the one you want if your going with a carb. The 46RE needs the ECU to operate. Unless someone has come out with a trans controller for it.

On a side note. My grandpa had 350k miles on his 94 dodge ram when he gave it to me. It ran great and had never been torn into. The trans had been rebuilt once. He gave that truck to me and I drove it until it got totaled in a wreck. That engine found it's way into my dart!

He has a 96 that he has also owned since new. It has 460k miles on it and it runs decent. It does use oil and it's low on power. But he is 70, retired and doesn't drive much anymore. That motor has had valve seals replaced to help with oil consumption and the trans was rebuilt once! I bought a 103k mile 5.2 for CHEAP to replace the tired 5.9 but he won't let me swap it out.
Click to expand...

Check the plenum gasket on the 5.9.
Look down into the bottom of the intake for oil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top