PDA

View Full Version : 2003 Durango R/T 5.9 build



NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 12:52 AM
Let me start by saying this will be my second build, my first being 408 completely done by KRC, that being said, Im looking for some advice and some opinions on my build. I have already been intouch with Richard, just shaking the bushes to get some feedback from you peeps. First off, let me tell you the parts I have on hand and my goals. Goal being a daily driver and drive alot.

I still have my KRC R/T Street Port heads (Cylinder Head, Magnum R/T, Cast Iron, Bare, 60cc Chamber, 180cc Intake Runner) that I just had redone by my local machine shop. I just purchased a Hughes Air Gap. So far so good as for goodies.I picked up a 360 block and crank to have my machine shop bore .030 and clean up 10/10. I will using the Scat H- rods. Keith Black Pistons KB232+.030, my goal is 9:7:1 compression. I purchased a Cloyes double roller timing chain, mopar oil pump, rhodes roller lifters. I have a set of adjustable 1.7 rollers. I will be using the following cam below:

1.HiPoTek HPT 210X4 4x4 210/214 .506/.506 110

I already have edlebrocks mid length headers, and will be installing new single exhaust with a Y-Pipe and 3" high flow cat into a stock sounding muffler and out the back. I already have SCT from Hemifever now, so yes, a new tune when complete. I will be keeping my stock gears, 3:92 in the truck,, its AWD and I have not seen any builds on here for one, so hoping to set some standards. So let the bashing begin or let the insight start from some of you mad scientist out there! I am ordering the cam today on 12-09-13!! :biggthumpup:

WhiteRT
12-10-2013, 02:03 AM
The cam is small for a 408 IMHO you could go much bigger. No mention of which TB will be on there. No mention of injector size. No mention of tranny upgrades or Tc upgrade....all are key points in a build IMHO

WhiteRT
12-10-2013, 03:07 AM
Cam is still too small with that intake and ported heads jmo.

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 12:55 PM
Hey guys, thanks for the input or I would not of posted. I have been speaking to Richard and he said the cam would be great for my setup. I drive this truck roughly 20-30,000 a year. I was wanting more torque and driveability. I was looking at the 206X4 but changed my mind after talking to Richard.

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 01:00 PM
I have not ordered the TB yet, somewhere around a 52 or 53? Stall will be ordered as well. My truck is running right now and this engine is on the stand. I am sure a stall of 28,000? This is my truck I work out of and drive alot of freeway driving. The tranny was rebuild last year at 60,000 due to a front driveshaft, another story another time. I will have the tranny gone thru and checked while motor is out.

Hugh Jassole
12-10-2013, 01:03 PM
get rid of the baby cam. You need more like .550 (or more) lift & durations in the 240*+ area

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 01:32 PM
I will post some pics!

1995dak
12-10-2013, 01:50 PM
Nice Truck! :biggthumpup:

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 01:55 PM
Ok, Richard at Hipotek is holding off on the cam right now, I want some more feedback! This truck is AWD and I dont want 9mpg, the truck right now gets about 11mpg driving 80mph on the freeway. Would the HiPoTek HPT 210X4 4x4 210/214 .506/.506 110 be a better choice on a 112 or 110?

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 02:00 PM
Here some more pics of the goodies!

98Dak408
12-10-2013, 02:21 PM
Tom has a heavy all-wheel-drive vehicle that is driven up to 40,000 miles per year. His main goal was low end torque and fuel economy with existing parts. The 200/206 cam that Billy used in his 318 caught his eye and for a 360 the 206 cam would be very similar in power range. He has 2.02 heads with a mild port job. A 1.92 valve head would be better for low end but a freer flowing head will make a cam larger. A 112-114 lsa will be better for fuel economy and produce a broader power range, while a 110 lsa will produce a narrower power band with peak torque at a lower rpm. A larger cam (duration) will produce more power at the expense of low end and fuel economy, and at a higher rpm, which is not necessarily conducive to low end and fuel economy, especially in a heavy vehicle. Some compromises are made due to budget. Just got to figure out what you are looking for. :)

