Ford reliability ?

[cumminsbayou4x4]

i ment 5.3 not 5.2 sorry and i mean chevy i no the 5.2 318 was a good motor my mom has the new one in her 99 durango it does ok takes alot of abuse and diffentilly alot of power still wish it was a 360 5.9 the best motor id say would be a slant 6 they are indsrutable they have the pafomance of a v8 but the toque of a inline 6 the 4.0 inline 6 in newer jeeps anit to good they have head problems and valve problems

 

[newrider3]

inline 6 the 4.0 inline 6 in newer jeeps anit to good they have head problems and valve problems

Tell that to all the Cherokee owners who run them for upwards of 300,000 miles.

 

[crazzywolfie]

those new 5.2 are lucky to to make it to 500,000km without the thing overheating and the heads cracking. the slant six was not really that powerful. a whole 95hp. i don't think you could really compare it to a 140hp-170hp v-8 of the same age.

 

[Doc Sprocket]

I just got rid of my 5.2 powered '99 Durango. Dead nuts reliable. Horrible on fuel, but dependable. The thing is, the 5.2 is nothing more than the good 'ol reliable 318 with a few modern appointments (EFI and the associated systems). While rather archaic compared to other engines of the era, the hardware was tried and true. When I first got it, I was amazed to see a single coil and an actual distributor on a computer-controlled engine (for 1999). By the same token, that simplistic approach to modernizing made my life easier. Only once did that engine quit on me. It didn't take me too long to figure it out AND- for troubleshooting and to go get a replacement coil (only $50!) I was able to splice in the coil from an old Ford Bronco 2.9l V6! Try THAT with the modern mumbo-jumbo!!!

 

[matman55]

Its amazing where this thread went just from a simple question.Theres also alot of good info contained in this thread.

 

[cumminsbayou4x4]

Tell that to all the Cherokee owners who run them for upwards of 300,000 miles.[/QUOTE] yeah when you put a new head on them they will run that long but lots of people have the head problem you can look them up they are common problems

 

[cumminsbayou4x4]

we are pretty happy with our 5.2 it gets like 14-15mpg which is really terrble my dads 5.9 360 in a 96 got 17 all the time it is really dumb to get a 5.2 in one cause a 5.9 was a opshion at the time and the 5.2 gets worse gas milige they cant tow as much to. did yours have the leaky oil gasket ours does you just got to cheake to see when it needs it

 

[B.M.800]

yeah when you put a new head on them they will run that long but lots of people have the head problem you can look them up they are common problems

We have a 96(or 97) over 200k, one blew a crank bearing or something. So then the other engine we put in has problems running right... apparently there is a difference in the flywheels for a part time 4WD, and ful time 4WD...

One of these days Id like to rebuild a 318, or 360... nothing fancy, just a small beef up. Would like to put it in a 70s Dodge pickup, kinda like the Lil Red Express truck except different color...
:arf:

 

[cumminsbayou4x4]

id like to finda a 70s-92 dodge d100 singal cab short bed and put a 426 hemi in it and lower it like 2 or 3 in and put big wide tires on it i dont like the lil red express cause it is a step bed if iyt wasnt it would be ok

 

[Doc Sprocket]

Oh man, I LOVE the LRE!!! I've always wanted to get a '78 (single headlights) and put in an NV4500 5-speed, Dana 300 transfer case, and Dana 44 frontend on leaves. Mega-drool! Problem is, I'd get lynched by the purists! What a beautiful truck!

 

[B.M.800]

id like to finda a 70s-92 dodge d100 singal cab short bed and put a 426 hemi in it and lower it like 2 or 3 in and put big wide tires on it i dont like the lil red express cause it is a step bed if iyt wasnt it would be ok

I like the short beds too, though, if I had my way it would be a stepside... I like em. Have fun with that 426!

My dad has a 241, 392, and 2 354 Hemis... He would like to have them all... Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge, and Desota.

