Re: no love for the truck V10
[Re: momopar]
#2132753
08/14/16 05:01 PM
08/14/16 05:01 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,686 Buford, GA
I_bleed_MOPAR
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,686
Buford, GA
|
Loved my '03 QC sb 2wd. Towed my 5th wheel just as well as my CTD does. Only problem is the CTD gets better fuel mileage towing the 5er than the V10 did empty.
'71 Charger 383/727 '17 Challenger SXT (Wifeys car )
|
|
|
Re: no love for the truck V10
[Re: momopar]
#2133192
08/15/16 01:28 AM
08/15/16 01:28 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,034 Salem
Grizzly
Moparts Proctologist
|
Moparts Proctologist
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,034
Salem
|
Boost has been done Momopar, there is a video on Youtube of a guy that put a turbo V10 in a First Gen.
Poor quality video but you sure get the idea. Even 4 or 6 pounds to stay on the safe side would get the torque to 600.
Mo' Farts
Moderated by "tbagger".
|
|
|
Re: no love for the truck V10
[Re: momopar]
#2133742
08/15/16 07:09 PM
08/15/16 07:09 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 407 NE Indiana
momopar
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 407
NE Indiana
|
YUP!
I use the proper plug.
Tried Bosch NGK and Autolite and the Champions do best.
I looked into an SCT. he wasn't real perceptive on a 6000 RPM limit?
YIKES!
The old dawg will do 120+ now hitting the 4800 rev limiter,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,in fourth!
|
|
|
Re: no love for the truck V10
[Re: momopar]
#2135661
08/18/16 07:08 AM
08/18/16 07:08 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,308 A Red State
SNK-EYZ
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,308
A Red State
|
We just finished a 1600+ mile trip pulling my 28 foot enclosed car trailer with my V-10 1999 Ram 2500. The truck pulled great, the 8 mpg kinda sucked.
Kayse can't keep up at all now. lol
|
|
|
Re: no love for the truck V10
[Re: SNK-EYZ]
#2138358
08/22/16 03:14 AM
08/22/16 03:14 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,668 Mi,U.S.A.
mike s
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mi,U.S.A.
|
Originally the 8.0L made 350 hp / 450 ft lbs of torque.Same parts as engine was built with.Production was 300 hp/415 lbs ft IIRC. Cal was changed to satisfy the trans group.Pulled the advance out of the cal (good-bye mileage). Later a dual throttle body version was tested but not built (350 hp/500 ft lbs of torque). Mopar Perf claimed a fifty or more hp gain with a cam they listed in the MP catalog for a while.
Engine had an issue with oil drain back (cyl hd design issue) and crank windage. Above 4400 the engine badly needed a different (deeper) oil pan with a tray as stock pan was very close to crank.Serious oil pressure problems killed the hp (peak hp was @ 4800) version. It was on schd for 2004. Powers to be decided it wasn't needed as the 5.7L was ready.
Leave the gun.......take the Cannoli's....Mike
|
|
|
Re: no love for the truck V10
[Re: momopar]
#2147311
09/04/16 02:21 PM
09/04/16 02:21 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 407 NE Indiana
momopar
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 407
NE Indiana
|
I might have to shoot him another email.
He has some tunes for the iron v10 and also has an all out one he made up for a puller.
I started talkin' turbo/e85 and he thought I would be better served with a "local" Guy (gal).
Straight up dude, can't blame him,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Only,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
There is NO one local?
|
|
|
Re: no love for the truck V10
[Re: momopar]
#2147543
09/04/16 08:45 PM
09/04/16 08:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,787 541 slobovia
A990
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,787
541 slobovia
|
"Necessity is the Mother of all inventions"?
Talked to the best SCT guy out there and he seemed pretty cold at the whole Idea?
I have read the Mopar ECM raised the rev limiter? (but also bumped timing requiring premium)
Been looking on the bag and only find stock ones?
Mine is a stick and always ran alot better than my buds auto of the same year? He always thought my ECM was tuned better? Probably not, just no torque control needed with the stick ECM. The 5.9 PCMs always disabled the limiter, and required premium. I'd imagine the V-10 ones did too. "Pulled the advance out of the cal (good-bye mileage)."Later it was done for some reason on the V-8s. The Dakota RT community trembled at the thought of "the death flash"
|
|
|
Re: no love for the truck V10
[Re: A990]
#2147984
09/05/16 01:55 PM
09/05/16 01:55 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 407 NE Indiana
momopar
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 407
NE Indiana
|
All this V10 talk made me dig out the Magnum book. The firing order is r-l-r-l-r-l-r-l-r-l which would require a flat plane crank for a V-8. Sure would suck to replace the oil pump though.
Wonder how hard a PCM would be to find, and there were headers and catback exhaust packages.
Anyone willing to make a cam? Maybe start with a Viper blank for a custom grind?
Pretty cool torque motors, no wonder the farmer was puzzled by the 3.55 choice. My Dad figured 4.10s in a work truck was for city slickers and dude ranchers, lol. YUP your Dad and ole Dell would really snicker at the effective gear with 33s on her now. figures out to 3.23. Gotta admit you can feel her labor a little stop and go with the new meats, but she sings right along on the interstates. Running 75 (by the speedo a bit over 2000) she doesn't get passed often? If you ever drove through NE Indiana NW Ohio you would know there is not even a 100 foot elevation change in 100 miles! If hills are encountered the old torque is a plenty in 4th gear. (even with an effective 3.23:1)
Last edited by momopar; 09/05/16 02:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
|