Dakota exhaust manifolds in an A-bdy?
#1489188
08/22/13 10:04 PM
08/22/13 10:04 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 234 SW FL
dodgedartgt
OP
enthusiast
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 234
SW FL
|
I seem to recall, a few years back, that someone was trying to, or had installed, a set of the '92/93 Dakota exhaust manifolds in an A-bdy. Purportedly, these manifolds flow better than the '68-70 340 Magnum manifolds. Does anyone have any information on this mod?
With the rear dump, I know there are going to be fitment issues, but I sure don't want to keep the original 273 driver's side manifold on my ride.
On a similar topic, when a buddy was finishing his 73' 340 Cuda, he couldn't find an affordable driver's side manifold. He was working in the parts department of a Dodge / Jeep dealer at the time. He ended up using the manifold from (I believe) a Magnum powered Cherokee. Brand new and cheap, well under $70 at the time.
Thnx, Mike in FL
Thnx, Mike in FL
|
|
|
Re: Dakota exhaust manifolds in an A-bdy?
[Re: dodgedartgt]
#1489189
08/23/13 12:16 AM
08/23/13 12:16 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
|
The Jeep manifolds occupy the same area as the starter on a mopar, the jeep V8 starters were on the wrong side.
I had a set of the early large port 1992 magnums on my 68 cuda and there were no fitment issues, columb shift auto manual steering/brakes.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: Dakota exhaust manifolds in an A-bdy?
[Re: 360view]
#1489196
08/23/13 09:35 AM
08/23/13 09:35 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162 USA
360view
Moparts resident spammer
|
Moparts resident spammer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
|
When the 1992 Ram pickup Magnum 5.2 V8 engine came out, the official Dodge Press Release of the new engine design features called these exhaust manifolds 'balanced flow' so at least some effort was made to even out and match the exhaust capacity of each cylinder, perhaps to get the air to fuel ratio balance right for emissions purposes.
In 1994 the internal passages were made smaller than the 1992-1993 outlet of 2.125 inches, perhaps to increase backpressure and internal EGR, or perhaps get more exhaust gas to flow up the tube when the EGR valve called for it, either would slightly decrease NOx pollution, which got a tougher and lower standard in 1994. It is also possible the backpressure was increased as a way to get a cold engine up to operating temperature quicker, as the cold engine start EPA test is the hardest section for automakers.
Max SAE HP on the 1994 Magnum 5.2 declined by 10 HP from 230 to 220, although other engine specs such as retarded ignition timing, richer full throttle air fuel ratio for cat overheat prevention, or a different catalytic converter flow rating, could have equally or in combination caused the horsepower decline. At the same time as the max HP dropped in 1994, the Magnum 5.2 V8 peak torque increased from 1992's 280 ft-lbs to 295 in Dakotas and 300 in Rams.
In 1996 with the first year of OBD-II the EGR valve system was eliminated, a new and better "Three Way Catalytic Converter" with more NOx reducing ability was fitted, and a year later on the Indy model Rams a less restricted exhaust led to a 15 HP SAE advertised gain on the Magnum 5.9V8 ... but the exhaust manifold internal passages were not enlarged back to 1992-1993 size, nor were they as far as i know in later years up to 2003.
This brings up the possibility that the exhaust manifold were changed to get thicker cast iron walls more resistant to cracking, especially at the flanges, but I have never read a post by any 1992-1993 truck owner complaining of cracking on either side, but maybe it was cracking (or core shift) on manifolds at the iron foundry leading to an unacceptably high casting reject rate.
|
|
|
|
|