Hugh Jassole
12-10-2013, 02:38 PM
Ok, Richard at Hipotek is holding off on the cam right now, I want some more feedback! This truck is AWD and I dont want 9mpg, the truck right now gets about 11mpg driving 80mph on the freeway. Would the HiPoTek HPT 210X4 4x4 210/214 .506/.506 110 be a better choice on a 112 or 110?


still too small. you need more duration to fill those cylinders up. the lift is more a function of what your heads flow, so that may be ok. I still think it should be closer to the .550 range though.

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 02:51 PM
I would like to hear Danno's opinion!

wyotech_cuda440
12-10-2013, 03:05 PM
still too small. you need more duration to fill those cylinders up. the lift is more a function of what your heads flow, so that may be ok. I still think it should be closer to the .550 range though.

Good heads will fill the cylinder with less duration.

Sure, he could make more power with a big cam but he would only feel that power when he stomps the gas. Driving that heavy Durango around with a big cam would be a gutless turd for normal driving that only wakes up when you step on it unless you throw in a 3500+ convertor.

I think Richard is on the right track, sacrifice 20 peak hp in order to have a much more torquey and driveable engine.

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 03:06 PM
This cam thing is driving me crazy, I want the best bang for the truck but not 9mpg? i want the cam and heads to sing in harmony also! Anyone else, Hipotek has several other cams:

HPT 210X4 4x4 210/214 .506/.506 110
HPT 216X4 4x4 216/220 .506/.506 110
HPT 220X4 4x4 220/224 .506/.506 110


Now lets get to buisiness gentlemen!! lol

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 03:08 PM
Thanks Wyo for your input, I appreciate it!

wyotech_cuda440
12-10-2013, 03:25 PM
Thanks Wyo for your input, I appreciate it!

No prob, good luck with the build!

FWIW, I'm running a 207/211 on a 111 LSA with a 4bbl m1 and a 55mm TB. I'm pretty happy with my power, driveability, and mileage.

With the air gap intake you plan on running, a 53mm TB and a 210/220 112lsa should be a pretty well matched combo that will work great with a stock style 2800 stall convertor. Going with a higher stall to make up for a bigger cam will cost you 600-900 for a billet convertor.

Danno
12-10-2013, 03:40 PM
Torquey 360?

Heads look to be ok. Intake, thats your call.

I would plan on at least 10.5:1, which can be easily dealt with on pump premium in an Iron 360. Most of your torque will come from compression. Even on a "daily" driver I would want this kind of pop to help build torque. And this will be torque all the way across the board.

For cam, 210/220 .545" ( with 1.7's ) on a 110. I have that, with a 2800 convertor, 2.02 RT heads, 10.7:1, M1 2bbl, and a ported stock TB, and first gear is useless in the Dak at WOT at and speed, and 2nd is questionable at times.

I have also done a bit more radical setup, that has a 224/236 .590/.621 on a 108 with a 3800 converter and 1.92 RT ported RT heads. That one is also a tire shredder. But probably a bit wilder than you want for a "mild" build.

Just IMO.

Danno
12-10-2013, 03:44 PM
And a couple of added notes.

you want your LSA to be between 108 and 110 for NA torque. Wider sacrifices ALOT of bottom end torque, for better mid/top end power. Great for nitrous or blowers, not so much NA.

TB choice, ported stocker, or a 52 would be fine for what you are doing.

Make sure you have good headers/exh setup. Dual 2.5 would be perfect if you can get it done on a Dingo.

:biggthumpup:

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 03:47 PM
Thans Danno!

Danno
12-10-2013, 03:50 PM
Adding more.

