Jump to content

biggman100

Members
  • Posts

    340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by biggman100

  1. Moses, you wondered about the patent date on the first "open" or "modern" diff, and in researching something else for someone, i happened to find a little interesting tidbit about it on wikipedia. This is what they, and brittanica online, which was where i got the link to the wikipedia article from, said, "1827: modern automotive differential patented by watchmaker Onésiphore Pecqueur (1792–1852) of the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers in France for use on a steam cart. (Sources: Britannica Online and Wikipedia), so, it would seem the diff actually predates even the earliest know automobile, the Benz Patent-Motorwagen, at least according to most sources, and what i was originally researching.
  2. One last question about this. I looked on 4wd hardware's site, and all they show are parts for the Jeep AX15. All i am after is the gasket for the shifter housing, and the front and rear seal for the transmission case, so would those parts be the same for the Jeep and the Dakota?
  3. Moses, i finally got the time to tear down the old transmission from my truck, and although i didnt find much in the way of metal in the bottom of the case, i did find that 2 of the brass synchros were broke, one in 3 pieces, and a couple of the gears in it had the teeth severely wore down in spots, but it wasnt uniform in how they wore down. The gears may have been like that before i swapped the extension housing, and since i drained all the fluid out of it for that swap, that may be why i didnt find much metal in the case when i tore it apart today. Either way, im going to put the extension housing back on the other transmission i have, and once im done replacing all the gaskets and cleaning up the engine, i am going to put it back in the truck, but, first i have a question i never considered to ask before now. Is there a gasket between the extension housing and the transmission, or did chrysler just use silicone between the two? I looked through your rebuild, and i may have missed it, but i dont remember you mentioning it when you put the extension housing back on.
  4. Moses, a question if i may. When you say older vehicles, are you referring to 1970's, 1980's and 1990's vehicles, or are you going back even further than that? I know on your side of the country, 1990's vehicles probably wont need as much in the way of "restoring", but in the northeast, even vehicles as new as 1998, at least around here, have been known to need severe bdy, and mechanical restoration. For perfect example, my green 1995 Dakota doesnt really need as much in the way of body work, due to buying it further south, but the 1995 Dakota i just picked up needs as much body work as it does mechanical work, due to salt on the roads, and previous owners who didnt take the time to keep it clean, especially underneath. With the 1994, i am concentrating more on the mechanical parts that were neglected, such as the engine, suspension and steering parts, and transmission, but, with the 1995, we may be replacing the frame, as well as the entire box, front fenders, shocks, engine, and a bunch of other suspension and steering parts, as well as rear brakes. People always ask me why i would put so much time into a vehicle like that, and my answer is always 3 parts. One, with what we have going out, i cant afford a vehicle payment every month, and what i spend on my trucks is less than what i would pay in payments for 6 months for a new vehicle. Two, the second generation (1991-1996) Dakotas are perfect size, get decent fuel mileage, and are, after much trial and error, the best vehicle for me for what i use them for. And three, since i can do almost all of the work myself, repair and maintenance costs are really not as much as people assume they are. Also, with my trucks, by doing this, i know there are parts i can upgrade, or at the very least get better than OEM, so that i know my vehicles are as safe as they possibly can be, which, at least to me, is more important than having a newer, flashier vehicle.
  5. Moses, after spending a couple hours at a U-pull yard today, i found out that the intake is the same for 1992 to 1997, and has some significant differences from 1998 to 2003, at least appearance wise. I also found that the earlier intake (i used a 1994 intake) will bolt right up to the newer heads (checked the fit on a 2000 durango), all the bolt holes line up, it appears that all the openings in the intake line up as well, but, i found that things like injectors, TPS, Iac, and most of the components on the 1994 intake dont match the corresponding components on the 2000 intake, at least when it comes to the harness connectors. The other thing i noticed is that the earlier intake gaskets are thicker than the newer ones, although i dont see where that would make that much of a difference ultimately.
  6. One thing i forgot. I did some actual visual comparisons on certain gaskets, such as head and intake gaskets, and found that for this swap, the intake gaskets will only work from 1992 to 1996, with the 1997 to 2003 intake gaskets being different. The head gaskets are the same from 1992 to 2003, so the difference must be in how the intake is made, but that shows, at least to me, that to use the 1997 to 2003 block in the 1992 to 1996, you would have to swap the heads from the 1992 to 1996 to the 1997 to 2003 short block. Now, if only i could do the same comparison on the 3.9 engine, since i have either a bad head gasket, cracked head, or cracked block on my 1994 3.9, and the salvage yards are saying i can only use the 1994 and 1995 3.9 in that truck, but no one around here has those gaskets in stock. Rockauto says the head gaskets for the 3.9 are the same from 1992 to 2003, so maybe, if i do need a short block, i can get a newer engine with less miles, which i would prefer to do, i just need to find a way to verify the info from them.
