The life of a Magnum (and 46RE question)
- Thread starter Lecki6
- Start date
-
Sedanman
67-9 Valiant specialist
I have 130,000 on my 94 van and still running strong and shifting the way it should.
2000 Dakota R/T.
The heater has never worked good.
The time I lost the radiator, I spent 2 hours flushing and back flushing the heater core with a pressure washer before it flowed through, with the last 30 minutes until it flowed clear.
It was so nasty I took pics.
I flushed it again the next week.
Heater worked for about a month.....
My mom has an 03 3.9 quad cab (because these are probably the last vehicles I will be able to work on without a theoretical physics degree, and $45,000 in software and special tools).
The day after I replaced my radiator, her's separated at the core to tank crimps.
The heater has never worked good.
The time I lost the radiator, I spent 2 hours flushing and back flushing the heater core with a pressure washer before it flowed through, with the last 30 minutes until it flowed clear.
It was so nasty I took pics.
I flushed it again the next week.
Heater worked for about a month.....
My mom has an 03 3.9 quad cab (because these are probably the last vehicles I will be able to work on without a theoretical physics degree, and $45,000 in software and special tools).
The day after I replaced my radiator, her's separated at the core to tank crimps.
RPMagoo
Just An Old Motorhead
-- Here's a 46 Re in My 69 Valiant - No floor mods.
Sedanman
67-9 Valiant specialist
Nice. Is that the computer controlled trans? If so what mods did you have to do to use the OD? I'm sending this 94 van to the scrap yard soon.
RPMagoo
Just An Old Motorhead
-- Controlled by a toggle switch, under the dash, near steering column. -- I did not hook it up - bought it that way.
player1up
Well-Known Member
When I did mine ( 98 ram 1500 46re ), the only "mod" to the trans is to install a cable drive speedo unit. The trans speed sensor for the PCM is in a different spot than the speedo drive unit. PCM controls OD and lockup.
Infecteddog
Well-Known Member
RE is a computer-controlled, RH is the non-controlled. '90-'95s had RHs as well as the later 3spd autos while '96-03s had REs in the ODs.
The newer rads are pretty bad. This is where I think most of the head crack issues come from in the Mags- rads separating, draining, and people continuing to drive them.
They're the last things I really like the handling of, some of the newer stuff is actually easier to work on but there's plenty of it that even stock I do not feel handles safely and wouldn't trust anyone I'd feel responsible for to drive one.
player1up
Well-Known Member
I agree, I've had 3 radiators on newer cars leak where the plastic tank crimps to the core. Enough to run the rad really low but not enough to drip on the ground. The radiator in the Duster was only replaced because the core had disintegrated from corrosion and insect impact....ugh, love bugs
magnummopar
Well-Known Member
To turn OD on or off, you must temporarily ground pin 13 of the C-3 connector. It returns to enabled if you push it again or cycle the ignition. Initially, its always enabled.
Never knew they put a 3 speed in vans nor that they used an RH...interesting.
Infecteddog
Well-Known Member
We've done stuff newer than '06- a year or two ago. My 37 year old radiator was beat about every way you could think- I think it'd had a bird or two hit it in my time but still cooled and still held water. But the aftermarket replacement for my truck started leaking after less than 7 years.
I have found that anything that Chrysler build that ended in a .7 was trouble for the most part. 2.7 4.7 5.7 all have their issues, do people have good luck with them? Yes, but lots of people wished they have never seen the pos. A roll of the dice, personally I stay away from any of those engines. Thanks for the info on the clutch fan MM, will go electric when I do my swap.
67Dart273
Well-Known Member
Infecteddog
Well-Known Member
They're cheaper here with bad motors, cost just as much as all the 4.0 Jeeps with bad motors. Not always cheaper than bad motor Magnum trucks though since Magnum replacements are so readily available and... good.
Most of the stock 4.7 Jeeps were fairly close to the 5.9s, the 4.7HOs IIRC were a shade faster. Doesn't mean I wouldn't take a 5.9 everyday of the week and twice on Sunday over a 4.7 but they aren't awful.
Well the last '96 I saw I never bothered to get under it since the data tag called out the 32RH. That's why I'll believe them. But yes, that's my experience- if it's anything RWD-based but a van or TJ it will have an overdrive but with vans they could have 3spds as well as the ODs.
Yes. One of the biggest ones is the high cost of most motors.
Sedanman
67-9 Valiant specialist
The OD trans in my 94 van also uses the old paper style trans filter. I had a guy that wanted the van for the trans but it snowed the weekend he was coming from WI and never heard back from him. It will be going to the junk yard as soon as I finish yanking spare parts for my other 94. All v8 vans had an OD. The 6 cylinders were all 3 spd'd. They didn't generate enough power to operate the OD properly. The v8 actually gets better mpg
On the magnums I've found through personal experience that the 3.9 gets about 18 MPG. The 5.2 gets about 16 MPG and the 5.9 gets about 14 MPG- all with O/D.
I remember extensive testing of the 4.7 vs the 5.9 at the strip when the .7's first came out. 4.7 had more power sooner but lees up top and not as much total. With RC Dakota's the 4.7 won in the quarter almost every time. CC was a different story.
My work truck (Dakota CC) has a 3.7 and has so far been trouble free at 55,000 miles.