If you can, send those pistons back and get flattops. Low comp dished are ok for boosted apps, but are NOT what you want for an NA torque setup. Remember, cylinder pressure = torque. Easiest, and most efficient way to get that is higher static compression. Anything between 10.2 and 10.5 should be just fine for what you want. 9.5 is too low.

You also want to make sure that the piston is as close to zero deck as possible. This promotes good quench, which is also another key in torque/power production. Good quench means good burn every time the plug lights. Means better use of the fuel thats in the chambers, and with a tuner that knows his shit, you can get some decent mileage.

The second example in my first post, with a 55 F&B, pulls down 16-17 on the freeway with 3.92 gears...

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 04:12 PM
Pretty sure Im stuck with the pistons. The machine shop had them out of the box and bored the cylinders to the pistons. According to the hughes site:
Compression Ratios
cc's
62-9.5
64-9.3
68-8.9
72-8.6

I have 60cc, should be closer to 9.7. I agree with the deck height, that will be done my friend!

99dart
12-10-2013, 04:13 PM
Adding more.

If you can, send those pistons back and get flattops. Low comp dished are ok for boosted apps, but are NOT what you want for an NA torque setup. Remember, cylinder pressure = torque. Easiest, and most efficient way to get that is higher static compression. Anything between 10.2 and 10.5 should be just fine for what you want. 9.5 is too low.

You also want to make sure that the piston is as close to zero deck as possible. This promotes good quench, which is also another key in torque/power production. Good quench means good burn every time the plug lights. Means better use of the fuel thats in the chambers, and with a tuner that knows his shit, you can get some decent mileage.

The second example in my first post, with a 55 F&B, pulls down 16-17 on the freeway with 3.92 gears...

I can backup his claim. The engine is in my r/t. Pulls like a train and gets 16-17 mpg at 60-65 w/3.92 gears. 10.7 comp no problem with detonation. :biggthumpup:

WhiteRT
12-10-2013, 04:18 PM
Good heads will fill the cylinder with less duration.

Sure, he could make more power with a big cam but he would only feel that power when he stomps the gas. Driving that heavy Durango around with a big cam would be a gutless turd for normal driving that only wakes up when you step on it unless you throw in a 3500+ convertor.

I think Richard is on the right track, sacrifice 20 peak hp in order to have a much more torquey and driveable engine.

Big Cam is subjective anymore these days in these trucks - all those cams he listed are tiny in relative comparison to what is possible to run. Anyone of those cams is tunable to run good on the street without being a dog imo. A converter would help his cause alot. Compression would help, etc....I myself would hate to sacrafice on a cam being NA. A blower truck I wouldnt have as much of a problem :)

Just my .02

wyotech_cuda440
12-10-2013, 04:23 PM
Good point about the compression Danno!

I was thinking a wider LSA would increase the dynamic compression, but just raising the static compression is probably the better option.

NXNLINE- check with the machine shop about milling the heads a bit. My R/T heads are milled .050" and with a fel-pro 1008 gasket on the stock bottom end it makes 10.5:1 compression.

Danno
12-10-2013, 04:34 PM
Good point about the compression Danno!

I was thinking a wider LSA would increase the dynamic compression, but just raising the static compression is probably the better option.



Just a point I would like to make. IF, widening the LSA increases the dynamic, why do blowers and turbos tend to like wide LSA cams? :idunno: Especially when you are dropping the static to compensate for the boost. Seems kind of self defeating ;)

IMO there is ALOT of misinformation out there about LSA and the effects is has on powerband/torque. Most of what I know has been picked up by first hand experience in different racing venues. EVERY torquey NA race motor uses a super narrow ( by most ppls standards ) LSA. I have seen down to 98 on NA apps before, although that was on a 14.5:1 akly motor :biggthumpup: I wouldnt suggest that narrow on a 9.5:1 combo, thats for sure. lol.

And actually, static compression and LSA should really move hand in hand to some degree... the higher the NA comp, the narrower the LSA can and should be. The lower the static, the wider the LSA can get... to a point. I would never go above 110 on an NA application though.

