The 4.7 is in, I don't remember if the 5.9 did get replaced with the 5.7 hemi or not. It may have been put on hold.
For wheeling, I'd wait another two years, and get a second-year 2500 with cummins. I'm planning on picking up a 2500 cummins in a few years, when I get the current one paid off, so I can start building it up into a trailered trail-rig.
Just ay NO to ifs!!! I can't believe that Dodge is going to ifs on the half ton. In 2003 3/4 and 1 tons are going to ifs. Thats just not right, the reason why I like Dodge so much is because of the solid axle.
the 2002 1500 does have ifs but i heard the redesigned 2500 and 3500 would still have a solid front axle. the 5.2 was replaced with the 4.7 which is a much better engine anyway. it still has the same old 5.9 that everyone likes to put gas in, but i heard that the hemi should be offered in the future. 5.7 liter, 353 ci, 353 hp, and 353 ft'lbs of torque, sounds like an awsome engine. thats the same engine that is said to be in the charger r/t if thats ever going to be released. im not a big fan of the new ram so i'll just stick with the one i have now for a while, although if i could do it again i would go for the diesal.
It's funny how we say "if I had it all over to do again" I'm quilty my self of saying that. My next truck will definatly be a Dodge diesel. Not to build up into a wheeler, but for a stout tow vehicle.
My 94'w/360 is just enough to haul my jeep around.
I bought a truck that rides like a truck. If I wanted a truck that rides like a car, I would've bought a Chevy...so no, I don't really care for the new '02 Rams. The new body style and IFS just doesn't do anything for me.
I personally bought a Dodge because of the lack of IFS. They are SO MUCH more expensive than the straigh axle to lift and the though of having to go through half shaft and "boot" replacement on a Full size!! (SORRY CHEVY GUYS!)
I really feel the coil is a good system, and I would hate to see Dodge ruin the abilities of the 3/4 and 1 ton's off-road ablity. I have seen at least 3 to 4 lifted Chevy 1 tons that spun the pinion gear on the front pumpkin. Not a pretty sight - your only as strong as your weakest link!
if the 2500 and 3500 go with the ifs my next new truck would have to be a superduty, although i dont really like fords. but that solid front axle with leaf springs all around is alot cheaper and easier to lift.
As has been stated here by others, the 2003 2500 and 3500s are still going to be coil-sprung, solid axles.
I was upset about the 1500 going IFS for a bit as well, then the more I've wheeled, the more I've decided that the D44 front axle just doesn't cut it with a 5,000# truck. Great on a jeep, but not on something with 50% more mass.
The 1500s are mostly bought by people who don't use a truck for a truck. Unfortunate, but true. So IFS makes sense. And even for those who do use a truck as a truck, it's only Off-road that you really start to run into issues with IFS.
For light towing, and for 4-hi in the snow, IFS is fine. For plowing snow, hauling heavy loads, off-roading a 5-6,000# truck, you want something heavier duty than IFS. So you do what both Ford, and now Dodge have done, which is to put IFS on the 1500s that are mostly daily-drivers and "Hollywood" trucks that are never put into a position to get even scratched, let alone crossed-up on a trail, and use the 2500 and 3500s with the solid front axles for the heavy-duty stuff.
I do agree that IFS does have it's advantages, my '94 YOTA had the sway bar completely removed - and it improved my wheeling abilities. I liked the freeway ride and I thought for light wheeling and "pre-runner" style romping it was sufficent.
Why Chevy, Ford and now Dodge doesn't make a package for a straight axle rather than IFS? Why do you have to goto a 3/4 ton just to have it? Back in the '70's you could have almost ANY combo on a musclecar and anything you wanted between engine, tranny and suspension. Have we as a consumer become so passive that we accept choices being made for us? Or are we just so complasent that we are happy with less?? I say we have a choice - they already have the technology, why not making the options available??????
Volume. If you can make one part in a volume of 40,000 a year, instead of two parts at 20,000 a year, then you'll save money as a producer. And you'll save on overhead by not needing to track them separately. You'll save even more because you don't have to keep track of how many of each are being purchased, and worry about the fact that you produced 20K of each, but demand wants 30K of one and 10K of the other.
So they produce 40K of the one that the demand is at 30K for, and while those who wanted the 10K of B lose out, companies like SkyJacker, Superlift, Advance Adapters, and whoever it is that makes the bomb-proof rebuilt Dana 60 front axles.
True! I couldn't agree with you more. It just seems life is so much more streamline for the consumer - less choices, faster turn around time and no one is really stopping to take a breath. Guess it's just life and that's why there are so many aftermarket companies.
<IMG SRC="/board/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif"> I suppose I have been getting too nastalgic.
BTW, I was asked how I like the BigO XTs up there somewhere... Missed it earlier. They're really good, a lot better than my stock Wrangler RS P.O.S. tires... They aren't SSRs, that's for certain. But they hold amazingly well. On this trail: http://www.pavementsucks.com/album/hh1014.jpg I was holding onto the sides of a rut with only about an 1" of the shoulder tread-blocks. That's with 30-40K on the tires, too.
considering the mileage on them, they haves a good deal of tread left, and still bite well. The center siping is worn away, but they grip wet pavement at least as well as the stock tires did, with siping.
Join the Pavement SuA forum community dedicated to off-road vehicle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about trail reports, builds, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, drivetrain, and more!cks forum to discuss all types of off-road activities, vehicle modifications and repairs, land use issues and even camping and fishing.