Posted By: theraif
whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/05/13 04:20 AM
going to be looking here in a few months whats a good year 1995-2000?
whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block)
Posted By: 69L78Nova
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/05/13 04:40 AM
Good for what? A block is a block, especially once you get into the Magnum stuff like what youre talking about
Posted By: theraif
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/05/13 04:52 AM
the only thing i know about Magnum stuff the heads are different from a LA, so you are saying that all the years have the same compression ratio and ones from lets say a 3500 truck is the same as a durango. what i am looking to do is pull the heads do a little work a bigger cam a m1 intake
Posted By: 70Cuda383
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/05/13 05:22 AM
there may have been some minor changes from the OBD-I to the OBD-II model years, but yes, in the same year, a 5.9 out of a Dakota R/T is the same exact motor as a 4x4 Jeep as a 3500 Ram pick-up.
same block, crank, rods, pistons, cam, intake, heads, etc. you will see that some vehicles have higher Hp ratings, but that's because of muffler changes, such as on the Dakota R/T that was listed at 5 hp more than other equivilent vehicles.
the stock long block is good for about 400 crank hp with just a cam, intake, and exhaust change.
same block, crank, rods, pistons, cam, intake, heads, etc. you will see that some vehicles have higher Hp ratings, but that's because of muffler changes, such as on the Dakota R/T that was listed at 5 hp more than other equivilent vehicles.
the stock long block is good for about 400 crank hp with just a cam, intake, and exhaust change.
Posted By: HotRodDave
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/05/13 07:16 AM
A lot of confusion over the R/Ts... When the R/T came out it got a better cam, in 2000 all 5.9s got the same cam, I have measured a bunch of them and have found that 100% accurate so both the people who say the R/T got the same cam and people who say they got different cams are correct. 318 heads seem to hold up a lot better than 5.9 heads, could be better QC at the factory they were made in or it could be that the 5.9 got death flashes that allowed the burning exhaust to burn the seats and valves or the lower compression doing the same thing. 92 and 93 magnums had the best ex. manifolds. Somewhere in the early 2000s they all got a much better Y pipe.
Posted By: Pale_Roader
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/19/13 12:56 PM
Quote:
the stock long block is good for about 400 crank hp with just a cam, intake, and exhaust change.
Really...??? I know they're very underrated, but that much?
How much cam are we talking to make that? (I'm assuming an RPM intake/proper carb and full longtubes/GOOD exhaust).
I am THIS close to selling my big block parts for the Challenger and looking for a drop-in 318 or 360 Magnum.
Posted By: 70Cuda383
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/19/13 02:45 PM
Quote:Quote:
the stock long block is good for about 400 crank hp with just a cam, intake, and exhaust change.
Really...??? I know they're very underrated, but that much?
How much cam are we talking to make that? (I'm assuming an RPM intake/proper carb and full longtubes/GOOD exhaust).
I am THIS close to selling my big block parts for the Challenger and looking for a drop-in 318 or 360 Magnum.
whatever the cam specs were in the 380hp crate motors... Mopar muscle put the 380 crate on the dyno and made like 408 crank hp. I'm thinking it was up around 230° @ .050, 110 LSA? maybe someone else can say exactly what the specs were on those crate motors. the heads as cast flow in the 200 CFM range, which is good for 400 hp if you get a cam that uses all that CFM. but, like I said, the stock intake isn't going to be making 400 hp, because it's all used up by 3800 rpm.
Posted By: dogdays
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/20/13 02:15 AM
I agree with the big guy. Heck, a 360 will do 400 hp with cam, intake and exhaust swap, and the 5.9 has much better combustion chambers and exhaust flow.
R.
R.
Posted By: racealittle
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/20/13 03:25 AM
Quote:
I agree with the big guy. Heck, a 360 will do 400 hp with cam, intake and exhaust swap, and the 5.9 has much better combustion chambers and exhaust flow.
R.
So you are saying that the low compression, 50,000 mile 1974 360 truck engine I have, could turn into a little beast with the right cam, the air gap eddy intake, and the cnc ported eddy heads (61 cc chambers, 292 cfm at .600 intake, 211.5 cfm exhaust), and good headers. I was considering the '70-71 highfow exhaust manifolds with electric cutouts. Or a small turbo for those times when you want just a little more.
Posted By: DusterKrazy
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/20/13 04:20 AM
Quote:Quote:Quote:
the stock long block is good for about 400 crank hp with just a cam, intake, and exhaust change.
Really...??? I know they're very underrated, but that much?
How much cam are we talking to make that? (I'm assuming an RPM intake/proper carb and full longtubes/GOOD exhaust).
I am THIS close to selling my big block parts for the Challenger and looking for a drop-in 318 or 360 Magnum.
whatever the cam specs were in the 380hp crate motors... Mopar muscle put the 380 crate on the dyno and made like 408 crank hp. I'm thinking it was up around 230° @ .050, 110 LSA? maybe someone else can say exactly what the specs were on those crate motors. the heads as cast flow in the 200 CFM range, which is good for 400 hp if you get a cam that uses all that CFM. but, like I said, the stock intake isn't going to be making 400 hp, because it's all used up by 3800 rpm.