FWIW I have a 114 LSA cam in Barney, and I hate that fuckin thing. INCREDIBLE nitrous cam, but NA it is so meh its not even funny. If it were on a 110 or a 108, it would be so much better as an HA cam. I pick up 1.5 seconds and TEN mph on a 150 shot....

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 04:54 PM
Ok, with that being said , lets say Im stuck with the pistons, Im sure the heads can be milled some and the quench at 0.

WhiteRT
12-10-2013, 05:10 PM
The sausage cam that everyone loved for a basic bolt on 360 --- 210/216 .512/.512 112

For whatever that is worth.

That said for ported heads, higher compression I would do the 220/224 cam if that is your only options, there will be no problem tuning that to be streetable.

3200 stall would put a smile on your face too LOL!

Danno
12-10-2013, 05:20 PM
Ok, with that being said , lets say Im stuck with the pistons, Im sure the heads can be milled some and the quench at 0. And after hearing the statements and comments, what about these two canadates:

HPT 216X4 216/220 .506/.506 110
HPT 220X4 220/224 .506/.506 110

Either or. The 220/224 is going to want more stall like Todd said. the 216/220 would most likely be the better choice overall for your combo IMO.

Danno
12-10-2013, 05:21 PM
The sausage cam that everyone loved for a basic bolt on 360 --- 210/216 .512/.512 112


Not everyone! I always thought that cam was a POS.

210x is a MUCH better choice and power maker IMO. if we are going to talk about the old skewl cams :)

BryanRT360
12-10-2013, 05:25 PM
The sausage cam that everyone loved for a basic bolt on 360 --- 210/216 .512/.512 112

For whatever that is worth.

That said for ported heads, higher compression I would do the 220/224 cam if that is your only options, there will be no problem tuning that to be streetable.

3200 stall would put a smile on your face too LOL!

My pi viper converter would put a huge smile on his face. While it stalled to about 36-3800 on my truck. (400+ whp and 400+ tq)I would tend to believe it would stall a lot lower on a na truck.. say 3200-3500:biggthumpup:

WhiteRT
12-10-2013, 05:26 PM
Not everyone! I always thought that cam was a POS.

210x is a MUCH better choice and power maker IMO. if we are going to talk about the old skewl cams :)

I never ran it just giving the specs of what everyone else seemed to love.

I liked my 218/224 528/536 113cl on my blower setup but the tuning capabilities sucked then , I think that cam had more in it power wise, alas I will never know, lol.

BryanRT360
12-10-2013, 05:40 PM
I already planned on a stall! But I appreciate everyone's advice, and comments!!

Buy mine:drive::jester:

wyotech_cuda440
12-10-2013, 05:45 PM
Just a point I would like to make. IF, widening the LSA increases the dynamic, why do blowers and turbos tend to like wide LSA cams? :idunno: Especially when you are dropping the static to compensate for the boost. Seems kind of self defeating ;)

IMO there is ALOT of misinformation out there about LSA and the effects is has on powerband/torque. Most of what I know has been picked up by first hand experience in different racing venues. EVERY torquey NA race motor uses a super narrow ( by most ppls standards ) LSA. I have seen down to 98 on NA apps before, although that was on a 14.5:1 akly motor :biggthumpup: I wouldnt suggest that narrow on a 9.5:1 combo, thats for sure. lol.

And actually, static compression and LSA should really move hand in hand to some degree... the higher the NA comp, the narrower the LSA can and should be. The lower the static, the wider the LSA can get... to a point. I would never go above 110 on an NA application though.

FWIW I have a 114 LSA cam in Barney, and I hate that fuckin thing. INCREDIBLE nitrous cam, but NA it is so meh its not even funny. If it were on a 110 or a 108, it would be so much better as an HA cam. I pick up 1.5 seconds and TEN mph on a 150 shot....