  7. Moses, again, thank you for your help with this. It is greatly appreciated. One thing i do want to clear up, just in case anyone comes across this, and wonders about the 1991 engines. The 1991 uses completely different heads, intake, and ignition, than the 1992 and up, which means that you cant use the 1990 or 1991 v-6 or v-8, unless you swap the fuel system (the 1991 has 2 lines on the pump, and is TBI, whereas the 1992 and up are MPFI, and only have one line on the pump), electronics, PCM, wiring, intake, exhaust and a host of other stuff. The reason i know this is because i have had 2 1991 Dakotas, one a 3.9 4x4 (which i still have, its the red and silver one), and the other a very hard to find 5.2 4x2. Even the salvage yards and hollander say they didnt put the 5.2 in the 1991 dakota, but, anyway, with the 3.9, which is still have, i blew the engine, and wanted to use the1992 and up engine for ease of interchange, because hollander says that the 1991 is a 1 year only engine (which, after doing the swap, i found the 1990-1991 3.9 and 5.2 are the same ignition and fuel system), but after i looked into it, i found the differences between the 1991 and 1992 setup were so vast, i figured it wasnt worth all the work involved. The 1990-1991 v-8 is pretty much the same setup as the v-6, with the same problems involved in swapping to a later v-8.
  8. Moses, the truck is complete. The guy i got it from was using it to haul a small enclosed trailer, and either blew the oil pump shaft, or the pump itself, because he drove it about 60 miles with no oil pressure, popped two rods through the oil pan, had it towed home, pulled the plates off it, and sold it to me the same day. A couple questions though, based on what i would ultimately like to do with it, at least for now, which is to just find a good low mileage used engine through the salvage yards, and do a direct swap. The issue is, the salvage yards say i can only use the 1995 Dakota 5.2, or the 1994-1996 5.2 from the ram. I am looking for a complete engine, minus the alternator, power steering pump, and A/C compressor, so all i have to do is pull the original engine, and drop in the new engine, hook everything up, and be done with it. You said the 1992-1998 5.2 will fit, but what all might i have to change, depending on the year of the engine? I know the 1992-1994 5.2 looks exactly the same, so i cant see why the salvage yards would say they wont fit, unless sensors are different, and the injectors seem to be the same from 1992-1998, as well as the distributor, and crank and cam sensor, so i must really be overlooking something there.
  9. Moses, thank you again for your time. I do want to keep the truck a v-8, like it is now, but i think i am just going to stick with the 5.2, because i am afaraid a 5.9, even in a dakota, will kill what gas mileage it already has, and for what we are going to use the truck for, i dont think i will need the extra power of the 5.9. I just need to figure out which years i can use the 5.2 from, and which models. As for the swap to a manual, i decided instead to leave this one automatic, that way my wife and brother can also drive it, since neither of them want to learn how to drive a manual trans vehicle. I think instead, i am going to turn the 1994 into a minor project, since it has recently developed some major issues, such as a blown head gasket, as well as ongoing transmission issues with the AX15, which i may swap to an NV3500, since they seem to be more plentiful in my area.
  10. Moses, time to pick your brain again. I picked up a 1995 Dakota, v-8, auto, 4x4 with a bad engine dirt cheap. Im thinking, if i can find a complete wreck to get all the parts from, that when i do the engine, swapping the trans to a 5 speed at the same time. My questions are, which transmission would be better fo this swap, the AX15 or the NV3500? Also, did they use the NV3500 in the dakota, and if so, which years would be a direct swap for the truck i bought? I know i need the engine wiring, trans wiring, ECM, pedals, clutch interlock, clutch master and slave cylinder and hose, and gauge cluster, but will i also need to change the interior wiring harness as well? Final question, what years, and what trucks, vans, and SUV's can i use the 5.2 from for the 1995?
