|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Differences between 5.9L Magnum and 5.9L R/T
Well it will not let me poist in the performance section so, I figured you guys were second best, or at least this section was for my qeustion. OK this is my big question what are the differences between the 5.9L Magnum engine and the 5.9L R/T engines?
Do the real R/Ts have "R/T" casted onto the block and heads? I thought they did... Are the production R/T heads the same heads that Mopar Performance sells? How else could I tell a 5.9L R/T from a standard 5.9L Magnum? Daniel DePetro daniel_depetro@yahoo.com (906) 228-6766 I ask because I really want an 5.9L R/T engine (or at the very, very least a set of R/T heads, followed closley by the R/T camshaft or a step above) for my 5.9L Magnum that is going in my 1974 Dodge Dart Sport. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
There is absolutely no difference in the engines used in the Dakota R/T trucks from any other Magnum 5.9 engine. No the heads aren't the ones Mopar perf. sells that are called R/T heads. They are the same heads that are on any 5.9 And no the engines don't have R/T cast onto them. People have been feeding you a bunch of horsehockey.
All Chrysler did was stick a plain 5.9 magnum engine in a Dakota and put R/T badges on them. That's why the Dakota R/t is rated the same 245 hp as all the rest of the trucks. If you want a 5.9 magnum for your Dart just find one out of any Ram or Dakota and get a center sump oil pan and pickup tube for it and you'll be good. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I think there was a slight difference. The '96 Indy Ram was rated at 245 HP when the same vintage 5.9s were rated at 230. The standard 5.9 crept up to 235, 245 and eventually 250 before they stopped producing them.
The R/T DAK finally ended up with the 250 in its later years of production, although earlier ones were based on the 230. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The 5.2 was rated at either 230 or 235 HP, the 5.9 magnum started at 245 HP when it was introduced 93.
The Indy RAM had a cat back exhaust system on it which gave it a few extra ponies. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Do some research and you will be surprised. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I stand corrected.
The 5.2 started life with 220 HP and the 5.9 at 235 as you stated. I had looked at 99 numbers which were 245 HP and always believed the 5.9 had not changed. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Often times, they didn't converse at all. It is very difficult to sort things like this out when several reliable Mopar data sources do not agree. I always believed the maximum out of the 360 was 245 horse, but I found a source that listed 250 near the end of production. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
I thought the same for 360's. I remember when I bought my 93 Dakota with a 318 new it was rated at 230 hp. Never looked at anything with a 360 until around 96 and then it was rated at 245 hp but that was in a Indy Ram and the salesman told me they were the same engine so I assumed the same hp level as a regular Ram. The Indy Ram did have a much more throaty exhaust so it was probably rated more than the regular Ram. The salesman was right about it being the same engine but never noticed it was rated more due to the exhaust.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I already have a 5.9L Magnum and a 5.2L Magnum that are both ready to run. I just always thought the R/T engines had more output.
HHHHmmmm.....should I spend $700.00 on getting my stock heads ported, buy the Moper Performance R/T heads for around $800.00, or spend the extra $1,150.00 and get the Edelbrocks? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
If you have a 5.9, get the Edelbrock heads for it. Save 80 lbs. and you can zero deck the pistons to get the compression ratio to about 10:1. With the aluminum heads, you will be able to run pump gas(probably regular) and it will help your gas mileage quite a bit. I like Diamond Racing forged pistons, but there are lots of choices out there. If you want real ring life, go with moly-coated gapless rings. Finally, call Dale at Hughes Engines.com, tell him what you want to do, and he can tell you the best way to do it. Throttle body, cam and flash(if needed), JBA headers, and you can be looking at over 300 HP with ease. Did you know you can build a 426cid stroker from a 5.9??? Not cheap, but makes power and torque like a real "elephant" Hemi.
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I know the possabilities, however I don't really have much of a budget and in order to buy the edelbrocks I will probably have to sell off some of my other goodies...
We'll see I just want to get this thing operational. I am tired of having it just sitting around. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The edelbrock magnum head has a smaller chamber than the factory head. With zero deck pistons you will be over 11:1 compression.
I have 10.6:1 compression with 64cc factory magnum heads and zero deck pistons. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
^^^ your picture does not work.
Thanks for all your help! I picked up a set of Mopar Performance R/T heads that are brand new never been run with stainless steel valves for $580.00 shipped. I really wanted the Edelbrocks, however with my budget, the remaining $600.00 could get the rest of my car together! I'll have to live with the extra 65 lbs for a while. I had originally planned on purchased a set of remanufactured production Dakota/Durango R/T heads for $425.00 shipped, however the seller told me there was no R/T casted onto the head anywhere. We mutually agreed that these were not what I wanted, and a couple days later the real MP R/T's came my way. With the better valves, valve job, flowing roughly 30 cfm over factory Magnum heads, and being the real R/T's for only $150.00 more I thought was a pretty good deal. This is the first set of performance heads I have ever owned (or my father) so I am pretty excited. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
interesting comment on the pic, i can see it. did you try a refresh?? does anyone else have trouble seeing?? nice find on the heads you wanted! good luck on your project! mopar roll on......... |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
It's a bad link.