Just going off of what I was taught, I have nowhere near the experience that you do, but a wider LSA will give you less overlap. Overlap (when the exhaust is still open and the intake is opening too) will help with higher rpm scavenging by allowing the intake pulse to push into the cylinder and blow the remaining exhaust gasses out. At lower rpm you won't have the strong intake pulse (unless you have a manifold designed for lower rpm- no point using a narrow LSA high rpm cam with a low rpm manifold) so you will just end up with a half full cylinder due to the exhaust valve being open while the piston is moving down.

Boosted engines like a wider LSA because again, it has less overlap. When you have 15psi blowing into the cylinder, too much overlap will allow a lot of air to blow straight through the cylinder and out the exhaust which can affect the exhaust scavenging on S/C engines and cool the exhaust on turbo engines. Plus it just wastes intake charge- why bother making the boost and adding fuel just to send it out the pipe?

High overlap is also not the best thing if you are looking for fuel economy or clean emmissions.

^again, that's just what I was taught. If you have new/better/more info, I'm all ears :biggthumpup:

Danno
12-10-2013, 05:48 PM
And if you go with that convertor, that opens up cam choices ALOT. :biggthumpup:

You might have to up your TB choice too depending on what cam you end up with ;)

BryanRT360
12-10-2013, 05:50 PM
got for sale?

I have a precision industrys "viper" converter. Stalled around 36-3800 in my rig. But like I mentioned. I was pushing a lot more tq than your combo will make.. I'm asking 550shipped. It's a 850+ converter new.

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 05:55 PM
I had a viper in my 408 dak, which I miss dearly. I do have AWD and the rest of you have 2wd, I believe its a 60/40. Still have a few hours before i pull the trigger and call Richard to put my order in! lol

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 05:56 PM
I planned on a stall so thats not a problem. I still need to order a couple more items for the build before i jump into the tranny!

Danno
12-10-2013, 05:59 PM
I will toss in replies in text...


Just going off of what I was taught, I have nowhere near the experience that you do, but a wider LSA will give you less overlap. Overlap (when the exhaust is still open and the intake is opening too) will help with higher rpm scavenging by allowing the intake pulse to push into the cylinder and blow the remaining exhaust gasses out. At lower rpm you won't have the strong intake pulse (unless you have a manifold designed for lower rpm- no point using a narrow LSA high rpm cam with a low rpm manifold) so you will just end up with a half full cylinder due to the exhaust valve being open while the piston is moving down.

So LESS overlap promotes better scavenging at higher RPM how again? ;) If you think about it, you have less time for the charge to move into the cyl when both valves are open, because the velocity through the ports does not change too much based on RPM, it is more of an elapsed time thing, so LESS charge pulling actually happens. When you narrow up the LSA, and increase the overlap, you magnify this effect. If you go too far, you gain only in the low end, however, if you get it right, you gain everywhere. 112-114 are WAY too wide for a NA motor. Period. 108-110 are usually where you want to be, but can drop lower depending on duration and static comp of the motor. Again, this is based on my experiences over the years. And much of this is SBM/Magnum specific. Would I make the same recommendation for a SBF. Well... actually.. yes. LOL. I have plenty of years of custom cam specification under my belt for street/strip/circletrack and any number of other venunes :biggthumpup:

Boosted engines like a wider LSA because again, it has less overlap. When you have 15psi blowing into the cylinder, too much overlap will allow a lot of air to blow straight through the cylinder and out the exhaust which can affect the exhaust scavenging on S/C engines and cool the exhaust on turbo engines. Plus it just wastes intake charge- why bother making the boost and adding fuel just to send it out the pipe?

Completely agreed.

High overlap is also not the best thing if you are looking for fuel economy or clean emmissions.

no argument there, but its not out of the question either ;) Pats motor would be a prime example. 224/236 108LSA in at 104 .590/.621 or so.