I agree 100%.
A local guy bought a 380 crate engine for his Cuda and using the recommended parts, a 750 Holley and headers- the engine tipped the dyno at 417hp
Posted By: BulletBob
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/20/13 08:07 AM
A stock one will make 300 easy with just a carb,intake & distributor
Posted By: cageman
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/20/13 08:12 AM
Is there any way to remove a death flash, buddy has a truck with it. My 95 318 will smoke his 96 360.
Posted By: BigDawg72
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/20/13 01:24 PM
Quote:
whatever the cam specs were in the 380hp crate motors... Mopar muscle put the 380 crate on the dyno and made like 408 crank hp. I'm thinking it was up around 230° @ .050, 110 LSA? maybe someone else can say exactly what the specs were on those crate motors. the heads as cast flow in the 200 CFM range, which is good for 400 hp if you get a cam that uses all that CFM. but, like I said, the stock intake isn't going to be making 400 hp, because it's all used up by 3800 rpm.
228/232 .501/.513 Don't remember LSA. I think this cam can support more HP than your typical stock magnum heads can flow so upgrading heads later would not necessarily mean upgrading the cam. I believe it was used on some of the higher HP bigger inch crate engines as well. I am happy with it in my junk!
Posted By: Pale_Roader
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/21/13 12:48 PM
I see Hughes has a new Whiplash cam for the 360 Magnum. Duration is in the 220's i think, lift over .500". That should about qualify, yes? Spendy though... $400. Compared to their other Magnum sticks anyways.
360 Magnum, RPM Air-Gap, Holley DP, Whiplash cam, long tube headers, 2.5" mandrel exhaust, stick, 3100lb car... Hmmmmm... . . .
Posted By: 360view
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/21/13 01:30 PM
One minor change i think was made in
1996 with the first year of OBD-11 was that the dish in the 5.9 piston crown was enlarged from about 11cc to about 14cc, and the piston to head clearance may have been increased a bit too, so the compression height or block deck height maching may have changed too.
The piston to block clearance of some of the 1994s seem to be in the range
0.50 to 0.59
while the after 1996 ones seem to be
0.70 to 0.80 inches
The 1995 Field Service Manual specification table
lists the static compression ratio for that year Magnum 5.9V8 as 9.1
In 1996 and beyond Chrysler advertised the Magnum 5.9 v8 as static compression ratio 8.9
OBD-1 had egr to help control NOx
Then this was dropped with OBD-11 in 1996
and it makes a little sense that they might have had to
drop compression a bit
with a changed cam and
a different catalytic converter as part of the emissions control.
Willem Weertman says in his book
"Chrysler Engines"
that the 1994-1995 iron block Truck V10
used the same eutectoid alloy cast aluminum pistons as the
1993-1995 Magnum V8 as a cost saving measure.
I have a set of 1994 pistons from a Magnum 5.9 that i measured
a compression height of 1.61 inches,
11 cc piston crown dish and
472 grams bare piston weight without rings or pin.
1996 with the first year of OBD-11 was that the dish in the 5.9 piston crown was enlarged from about 11cc to about 14cc, and the piston to head clearance may have been increased a bit too, so the compression height or block deck height maching may have changed too.
The piston to block clearance of some of the 1994s seem to be in the range
0.50 to 0.59
while the after 1996 ones seem to be
0.70 to 0.80 inches
The 1995 Field Service Manual specification table
lists the static compression ratio for that year Magnum 5.9V8 as 9.1
In 1996 and beyond Chrysler advertised the Magnum 5.9 v8 as static compression ratio 8.9
OBD-1 had egr to help control NOx
Then this was dropped with OBD-11 in 1996
and it makes a little sense that they might have had to
drop compression a bit
with a changed cam and
a different catalytic converter as part of the emissions control.
Willem Weertman says in his book
"Chrysler Engines"
that the 1994-1995 iron block Truck V10
used the same eutectoid alloy cast aluminum pistons as the
1993-1995 Magnum V8 as a cost saving measure.
I have a set of 1994 pistons from a Magnum 5.9 that i measured
a compression height of 1.61 inches,
11 cc piston crown dish and
472 grams bare piston weight without rings or pin.
Posted By: Evil Spirit
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/21/13 05:25 PM
The BEST 5.9 block for power is...
(Wait for it)
(Wait for it)
(Wait for it)
The BEST 5.9 BLOCK for power is A 5.9 CUMMINS.
(Wait for it)
(Wait for it)
(Wait for it)
The BEST 5.9 BLOCK for power is A 5.9 CUMMINS.
Posted By: 360view
Re: whats a good year for a 5.9 (non LA block) - 02/21/13 09:21 PM
What,
no credit for the turbo
or intercooler?
Cummins made a propane normally aspirated B block engine for schoolbuses.
It had the block,
but the power,
not so much.
no credit for the turbo
or intercooler?
Cummins made a propane normally aspirated B block engine for schoolbuses.
It had the block,
but the power,
not so much.