5.2/5.9 Durangos, any year more reliable than others?

Im looking around my area in tacoma for a durango. I would like the space, Ive owned a magnum truck so I have some familiarity with the engine, and of course tech support here. I drove a 5.9 a few years ago and I really liked it. Gas mileage is not a concern for me.

I have a limited budget, $2100, but here in Tacoma that can get you quite a bit from the right seller. So, Im mainly looking for a 5.9, but would settle for a 5.2 if the vehicle was to good to pass up.

Is there any significant differences between the years of 1997-2003? I know the 318 was replaced in 2000.. but Im talking more about reliability/longevity/changes of trans, motor, electrical, suspension over the years.

I believe the earlier 318's had a bit warmer cam as original but no significant differences that I know of. I had a 5.9 Durango and really liked it. Room for the family and enough grunt to tow an open car trailer without issue.

I went and looked at a 98 5.9 4x4 today. It was really nice inside and out. Comfy, and accelerated strong and smooth. But, the idle seemed to be a little random where it would stay. sometimes 1100 for about 15 seconds, then down to around 700 for 20 seconds, then 850 for 12 seconds, etc etc. That itself wasnt what put me off of buying it, it was when I tried the 4wd. It wouldnt stay in 4x4. I dont know enough about transfer cases to know if it was a small easy fix or a bigger more expensive fix.

Could be the bushings in the 4x4 linkage. Nasty habit of coming apart and letting the linkage fall out. The one you looked at may have then worn enough that it won't go all the way in (not saying that is definitely the problem ) but something you can check easily if you don't mind crawling under the 'rango.
Idle could be the idle air control needs cleaning.
In the middle of swapping my '00 Durango 5.9 4x4 over to a 5 speed. I've been picking at it for almost a month now but every time I start on it, the skies open up. Thought I would get the trans out this morning but the bottom fell out as I was about to take out the last bellhousing bolt. (Working outside.)


Tim

It is hard to tell the difference in a well running 5.2 vs 5.9, in the real world they are very close in power unless one is real sacked out. I worked at a dodge dealer when they were new and I would always try to guess witch one was under the hood before looking and you couldn't really tell. The 5.2 had a flat top piston that would promote better combustion flame travel, more compression and a better cam (shorter duration higher lift).

The 5.2 often came with a 44RE instead of the 46RE that gave it a better 1st gear and 2nd gear ratios and less drag from the heavy parts and for some reason the smaller trans doesn't seem plauged by the same problems the 46RE had.

If I had 2 identicle rigs to pick from except the drivetrain I would pick a 5.2/44RE combo over a 5.9/46RE combo. It is just as quick (maybe quicker) and better on fuel.

The one biggie now that throws it all out the window is how well the rig has been cared for over the last nearly 20 years. I am not talking miles as that is a bogus way to judge a vehicles worth but how it was driven and maintained. Some people completly trash a vehicle in 50,000 miles while others will take good care of the same kind of car and have a car that rides, dirves, works like new with 300,000.

1998-2000 are pretty much the same rig, 2001 they got a little different interior, little easier to work on things like heater core and air doors but a little more likely to have issues than the older ones, pick your poison. Avoid the dual zone HVAC (became an option in 2001) if they are otherwise equal rigs but again there are bigger things to worry about in the big picture.

00 or 01 the 4x4 went from a steering gear box to a rack and pinion. I never seen much trouble from either but the R&P steers maybe a tiny bit better but think big picture.

The rear HVAC can be a pain, big long lines run to the back that like to leak as well as more moving parts that break ocasionally in the rear unit.

2003 and maybe 2002 got rear discs but the rear drums never bothered me.

Around 01 it seems they did away with the 15 inch wheels and went to 16" but they all seem interchangable, the R/T was full time 4wd and got 17" wheels and 3.92 gears and limited slip rear diff. I would try to avoid the 3.92 gears (most came with 3.55s) unless you just need a little more gidyup as it does take small MPG hit. I have seen a couple non R/T with full time 4wd, I would avoid it personally as it is another MPG hit that is not needed and you can feel the extra drag from it, the one we converted was a lot less heavy feeling after the swap to 2wd option.

Didn't the AWD (full Tim 4wd) versions come with an 8.25" diff as well and the conventional 4wd ones had 9.25"?

Not sure, my 98 has the 9.25 & towing package.....

The awd ones suck fuel like no other..

Ed

Out of 6 durangoes I currently have the only full time 4wd I have is an 02 RT and it has an 8.25. The one I converted for a friend had a 9.25 with a 4.7, I think his was a 2000