^again, that's just what I was taught. If you have new/better/more info, I'm all ears :biggthumpup:

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 06:21 PM
And if you go with that convertor, that opens up cam choices ALOT. :biggthumpup:

You might have to up your TB choice too depending on what cam you end up with ;)

I all about upgrading the TB and converter, just want to get the cam done right the first time!

wyotech_cuda440
12-10-2013, 06:34 PM
So LESS overlap promotes better scavenging at higher RPM how again? If you think about it, you have less time for the charge to move into the cyl when both valves are open, because the velocity through the ports does not change too much based on RPM, it is more of an elapsed time thing, so LESS charge pulling actually happens. When you narrow up the LSA, and increase the overlap, you magnify this effect. If you go too far, you gain only in the low end, however, if you get it right, you gain everywhere. 112-114 are WAY too wide for a NA motor. Period. 108-110 are usually where you want to be, but can drop lower depending on duration and static comp of the motor. Again, this is based on my experiences over the years. And much of this is SBM/Magnum specific. Would I make the same recommendation for a SBF. Well... actually.. yes. LOL. I have plenty of years of custom cam specification under my belt for street/strip/circletrack and any number of other venunes


I said overlap increases high rpm scavenging, not less overlap ;)

I have seen wide 112-114 LSA NA engines all the time- look at most V8s from detroit during the 90s, especially big blocks in trucks or RVs. They spend most of their life pulling a high load at 2500 rpm or less, thats where the cam design was aimed for the best volumetric efficiency with less overlap and less duration to get the most cylinder pressure possible.

I was figuring NXNLINE is probably looking for a 2000-6000 rpm powerband, and you don't really need to go big on duration or overlap for those engine speeds.

You're absolutely right about tighter LSA in race built engines :biggthumpup:

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 06:38 PM
One thing, I dont want to start snapping shit on the AWD. I would like to quicker than I am now and want to enjoy driving my AWD around town. I dont know the limits to the AWD?

WhiteRT
12-10-2013, 06:40 PM
One thing, I dont want to start snapping shit on the AWD. I would like to quicker than I am now and want to enjoy driving my AWD around town. I dont know the limits to the AWD?

You are nowhere close unless its already sick.

Danno
12-10-2013, 06:42 PM
One thing, I dont want to start snapping shit on the AWD. I would like to quicker than I am now and want to enjoy driving my AWD around town. I dont know the limits to the AWD?

That is a question I dont think any of us know.. lol. But I cant imagine that it is super robust....

Danno
12-10-2013, 06:45 PM
I said overlap increases high rpm scavenging, not less overlap ;)

I have seen wide 112-114 LSA NA engines all the time- look at most V8s from detroit during the 90s, especially big blocks in trucks or RVs. They spend most of their life pulling a high load at 2500 rpm or less, thats where the cam design was aimed for the best volumetric efficiency with less overlap and less duration to get the most cylinder pressure possible.

I was figuring NXNLINE is probably looking for a 2000-6000 rpm powerband, and you don't really need to go big on duration or overlap for those engine speeds.

You're absolutely right about tighter LSA in race built engines :biggthumpup:

The reason for those wide LSA's back then was mainly emissions. Trying to keep as much unburnt charge out of the exh as possible to keep cat temps down so that they live longer. NOT because it was a better choice for power or torque.

Tell you what. If you get bored, and have a few extra hundred dollars laying around ( yeah right eh? lol ) Have your cam ground on a 114. And then have it ground on a 108. Try em both. Report back with your findings :biggthumpup: I think you will be suprised at the end result.

