I didn't realize just how much I hauled stuff until I traded off my Caravan several weeks ago.

Been thinking about getting a full size van this time.

I keep coming across old fleet vans with the V6. This one is ideally what I'm looking for.



No plans to modify, just need a dependable parts runner, around town bomber.

I know its basically a 5.2 with two cylinder lopped off, but, any issues specifically with the V6?

Thanks!

timing chain rattle..... but it will only do it forever. Usually equipped with the small 42RE trans. Put a cooler on it. Timing covers rot because nobody ever seems to service cooling systems....

My sister had a '96 B2500 3.9 w/ 32RH trans she handed off to her son. VERY reliable, runs strong for the size engine. Fuel ending unit, PCM, catcon all replaced. Mileage isn't much if any better than the V8's.

Robert

Several of the 1990's vans I've seen still had the 3 speed automatic transmission.

I've never driven a V6 van, but I was not impressed with the performance of a V6 Dakota. That truck did not feel like it was putting out anywhere near the factory rated horsepower.

my '88 D100 had one with a 5 speed. It ran great. only reason I pulled it was the 5 speed went bad and i had a warmed over 328/904 I wanted to swap. great milage with the V6.

For reliability... It's hard to beat

But: fuel mileage of a V8 with the power of a 4-cylinder.

Not a good combo

Had a guy at work with one in a van almost like that.Last time I worked on it it had almost 450K on it.Motor was never apart.It did have a new trans.He drove east to buy antiques and ran thru the mountains etc.Never had a problem except the rattles and squeaks from a 400K van.Rocky

"But: fuel mileage of a V8 with the power of a 4-cylinder."

Hmmmm......so I'll be going to a bigger version of my old Caravan (16MPG average in town with a whopping 90HP)

I guess the old cargo vans are a little bit in demand? Around here, Cargos that aren't beat to death with less than 150K miles are usually in the $3K range, yet, old conversion vans go for about half that.

Thanks for the replies.

For whatever reason it seemed to me the that the 3.9 Mag powered b-vans seemed to run pretty well. Some I have driven were almost impressive. Way better than in a Dak or a fullsize p/u. They are as tough as nails though. Had one in a 93 Dak 4x4. No power and 13 mpg. I then swapped in a 5.9 and had lots of power and still 13 mpg. Go figure.

I have a pre-Magnum 3.9 and a magnum 3.9, but they are not in B vans. The 93 (Magnum), auto, 4x4 Dakota gets 13 around town, close to 17 on the highway, and has some get up and go, unless its loaded. The 93 has 150k + miles on it, never been apart, I'm the 2nd owner.
The other was originally in a 90 (non-magnum) 2x4 Dakota that is now under the shell of my 48 Plymouth coupe. It has the 5 speed. This poor drive train was heavily abused before it came to me, and hasn't been babied while its been here either. At one point in its life, the motor was filled with rain water (stupid me), the motor has not been apart, and at 140K, its showing its age. The 3.9 5 speed gets around 17 mpg around town, and consistently 20+ mpg on the road, even in its sad condition,and that's usually driven above the speed limit. Both vehicles have 235 x 75 R15 tires, and both have 3:55 rear gears, the 5 speed has a limited slip.
The 3.9 in my coupe will probably be replaced this winter with another non-Magnum 3.9.

The Dakota 4x4 replaced an 80 W150 4x4 with a 360. The W150 got 8 mpg everyday, so the step up to 13 everyday was a huge improvement. The few times I really load the Dakota, I'm reminded it isn't the W150, but I'll take the better gas mileage over the load capacity considering how seldom I load it up. If I intended to load up the truck everyday, I would probably not be happy with the V6, but then I probably wouldn't have even bought a Dakota. Gene