  11. Oh, and lastly, unless you have serious fighting skills, like he said, dont pick on hockey, even a little bit, EVER.
  12. I just have to ask, you really didnt ask who the ugly lady in the crown is, did you? I go to Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Kingston quite a bit, and have seen how the authorities can be, even when you are joking about the queen. I swear some Canadians have no sense of humor, ever. As for keeping up with a drunk Canadian, it helps if you are Irish, like my wife is, anyone else will miserably fail. And, your comments about not going over the speed limit, and making sure you pay attention to the speed, i can also attest to the fact that that isnt just the west side of Canada. i was doing 102 KMH outside Kingston, where the speed limit is 100 KMH, and got a ticket. Also, tickets in Canada are usually a couple times more what they are in the states, and can be a hassle to pay through the mail, at least around Ontario and kingston.
  13. Id like to add some personal experience with both the 2.8, and 2.9l bronco II's. I have owned several of the 2.8l, mainly 5 speed, 4x4 bronco II's, and have found them to be very capable on and off road. I dont beat on my dakotas, but i have owned a couple 86 BII's that i literally pounded on, and found them to be able to hold up really well. Off road, i was able to go places that other bigger SUV's and full size pick-ups couldnt go, as well as saving gas while doing it. During the years i had such a fascination with the Bii and ranger, i was not big on even routine maintenace, and they still seemed to hold up pretty well. The one issue i seemed to have with them was the fiberglass tailgate. It didnt always hold up well to extreme off-roading. Until a tree fell on it in a storm, i had a beat up, blue and white 87, with a 2.8, 5 speed, that i would take mudding with friends on private property, and i could go through the mud with ease in 2 wheel drive without getting stuck, where others would have to be in at least 4hi. After the tree fell on it, which crushed the air cleaner, and actually broke one spark plug tower out of the distributor cap, it still started and ran, and i even drove it down the road. The one and only 2.9l Bii i owned, an 89, 5 speed, 4x4, i bought from an older gentleman originally as a plow vehicle, and even though he used it to plow with, he was very strict about performing maintenance on it, and yet, i was always still having issues with it. It blew a head gasket with only 66000 on it, the water pump went several times in the 3 years i owned it, it would eat up front brakes, it had issues shifting in and out of 4hi, it didnt like to idle if it was below 20 degrees out. I actually traded it for my first dakota in an even up swap. I also have several friends who own rangers, that run the same engine, and they had similar issues with the first generation 2.9's. I attached some pics of both my blue and white 88. Unfortunately, the only pics i have of it are after the tree hit it, except the one of it sitting on the other side of my brother in laws nissan, and a pic of my baby blue 89.
  14. Moses, new update on this. I didnt have time to swap the transmission, due to having to get some stuff done, so i tried another approach. I drained the gl-5 80w-90 i had in it, and replaced it with pennzoil syncromesh, and now the vibration is gone, but shifting into 4th is at times a real chore. Normally what i have to do is when i shift from 3rd to 4th, i have to pretty much force it into 4th, or it grinds and kicks back out, but once it is engaged in fourth, i can drive for miles with no issues, but, to downshift from 5 to 4th, i have to put it in 3rd, keep my foot on the clutch, and pretty much ram it in 4th. I even drove a 480- mile round trip, half of which was towing a car on a tow dolly up some pretty big hills with it doing that, and other than that one issue, it shifted fine, and didnt vibrate at all, in any gear. At least now i know to pay more attention to what fluids i use in the dakota transmissions, because as i learned the hard way with my automatic 1991, using the wrong fluid can have disatrous consequences. I used Dex/Merc instead of ATF+4 in that truck, and burnt the transmission up a week later.
  15. Moses, as always, thank you for that information. One other question though, would you recommend a regular or synthetic gear oil? I found both a regular GL-5 75w-90, as well as synthetic 75w-90 from Lucas, Mobile, and Valvoline. I am leaning more towards the Lucas synthetic, because i have had good results with Lucas products in Dakota automatics, but i have never tried it in a manual transmission.
  16. Also, does anyone know exactly how many quarts that transmission takes? I dont have the owners manual for it, and i have heard anywhere from 2.5 to 3.25 quarts.
  17. Hi guys. I have an odd question, and since i keep getting different answers, i figured i would ask here for some clarification. My question actually pertains specifically to the AX15 in the Dakota, but maybe this can be used to start a discussion about other transmissions as well. My question is simple, which is better to use in the Dakotas AX15, regular 80w-90, Pennzoil syncromesh, Lucas heavy duty 80w-90, or 50w engine oil? My truck sees extreme cold and warm weather, limited 4 wheel drive use, mild to once in awhile heavy towing, and frequent short trips and large amounts of highway miles. My idea was to use one quart of Lucas heavy duty 80w-90, and one quart of regular 80w-90, but some people say not to do that, and others say dont use the Lucas at all, so which is the right answer?