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 06:46 PM
Well, I do appreciate your help guys, I have made my choice and I will post updates when its assembled and post more pics. Wyo, hope your right about the AWD, I am sure I will find out. I will upgrade to a stall and TB and match it with Injectors... Stay tuned

wyotech_cuda440
12-10-2013, 07:24 PM
I don't know nuthin about the AWD part :idunno:

For your sake, I hope WhiteRT is right though :biggthumpup:

NXNLINE
12-10-2013, 07:29 PM
Yup, its not like the truck is going to be beat on at the track, but I have gotten some really good info and I realized what I thought was big isn't! lol Im not giving up the heads, so need a cam to shove mo into the cylinders. I will look into having the heads shaved some to get the comp closer to 10. Thanks Wyo for your input as well pal!
Pretty sure Im going with the HiPoTek HPT 210X4 4x4 210/214 .506/.506 110. Waiting on a email from Richard!

WhiteRT
12-10-2013, 08:19 PM
I would be leaning more towards richards 210XP2 or 214XP if it were me on a 110.

Just sayin....

98Dak408
12-11-2013, 12:51 PM
The HiPoTek 4X4 cams typically have less overlap than the other grinds for low rpm power and subsequently better economy. If you are no longer that interested in off idle grunt and fuel economy, and don’t mind the rpm range going higher, then yes you can go with a bigger cam. With an engine that is going to see daily driving with thousands of miles per year, I wouldn’t set the lift too high for durability reasons, especially since you are using 1.7 rockers. The HPT 216X4 or the HPT 210XP (.544 lift with 1.7 rockers) will move things up a bit, but I personally wouldn’t go over that for what I thought the usage of your vehicle would be. The HPT 210XP has a little more overlap than the HPT 216X4 and will produce a little more power. A 110 lsa will move the peak torque to a lower rpm and works well with a naturally aspirated engine. The HPT 210X4 would put you closer to your original intention with less overall power than the two grinds just mentioned but with better low end and economy.

NXNLINE
01-28-2014, 02:02 PM
FYI, I went with the Hiptotek 210X4 cam on a 110, I feel its best for my driving habits. The motor is at the machine shop being balanced and getting the piston at 0deck. I ordered the flex plate and Cyco Pro/Sport damper. I will update with pics when I get the motor home and on stand. I appreciate everyone's help and advice. I will post parts for people to see.:biggthumpup:

Addicted2Blue00
01-28-2014, 06:43 PM
im running "was" the 210x 210/220 .512/.512 110 and am happy with that choice. its a good n/a build and higher compression i would agree too. i didnt have the money to drop on mine for pistons but i wouldnt mind sitting around 11/1 ratio and add a 100 shot

NXNLINE
01-28-2014, 06:51 PM
Yup, I am hoping this truck runs pretty awesome. I will keep u updated. It does like spray on a 110?

NXNLINE
02-12-2014, 10:42 PM
Well got a call and the motor is being balanced, so should not be long before i get her back. My intake plenum has been blown since I have owned the truck and can only run hemifevers tune on 89, so today I pulled the trigger and replaced it. To my surprise the bolts were very loose on the belly pan, when I inspected the intake, someone had already cut the runners on the intake. Got her all buttoned up and need to buy a couple of hosed that are cracked. Start her up tomorrow and load the 93 tune!

NXNLINE
02-14-2014, 11:19 PM
Did a mock up to see what it will look like!

http://s358.photobucket.com/user/NXNLINE/library/?sort=3&page=1

RTchas
02-14-2014, 11:42 PM
http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo28/NXNLINE/IMG_20140214_153456_623.jpg (http://s358.photobucket.com/user/NXNLINE/media/IMG_20140214_153456_623.jpg.html)

Jeep vavle cover's? Where did you find them?

NXNLINE
02-15-2014, 12:03 AM
http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo28/NXNLINE/IMG_20140214_153456_623.jpg (http://s358.photobucket.com/user/NXNLINE/media/IMG_20140214_153456_623.jpg.html)

Jeep vavle cover's? Where did you find them?

I had these on my 408 back in the day and they had inserts that said KRC Performance, trying to get them milled down or replace the inserts!

