Whatever happened to the Mopar 318 engine?

[Wheelin98TJ]

I had the 5.2L Magnum V-8 (the 318) in my '96 RAM Extra cab 4x4. It was a poor engine at best and got very crappy mileage. I was lucky to see 14 MPGs on the highway.

I had a boat that was 5K lbs on the trailer and both my '93 and '96 Grand Cherokee Laredos with the 4.0L I-6 (non trailer pkg but, a U-Haul receiver) handled that boat way better than that RAM did. I could pull the boat up the ramp out of the water in 2H in both my Jeeps. I had to put that RAM in 4Lo to do the same job, on the same ramp.

The 5.2L is much better than the 4.0L for making torque and HP. It’s not even close. Your Ram sucked for other reasons.

Sponsored

 

[ShadowsPapa]

As a person who saw the flathead V8 and I6 go away - and the carburetor and Kettering ignition system in favor of EFI and electronic ignition and control systems, cast iron log shaped exhaust manifolds and more over the decades, a book could be written on why those engines went away.

In their day, they were among the best. Reliable, good mpg for the day but - manufacturing costs, weight, combustion chambers were slow burn and not capable of higher compression and timing needed for maximum power you get today........... the list goes on.

Can they be modified to give respectable HP and torque, and even more MPG? Yes. But at quite a cost and you still have an extremely heavy engine.
On the other hand - what's the LS but an updated version of the SBC from decades ago - aluminum block and heads, roller lifters and rockers..........

So many design changes would be necessary, sometimes it's cheaper and easier to bulldoze the house and start over than try to remodel it.

 

[bd100]

Still running a 5.2 "Magnum" with a 5-speed NV3500. It's been all over the country, on and off road. Keeping it to teach the kid stick shift. So easy compared to the JT, you can hardly stall the thing. But the JT's transmission is much nicer to shift. The old truck has this really long shifter, and it complains if you try to shift quickly. Compared to it, the JT is more like a sports car. Mountain switchbacks are fun with the JT, and would be a bunch of syncro wear with the old NV3500 if you're in a hurry. The 5.2 is great for crawling, and the suspension puts the vehicle up higher than the JT. Almost nothing sticks below the axles, especially in back, and the break over clearance is better. I think you'd need a 2" lift on the JT to match the old truck in stock form. The back seat is the "club cab" bench, but we can sleep two in back under the cap.

 

[Splenda]

What happened to the 351 Cleveland and the 460 and 390 and 427 Fords?

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Supposedly, many of the features of the "Magnum" engine were on the AMC drawing boards when Iacocca raped and pillaged AMC. He mainly wanted the Jeep, mostly the Grand Cherokee AMC was developing, but he kept some of the technical people and merged the technology into Chrysler products.

What happened to the 351 Cleveland and the 460 and 390 and 427 Fords?

My 1995 F250 4x4 had the 351 - it was pretty wimpy pulling heavy trailers.

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

Supposedly, many of the features of the "Magnum" engine were on the AMC drawing boards when Iacocca raped and pillaged AMC. He mainly wanted the Jeep, mostly the Grand Cherokee AMC was developing, but he kept some of the technical people and merged the technology into Chrysler products.


My 1995 F250 4x4 had the 351 - it was pretty wimpy pulling heavy trailers.

The 351 was a very popular marine engine. Used in many inboard ski boats during the 80s and early 90s. Those things were awesome at towing for water sports.

 

[RHugg01]

I did an online search and found no real reason why these can't be used in something like a Jeep; a small block V8. If I recall correctly, CJ's offered, at one time, the AMC 304 as an option. The 318 Chrysler was considered a very reliable engine and I wondered what happened to it. Would there be that much of a price difference between the 3.6 that a lot of people complain about and the 318 (5.0 L) engine?

Just showing my age I guess.

I had one in my first car, a 1962 Plymouth Belvedere 2dr hardtop ( bright red of course). It was a going machine with about 220 hp with a 4bbl carb. Probably too heavy and bulky for today's vehicles.

 

[Rubicon Runnin' Bob]

My 1995 F250 4x4 had the 351 - it was pretty wimpy pulling heavy trailers.

I would assume that was a Windsor (351W), not a Cleveland (351C), in that F250?

Pretty big difference.

At least, from my knowledge (my father and Uncle used Ford F250's and F350's for business vehicles), the 351W was used in their (Ford) trucks and vans, not the 351C.

But perhaps you know something I don't........

 

[Toothgnasher]

Eh, if we were going back to old engines, I'd vote for the I6 flathead I had in my '49 Fargo 1/2 ton. It was bulletproof. As long as you didn't mind a top speed of 60MPH downhill, and 82HP, the thing got me everywhere.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

The 351 was a very popular marine engine. Used in many inboard ski boats during the 80s and early 90s.

So was the AMC 327 in the early 60s. (Gray Marine for example). Those versions ran solid lifters and came in standard or reverse rotation.

My Ford 351 had trouble holding the speed limit when towing really heavy loads. It was fine empty, but just didn't have the HP for something heavy.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I would assume that was a Windsor (351W), not a Cleveland (351C), in that F250?

Pretty big difference.

At least, from my knowledge (my father and Uncle used Ford F250's and F350's for business vehicles), the 351W was used in their (Ford) trucks and vans, not the 351C.

But perhaps you know something I don't........

Yeah, pretty sure it was the W engine. It was a TRUCK, and I figured the CID from the liters.
I can't imagine the Cleveland engine going into a HD F250 4x4 pickup.

Eh, if we were going back to old engines, I'd vote for the I6 flathead I had in my '49 Fargo 1/2 ton. It was bulletproof. As long as you didn't mind a top speed of 60MPH downhill, and 82HP, the thing got me everywhere.

Somewhere on this car is a decal that says "Just say NO to Valve Covers"

He builds street rods with flat head engines. this one has been to the salt flats multiple times.
He's building another with a Ford flat head V8 that has marine heads on it - the spark plugs sit deeper and have rubber seals around them and the wires.

 

[Stan H]

I did an online search and found no real reason why these can't be used in something like a Jeep; a small block V8. If I recall correctly, CJ's offered, at one time, the AMC 304 as an option. The 318 Chrysler was considered a very reliable engine and I wondered what happened to it. Would there be that much of a price difference between the 3.6 that a lot of people complain about and the 318 (5.0 L) engine?

Just showing my age I guess.

Here they are .

 

[Jrgunn5150]

Pretty big difference.

Only the block, heads, rods, crank, pistons, intake, and carb were different. Otherwise, it was totally the same three numbers.

 

[Rubicon Runnin' Bob]

Only the block, heads, rods, crank, pistons, intake, and carb were different. Otherwise, it was totally the same three numbers.

Exactly!

The post he was answering specifically stated 351 Cleveland, NOT the Windsor

BIG difference

 

[Stan H]

Ppowerful but extremely inefficient.
The one I had in a F

What happened to the 351 Cleveland and the 460 and 390 and 427 Fords?

Powerful but extremely inefficient.

The one I had 390 in a F-250HD highboy had a little over 400hp and would hail the mail but only got 8mpg yep 8 !!

Sponsored