Perhaps it is on a site where one has to be a member (and signed in) to view? eBay, Yahoo photos... |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
how bout this
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
That works.
I just do not undertsand what does that have to do with the information I am looking for though? "differences between the 5.9L Magnum (1993-2002) and the 5.9L Magnum R/T (1998-2001)" It's cool though, from what everyone says and what the Mopar books say the R/T just had a better camshaft. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
just horsepower ratings for the diffrent engines
got this from hughs on some head flow specs and schtuff http://www.hughesengines.com/partDet...p?partID=11900 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I have been following those new HD Magnum casting heads for a while now. Once they become a little more mainstream/proven I'll order a set and have them prepped. That is if they are as good as they are claimed to be.
They are what I was about to order, however for the price I paid for these R/T's I couldn't go wrong. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
no you shouldnt good luck with it |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
There is another difference in the heads, 1996 intake valve was 1.88, exhaust 1.617. 2000 intake 1.92, exhaust 1.625. May be a little bit of flow and performance difference but the ratings never changed. Info from Mopar Street Truck P5007522.
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
The 300hp crate motor is referred to as a stock replacement for the 360 magnum in many of the mags. But clearly it produces more power than a stock motor.
Is it worth the time to rebuild a magnum or purchase a crate motor (390 hp) and detune the cam for a more docile motor for street use |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Year old thread.
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Rated differently due to net vs gross. the crates are checked at the crank, while the production is with all accessories bolted on at the rear of the trans. Also, teh 235 hp 92 5.2 mag versus the 220 in 94, was due to a tighter converter with a lower stall according to Gene Krozal, an engineer on the T-300 trucks I knew back in that era. The cams, comp, and heads were supposed to be the same, but he said the engines were identical. There was a change in emissions (something to do withthe exhaust) and the converter. :-) PCRmike
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The different rating due to gross vs. net is correct but I respectfully disagree with the fellow that told you the reason 94's were lower hp. They had smaller exhaust manifolds and a smaller diameter Y pipe is why they had lower hp ratings from everything I've read and seen. My 93 I bought new had 2.25" manifold outlets and Y pipe. The 94 and up had only 2" manifold outlets and Y-pipe. The 94-up had slightly better low end torque because of this but they suffered on the high end. I'm not a dyno guru but I don't think a torque converter can affect horsepower ratings unless it's slipping allot on the high end. I believe all things are factored in when doing a dyno test. Since they used lock up converters both yrs. they should be the same. Also if a tighter converter did affect it the numbers should be higher not lower due to less slippage. My 93 didn't stall much at all. Even after I did quite a few modifications it only stalled to about 1500 rpm and the engine was real torquey. I can't imagine one stalling less. To give you an idea of how torquey it was it ran a 14.46 at 94 mph even with the stock converter and a 3.55 peg leg rearend. I believe it would have gone 14.20's if I had a sure grip in it to reduce wheel spin. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
5.9 Mag vs 5.9 Mag R/T
I have a 2003 Dak R/T Ext Cab w/5.9 Mag. I assume that the heads would be the R/T heads. In looking at the Mopar Perforance picture book the R/T casted in the heads is in a spot where you can not see the casting since the exhaust manifold hides the casting. So, I can not say that mine has the R/T heads or not at this point since I have not unbolted the E manifold to take a look. Will the VIN tell the truth. Will the real R/T head stand up ????? My VIP Summary Sheet from Chrysler reflects that my R/T was built late in the production cycle on April 14, 2003 at 10am, a Monday, and sold from the dealer in CT on December 31, 2003. The engine code is: EML-5.9L V8 MPI, DGT - 4spd Auto 46RE Trans. Other R/T stuff: front sway bar & HD rear sway bar, HD front/rear shocks, Sport suspension, Aux Trans Oil Cooler and HD Rad Cooler, Power steering cooler, HD springs front and rear. 3.92 Limited Slip. Soooooooooooo, does it have an R/T headed 5.9 or not. Is 250 HP rated. Tazmanbob
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Ran |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
This is correct. The R/T trucks had the very same head as all other 360 engines.
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Racintracy, I agree according to all I had ever been taught as well. I had about a threehour talk with him on a few topics, but I remembered he said they changed the exhaust (like the manis and y pipe you mentioned) and the convertor, though that may not be how it affected it. I wondered also about that, as I thought they tested like with a stick shift or something. I wasn;t certain. Thank you for your respectful correction. :-) PCRMike
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Differences | Shatto | MOPAR NASCAR! | 8 | 02-19-2008 08:38 PM |
8 3/4 Differences? | PaulCampbell | Restoring your MoPar (Tricks & techniques) | 5 | 10-28-2002 03:47 PM |
What are differences between the 360 "A" and 360 "Magnum" engines? | Tool | Performance Talk | 2 | 06-17-2002 06:50 PM |
PCM differences | 01SilverOffRoad | Ram Truck Chat | 14 | 09-02-2001 10:40 PM |
differences between the 318 and the 340? | Sport340 | Performance Talk | 7 | 04-19-2001 11:13 PM |