Addicted2Blue00
02-15-2014, 05:27 PM
is that m1 intake powdercoated black vein? i would just find someone to cut some alum plates to refit those valve covers and relabeled what you want, dont see why didnt use sheet metal valve covers with their logo instead of using mopar's

Addicted2Blue00
02-15-2014, 05:30 PM
im thinkin you had a slammed dakota with a sniper body kit and shell on the bed back in the day?

NXNLINE
02-16-2014, 12:10 AM
is that m1 intake powdercoated black vein? i would just find someone to cut some alum plates to refit those valve covers and relabeled what you want, dont see why didnt use sheet metal valve covers with their logo instead of using mopar's

Why use sheet metal covers when i use what I have? Spend money on covers? Dont make sense. Its a Hughes Air GAP not M1 that's powdercoated black vein. Dont even look like a M1.

Addicted2Blue00
02-16-2014, 12:52 AM
Why use sheet metal covers when i use what I have? Spend money on covers? Dont make sense! Its a Hughes Air GAP not M1 that's powdercoated black vein! Dont even look like a M1!
i was meaning that KRC should have used sheet metal valve covers instead of mopar performance valve covers! they offered them as "THEIR" custom valve covers. my mistake i shouldve looked closer at the type of intake manifold it really is instead of it being powdercoated black vein............

NXNLINE
02-16-2014, 12:54 PM
Gotcha, I was confused about the comment! lol I am trying to get the inserts cut down and regraved. There's alot that company should of done, but I was one that got caught up in their bad company ways and dont want to relive that momment! The valve covers and heads are from my original 408.

NXNLINE
02-27-2014, 06:05 PM
After talking to a few people, I have decided to remove the heads from the long block and send them to my local machine shop for more porting. When I get them back, I will post pics and the flow sheets from before and after. These originally were the KRC street port 2.02 heads.

NXNLINE
06-03-2014, 04:31 PM
Update, picked up my R/T that were off my old 408 back in the day. I purchased these from KFC and they were sold as the Street port 2.02. My compression was lower than I wanted when the short block was assembled, so these were fully ported and I had them .030 and cut on the intake side. Hopefully have this assembled soon and intalled, stay tuned! I will post the new flow numbers later, the sheet was the flow numbers before they went to the shop.

http://s358.photobucket.com/user/NXNLINE/library/

NXNLINE
06-29-2014, 12:19 PM
The transplant begins. I will post pics of the transplant, I will be working out of town alot in July but should have the motor in and the truck repainted too.

NXNLINE
07-07-2014, 12:16 AM
I did order new Spintech's last Thursday for the Rango! Stay Tuned!

NXNLINE
07-19-2014, 01:11 PM
Will post more pics!

y2krtaf
07-19-2014, 01:39 PM
Looking good!:biggthumpup:

NXNLINE
07-27-2014, 04:45 PM
Just ordered Cervinis bumper, fog lights, and sniper grille! Oh, and new headlights!

Hugh Jassole
07-28-2014, 02:19 PM
really ? why ?

NXNLINE
07-28-2014, 09:11 PM
really ? why ?

If you wanting explanation, then, I like the look of their grill and bumper cover! I am still trying to iron things out about the hood. My stock headlights are trashed, my stock grill is cracked, and well, dont care for the stock look of the front bumper! :biggthumpup: I will post pics when parts arrive and are mocked up!

Hugh Jassole
07-29-2014, 03:16 PM
I think your truck looks better now than it would with that mess on it. The Sniper Kit always screamed RICER to me. But that's just me.

WhiteRT
07-29-2014, 03:41 PM
I think your truck looks better now than it would with that mess on it. The Sniper Kit always screamed RICER to me. But that's just me.

X5 on the RICER

Hugh Jassole
07-29-2014, 04:10 PM
Holy Shit ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

We actually agree on something ? :jester:
just messin' with you Todd :biggthumpup:

WhiteRT
07-29-2014, 04:34 PM
Hey I might be a lot of things to a lot of people - But I do have a good eye for style :)