Truck Project in the Future
#1969968
12/15/15 02:30 AM
12/15/15 02:30 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,375 SoCal
MuuMuu101
OP
I got lucky at Woodward!
|
OP
I got lucky at Woodward!
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,375
SoCal
|
So, I'm thinking 6 months down the line after I get my Dart back and the gremlins sorted. I'm kind of looking for a truck I could either enjoy or tinker on. The truck will not be used as a daily driver, but it must be able to tow an open trailer with a car and haul parts on occasion. When it's not towing, I'd like it to either be a relaxing cruiser (nothing special horsepower wise) or a part-time off-road rig (mud and sand kind of stuff) as I sort of miss the Baja days. I'd prefer it to be a Mopar that can be bought on the cheaper side (less than $5k).
I have two options I was thinking of. Either going with an '81-'94 Ramcharger/D150/W150 or a '75 and older Ramcharger/D100/W100.
So, the pros that I can think of with the '81-'94 vehicles is that they're newer. Parts are abundant in parts stores and junkyards. The Magnum engines are going to output a lot more than the older 318/360's. Fuel injection! Should be safer due to safety regulations. Ramcharger comes with 4-wheel discs. The cons I see with them are that I don't necessarily like the looks of them compared to the older trucks and they have to be smogged. If they fail smog, it could mean big bucks to repair which may not be worth it on a cheap truck.
The pros that I can think of with the '75 and older vehicles are that there is absolutely no smog (huge benefit - no semi-annual inspection and free reign on engine swaps). If I get a small block (318/360) I can throw on my spare Paxton supercharger. If it's an LA engine, I can have a smaller inventory of small block parts as my Dart will have a 408. I like the looks a lot better than the newer vehicles. Besides that, the cons are more along the lines of safety and availability of parts. I am a big advocate of disc brakes and I believe they didn't become standard on trucks till about '73?
Either way, both sets of trucks can be had for less than $5k. I don't really care if it looks pristine or is a beater. What are your thoughts? Any other options?
|
|
|
Re: Truck Project in the Future
[Re: MuuMuu101]
#1970233
12/15/15 03:29 PM
12/15/15 03:29 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,703 Des Moines IA
Soopernaut
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,703
Des Moines IA
|
Perhaps you mean 81-93? 94 was a completely new body style. Most of these did not have Magnum engines or fuel injection. See WO23Coronet's post on when the Magnums came out. The LA engines had TBI fuel injection in 88/89 (318/360). I'm not aware of any Ramcharger having rear discs either.
4WD trucks didn't have disc brakes on the front until 1975, except I think the Ramcharger had them in 74. The 75-79 trucks were full time 4WD and the front axle is the least desirable axle of all generations of Dodge trucks. The 2WD trucks had discs standard in 73 but optional in 72.
1970 Dodge d100/eventually going on a 77 D100 frame
|
|
|
Re: Truck Project in the Future
[Re: MuuMuu101]
#1970669
12/16/15 02:07 AM
12/16/15 02:07 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,982 ID/MT
Cheeto
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,982
ID/MT
|
... Ramcharger comes with 4-wheel discs.... Nope. Regardless of what KBB or Edmunds says. You could get by with a shortbox if: 1) You're not towing often/far/fast/heavy. 2) You drive well in advance of your actual position on the road. 3) You ensure you have working trailer brakes. Otherwise I agree with what everybody else suggested. If you want to bump up your budget a bit I know where there's a tricked out '78 shortbox 2wd with zero emissions equipt. from the factory available.
Cheeto It's not perfect. It's not correct. It's not yours!
|
|
|
Re: Truck Project in the Future
[Re: MuuMuu101]
#1970817
12/16/15 01:33 PM
12/16/15 01:33 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,375 SoCal
MuuMuu101
OP
I got lucky at Woodward!
|
OP
I got lucky at Woodward!
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,375
SoCal
|
So, now where I'm getting to is buy a '73-75 3/4 ton long bed or extended cab for cruising and towing and find an alternative, budget friendly off-roading rig.
For towing, would 4WD prove to be significantly more beneficial than 2WD? Aka, is it really worth looking for a W series truck over a D series?
Last edited by MuuMuu101; 12/16/15 01:40 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Truck Project in the Future
[Re: poorboy]
#1971295
12/17/15 02:52 AM
12/17/15 02:52 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,375 SoCal
MuuMuu101
OP
I got lucky at Woodward!
|
OP
I got lucky at Woodward!
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,375
SoCal
|
Unless you need (or want) the 4x4, it will have little positive effect on towing, 4x4 slightly decreases MPG (which will be in the 10-12 mpg range anyway), and adds more drive train upkeep.
I think I would give some thought to how much towing you will actually be doing with the truck as well. 3/4 tons are more expensive for up keep then a similarly equipped 1/2 ton (tires, brakes and suspension parts all cost more for a 3/4 ton then for a 1/2 ton). An extra spring (or 2) in the rear spring packs will make a standard issue long box or extended cab short box 1/2 ton truck into a great tow rig if the trailer has he proper brakes and if your really going to be towing once a month or less. Gene It's not going to do much towing. If anything, no more than probably 100-200 miles round trip once a month or so unless I start getting more into my racing. But I wouldn't mind a decent 2WD truck that I could cruise around town while my Dart is being worked on.
|
|
|
Re: Truck Project in the Future
[Re: MuuMuu101]
#1971750
12/17/15 10:14 PM
12/17/15 10:14 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,375 SoCal
MuuMuu101
OP
I got lucky at Woodward!
|
OP
I got lucky at Woodward!
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,375
SoCal
|
|
|
|
Re: Truck Project in the Future
[Re: MuuMuu101]
#1971779
12/17/15 10:47 PM
12/17/15 10:47 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,074 Manitoba Canada
67autocross
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,074
Manitoba Canada
|
I would take the 73 crew cab out of those choices, but if you are going to be towing long distance I would get something newer say mid 90's and up. Those old trucks are a lot more fatiguing to drive long distances than something modern.
A new iron curtain drawn across the 49th parallel
|
|
|
Re: Truck Project in the Future
[Re: MuuMuu101]
#1972165
12/18/15 02:33 PM
12/18/15 02:33 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,953 Freeport IL USA
poorboy
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,953
Freeport IL USA
|
He was looking for a larger pickup truck, old enough to be emission test exempt. The vans do not fit within either request, and the diesel is out of the given price range. If he is expanding the request perimeters....
I've had great luck with my 93 Dakota, and it has pulled a car trailer. Older Dakota's, around here, are getting pretty cheap as well. Any V8 Dakota that is not the short box, standard cab would tow a trailer great, and the gas mileage is up a couple mpg more then the full size trucks, until you get into the 2000 model year and newer Dakotas.
But, I don't have to meet emission tests, and I don't have to get it tested every year either.
Is the emission test exception based on the vehicle being so many years old (like anything over 30 years old does not have to be tested), or is it locked at a specific model year (must be a 1980 model year or older)? Gene
|
|
|
|
|