  18. Moses, quick question. How do i tell the difference between an AX5 and an AX15? Neither the transmission in my 1994 Dakota nor the two i picked up have any kind of tag that i can find anywhere on them.
  19. Another tire I have found that seems to work very well in the snow are Bridgestone Blizzaks. I bought a Nissan sentra that had them, and it got good traction in mud and snow, so I bought a set for my 1991 Dakota, and I got good traction in all kinds of weather, and a bonus was that they didn't seem to wear out as quickly as some of the others I have had.
  20. I usually buy tires either through Mavis discount tire, because they will order just about anything you want, which you can check and see if they have any stores near you at their website, http://www.mavistire.com/ProductCart/pc/_default.asp or, a couple times I have gone through walmart, but they are picky about what brands they will order for you at times. I do now see the difference in how you found the 30x9.50 though. You are looking at the grabber at 2, whereas I only look at the grabber. I have never used the grabber at 2, so those I cant comment on as to how they work!
  21. JJ, where did you find grabbers in a 30x9.50? All I ever find in grabbers are 31x10.50's, which on the front of my Dakota tend to rub just a bit on the frame if I make full turns. Other than that, the 31x10.50's I have on my Dakota seem to work really well in snow and mud. I live in upstate N.Y., on a dirt back road, and they work very well for everyday driving around here.
  22. I did do the work without taking the transmission out of the truck, so I doubt it is clutch related, and there isn't any noise at all out of it, new or old, as long as it is filled with gear oil. I also doubt it is a transfer case issue, because I had to put it in 4HI a couple days ago, and it engaged and disengaged without any issues. I was pretty much leaning towards swapping the old one with the used one I picked up, but I didn't want to do all that work if you thought there may be something wrong with the used one, but now that I know it shifts fine, it looks like that is what I am going to be doing.
  23. One thing I forgot to mention. I drove it quite a bit while it was still leaking, and there were times I could tell by the whine that it was getting low on gear oil, so I think I may have hurt something in it. I did check out the other transmission very carefully today, and as long as it is somewhat warmed up and rotating, it shifts fairly easy, so I think I'm just going to swap the two. I just thought it was odd, since I have filled it several times before, that it now all of a sudden has the vibration in it. I also neglected to mention that for the most part, knowing it leaked, I was very careful not to push it too hard, staying right around 55 on the highway, no fast starts or letting the clutch out hard, but the day before the vibration started, I was running very late, and in trying to get where I needed to be on time, I pushed it pretty hard, doing 65-70 on the highway for about 45 miles, and the vibration started the next day, so that may have had something to do with it. Im also pretty sure the issue is strictly with the transmission, because in 3rd or 4th, it vibrates hard enough that the truck shakes, but once I push the clutch in and let it coast, even at 50-55, the vibration instantly stops.
  24. Moses, I will add my one and only experience here. I have a 1991 Dakota, that came with factory steel wheels and 225/75/15, and got right around 18 MPG, but when I swapped to 31/10.50/15's, with stock 1998 Durango aluminum wheels, I found I was only getting 16 MPG. After a friend suggested weighing each tire and wheel separately, as well as weighing the steel and the aluminum wheels with tires mounted, I decided to try it, and I found that even though there was only maybe a pound or 2 difference in the steel versus aluminum wheel, there was almost a 7 pound difference between the 225/75/15's and the 31/10.50/15's, which works out to an added 28 pounds of weight. Im not saying that alone caused my fuel reduction, because at the time it also could have probably needed a tune up among other things, but the more weight you add to a vehicle, the more that weight can affect things like performance and fuel consumption. In the case I presented, think of it this way, where it may take a light pedal to get the vehicle to initially move and keep it rolling, the extra weight of the larger tires may take a bit more pedal pressure to get things rolling and keep them moving, which may translate into added fuel consumption.
  25. Moses, technically the rust belt is considered New York, some parts of New Jersey, and all of the New England states. Basically it consists of anything bordering New York, and going north to the canadian border. Those states use, and have used, salt on the roads for winter clean up for decades, whereas states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania use sand, which tends to have a less harmful effect on vehicles.
×
×
  • Create New...