18 MPG and feels fairly strong for a six, a lot stronger than the 3.9s I've driven.
Of the batch, I think the 4.7 is the worst. I don't think the 5.7 has nearly the issues, and IIRC is a totally different design despite the cute .7 family displacement adherence.
I sure wish they had called it the 357 Magnum
Also IIRC 92 only 5.2 was rated 235 HP (on account of 3" or so exhaust and larger manifolds) all others, I wanna say 215. Most if not all 5.9 Magnums were rated 245. All NET.
I remember extensive testing of the 4.7 vs the 5.9 at the strip when the .7's first came out. 4.7 had more power sooner but lees up top and not as much total. With RC Dakota's the 4.7 won in the quarter almost every time. CC was a different story.
My work truck (Dakota CC) has a 3.7 and has so far been trouble free at 55,000 miles.
18 MPG and feels fairly strong for a six, a lot stronger than the 3.9s I've driven.
Of the batch, I think the 4.7 is the worst. I don't think the 5.7 has nearly the issues, and IIRC is a totally different design despite the cute .7 family displacement adherence.
I sure wish they had called it the 357 Magnum
Also IIRC 92 only 5.2 was rated 235 HP (on account of 3" or so exhaust and larger manifolds) all others, I wanna say 215. Most if not all 5.9 Magnums were rated 245. All NET.
Took my 2wd Durango with a 5.2 auto to Colorado last year. Got between 19-20 mpg at 70 mph. I had a 2wd Dakota with a 3.9 auto, it got 23 doing 65 going to St. Louis. My Dad bought a new Dakota in '94. It was a 2wd, 3.9 5-speed. He got between 24-26 mpg on trips.
I'm not a big fan of the "7's" either. IMO, 2.7, 3.7, 4.7 are all bad news. the 5.7 seems to do better, but there have been issues there as well. That being said, I've never owned any of the .7 engines, so my opinion is only based off or what I've seen or heard.
I'm not a big fan of the "7's" either. IMO, 2.7, 3.7, 4.7 are all bad news. the 5.7 seems to do better, but there have been issues there as well. That being said, I've never owned any of the .7 engines, so my opinion is only based off or what I've seen or heard.
magnummopar
Well-Known Member
The early 4.7's had a boat load of issues from filling crank case with white oil foam to snapping cams. They did get better and put out more power later on. The trans was no gem either.
The 5.2 is underrated in many places, FSM has 240 listed in many places, some data and mitchell list as 190-210 but also list 4.0L as 195 so who knows. The 5.2 was typically 235-245 HP and was capable of 20 mpg in 4x4 Daks with NV3500 trans. Had one, also had a 4.7 CC Dak that was shamefull.
5.7 are a whole other bag o worms....already coined "hemi tick" and some other interesting lower end issues.
Consider the cost/issues with 5.7, it just makes the 5.2/5.9 an easy choice, plus they are almost free and $1500 will make more than 5.7 HP . Having one of the best production short blocks helps too.
The 5.2 is underrated in many places, FSM has 240 listed in many places, some data and mitchell list as 190-210 but also list 4.0L as 195 so who knows. The 5.2 was typically 235-245 HP and was capable of 20 mpg in 4x4 Daks with NV3500 trans. Had one, also had a 4.7 CC Dak that was shamefull.
5.7 are a whole other bag o worms....already coined "hemi tick" and some other interesting lower end issues.
Consider the cost/issues with 5.7, it just makes the 5.2/5.9 an easy choice, plus they are almost free and $1500 will make more than 5.7 HP . Having one of the best production short blocks helps too.
I couldn't agree more...... but I also know some like the new hemi in their classic and that is cool too. I also know a new hemi in your classic will make it worth a lot more than a 5.2/5.9 magnum, even if they run the same E.T.
But for me, magnummopar's statement holds true..... and I'll throw in the LA with the magnum.
DionR
Well-Known Member
What's your $1500 recipe?
You say the intake bolts cant be reused? I might should get other bolts and swap mine out one at a time then!! I used the factory bolts to bolt the new intake on.....
DionR
Well-Known Member
When I used to mess with the FWD stuff (lot's of torque to yield stuff there), the rule I remember was if there wasn't any necked down areas on the bolt, it was ok to re-use them. I always bought new head bolts (I think), but it seems like there were other bolts I did re-use (maybe intake?) after checking them.
That said, I thought that most torque to yield bolts included a procedure of torquing them to a certain point and then giving them a 1/4 turn more. The instructions I have from when I put the M1 on my motor don't include anything like that. Only a bunch of steps to torque the bolts in, until they are all at 12 ft/lbs. Not say they aren't torque to yield, just saying the one source I looked at seems to indicate that they aren't.
either way I WAY over torqued the intake bolts.... I have a list of torque specs for the LA engines and those call for 35 ft lbs of torque and the magnums only run 12!!!!!! guess i'd better get other bolts and redo those!!
I would like to know this $1500 recipe! The deal fell through so I'm still searching far and wide. Doesn't hurt to get a head start a parts list though..
mderoy340
Well-Known Member
My 93 FSM has 3 step head torque 50, 105, repeat 105. No mention of torque to yield bolts or procedure of torquing them to a certain point. I reused my head bolts after porting and have no issues.
MP sells new bolts as a set and they are needed when installing Magnum heads on an LA block.
-