Oh man, I LOVE the LRE!!! I've always wanted to get a '78 (single headlights) and put in an NV4500 5-speed, Dana 300 transfer case, and Dana 44 frontend on leaves. Mega-drool! Problem is, I'd get lynched by the purists! What a beautiful truck!

This is pretty much what Id like to build...

A 4WD and 2WD, the 2WD would have a slightly more beefed out engine then the 4WD though... might have stacks on it too... :arf:

 

[matman55]

I like the short beds too, though, if I had my way it would be a stepside... I like em. Have fun with that 426!

My dad has a 241, 392, and 2 354 Hemis... He would like to have them all... Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge, and Desota.



This is pretty much what Id like to build...

A 4WD and 2WD, the 2WD would have a slightly more beefed out engine then the 4WD though... might have stacks on it too... :arf:

anyone heard of a little truck company called INTERNATIONAL?They made just as good trucks as chevy and ford back then.

 

[devino246]

anyone heard of a little truck company called INTERNATIONAL?They made just as good trucks as chevy and ford back then.

Uh, little? IH wasn't exactly a small company. They made some great tractors, too. My great uncle has his dad's 1956 International pickup and a 1946 Farmall garden tractor. Then his son has a newer International dump truck that they haul crops in.

 

[Doc Sprocket]

Yeah. Little? No.

Always wanted a 1980 Scout II. Dang things were tanks! AMC 345 V8, Torqueflite 727 tranny (IIRC), Dana 300 T-case, and D44's at both ends (again, if memory serves).

The previous generations of Scouts, the 80 and 800 were cool too, but AFAIK the '80 Scout II was the best of 'em. Best design, best hardware.

 

[crazzywolfie]

One of these days Id like to rebuild a 318, or 360... nothing fancy, just a small beef up. Would like to put it in a 70s Dodge pickup, kinda like the Lil Red Express truck except different color...
:arf:

same here. i have almost thought about just getting the front end and doors of a 70's dodge and sticking it on my 81 or 91 d150. not quite sure yet. i think is i was to do it to my 81 she would be getting a 440 even the 318 and 727 work flawlessly.

we are pretty happy with our 5.2 it gets like 14-15mpg which is really terrble my dads 5.9 360 in a 96 got 17 all the time it is really dumb to get a 5.2 in one cause a 5.9 was a opshion at the time and the 5.2 gets worse gas milige they cant tow as much to. did yours have the leaky oil gasket ours does you just got to cheake to see when it needs it

that gasket you are talking about is the plenum gasket and i doubt you are getting 17mpg with a 5.9 unless you are talking about the 5.9 diesel.

 

[cumminsbayou4x4]

no i mean a 5.9 gas burner if you keep your foot out of the gas on any motor it will get dencent milege i like the full sized scouts not the smaller ones

 

[crazzywolfie]

i find it extremely hard to believe you could get 17mpg with a 5.9 gas engine. you must have had small tires on it or driving all downhill with a tailwind. am pretty sure if you hop on any dodge truck forum they would call shenanigans on you.

 

[Doc Sprocket]

no i mean a 5.9 gas burner if you keep your foot out of the gas on any motor it will get dencent milege

Depends on your definition of "decent" mileage. the 5.2 Durango is famous for horrible fuel consumption. Having just done my taxes, I learned that I burnt through $8000.00 in gas last year for work alone. This does not include personal travel. This was my primary reason for retiring it. Still runs like a champ (no gasket issues). I am not a particularly aggressive driver. Highway cruise numbers weren't bad, but in city traffic (some say Toronto is worse than Los Angeles), fuhgeddaboutit. Brutal. Folks can postulate all they want- I lived it.

 

[devino246]

no i mean a 5.9 gas burner if you keep your foot out of the gas on any motor it will get dencent milege i like the full sized scouts not the smaller ones

My 5.8 gets 8 city on a really good day.

 

[Bluethunder3320]

also if you dont press the gas, you wont go anywhere!