In the process of freshening up the mag 360 in our '02 Dakota I came across some interesting differences between the Dakota/Durango line-up and the Ram/Jeeps, and expanding on much of the information I found here in Moparts I thought a fresh thread with lots of pics wouldn't hurt for anyone else looking to upgrade their Magnum engines.

With our Dakota being built for real off-roading, I wasn't overly thrilled with the OE Dakota (and Durango) oil pan - instead of having a nice big deep sump to contain all the oil they instead have a smallish sump combined with a 'deep' middle section, which combined 'contain' the 5 quarts of oil. Strange concept but I guess it works if the engine is 'flat n level'.....but of course for me and everyone else that take their magnum engines off-road and experience fairly steep downhill angles...well that's no bueno. On any sort of downhill descent the majority of the oil would rush right towards the front, leaving the pickup tube nearly exposed almost immediately - not awesome. I don't remember it being a problem when I wheeled the truck before the buildup and others have not indicated there being a problem either, but, still, as I was pondering this 'issue' I naturally started checking around for an 'off-road' magnum 360 oil pan, and discovered something interesting.

First off, turns out the oil pans for the magnum 318 and 360 share the same 'fitment' and bolt pattern - meaning the bolt pattern up to the block(s) and the front/rear timing chain cover(s) and rear main(s) are all the same 'size' - essentially using the same oil pan from the 318 to the 360, which is not true for the LA-series engines (360 is its own animal). I also discovered that...while the Dakotas and Durangos (with a mag 318/360) share the same oil pan...the Rams and Jeeps with the 318/360 mags use a different oil pan...with a way better sump. Huh, that's cool- wait!

See, lately I've been looking for a running magnum 318 for eventual awesomeness under the hood of our 71 Demon, and I recently found/procured one still inside a derelict but complete 94 Grand Cherokee parts Jeep for the wife's own 94 GC off-road toy. When I discovered the Jeep pans were the same as the Ram pans with their nice big deep oil sump I quickly ran out to peek under the Jeep and hot diggity damn - there it is! (insert happy dance!).

Since the Jeep is going to get a car pan (LA 360) I rapidly unbolted the Jeep's pan, hit it with some cleaner and the pressure washer, and brought it into the shop for 'comparison and analysis'. This is what I found -

This pretty well sums up the differences between the Dakota/Durango vs Ram/Jeep Magnum v8 oil pans - note the 'depth' of the Dakota pan vs the Ram pan - this additional depth is 'part' of the overall oil sump -









Pulling it out of the Jeep - nose-to-nose with it's bigger and much more intimidating brother -



With the pans side-by-side, I wanted to 'see' where 5 quarts (of water) came up to in both pans -



Dakota pan, with the oil level marked on the outside (strange design) -





Ram/Jeep pan -



In order to use the other pan the respective pick up tube must also be used, but the Dakota/Durango dipstick and tube can be retained if you scribe a new 'full' mark on the dipstick -

Pt 2:



So - Ram/Jeep pan for me. But not to be outdone, I fabbed up a nice baffle and had Wayne TIG it in place all the way around - no leaks. Now, with 5 quarts in the pan, tipping it forward retains about 75% of the oil in the sump vs over half of it rushing towards the front - even if I shut it off and park it for an hour, meaning less potential for air getting into the oil system, which is way more awesomer 👍. I used a bore scope to peek through the drain plug to see how much room there was between the pickup tube and baffle, and the baffle is as close as I deemed appropriate.

All cleaned up after a few days soaking in the tank at my machine shop, and a final clean with a scotch pad and WD-40, then rinse with brake cleaner -







Filled with 5 quarts of water - just at the baffle line -



and finally bolted on -

Nice post, thanks. I'm in process of building a 318 to replace 3.9 in my 03 Dakota. Good pictures and info. Oil control is the best thing you can manage for engine longevity. Like your baffle too.

One other thing on the truck pan is the 318 pan has no baffle but the 360 pan has one, both with small-thin rear sumps, why who knows? I’m using the 360 pan (with baffle) on my 340 for racing but the tie rod gets close when turning.

Not to hi-jack your thread, but noticed the flat engine mount holes on your Magnum, and reminded me of a swap issue I had a few weeks ago. Took a 360 Magnum out of a 2000 Durango, to replace blown up one in a 2003 ram 1500, Durango block did not have all the holes needed to use with the Ram mounts. Had to do some modifying of Ram mount. Had not run into this before. FYI. Jim

yah the 360 pan that was on my engine has a baffle - I kind of copied it for the new setup. I'll be using an LA 360 pan for the 318 mag I'm also working on...

Great write up and info. Thanks

Is it possible to baffle the rear to keep oil in place when climbing? It would suck to have an incline show you how badly a rear main seal can leak.

well...either the rear main is good or not good, but either way a rear baffle wouldn't be necessary for keeping oil in the sump 'cause gravity's gonna do all the work

I was thinking high climb angles like trying to bounce up over some steps or doing a hill climb where you give it the beans.

...I think you're talking about something that functions like a windage tray...but for the back of the pan? On the up-hill climbs all the oil will be already heading towards/into the sump, and having an 'anti-splash' baffle wouldn't really help, and with the baffle I already have in it having a rear baffle might actually hinder the rapid flow of oil back into the sump. My main goal was to prevent (as much as possible) the pickup tube from sucking air, and the front baffle is the biggest means towards that. Interesting thoughts tho