5.2 enough?

[chast]

Hi all—considering replacing our Roadtrek 170 with a Pleasureway. Both are 1997 with the 318ci/5.2 liter engine. The Roadtrek has 145K miles and the Pway has 60K. The Pleasureway weights approx 3000 lbs more than the Roadtrek as it sits on the B3500 chassis and the Roadtrek is on the B2500. The Pway also carries a genny and an awning which the Rtrek doesn’t have. I am concerned that the extra weight that the Pway carries will overtax the engine and I won’t be happy with the performance. What do you think?

[Reflex439]

I have a Roadtrek P190 on a Dodge chassis with the 5.2L/318. Currently it has 92K miles on it. I travel both with and without a 10' enclosed utility trailer which is 1,400 empty, probably close to 2,700 full. The 3500 and 5.2L/318 does a great job and I haven't had any issues with it over the last 30K+ miles I've owned it. It pulls the trailer well and I never feel its struggling except for steep mountain grades. Most normal grades I can travel uphill at 55-65mph without feeling like my foot is in the carburetor. I can tell the trailer is there, but don't feel like I am pushing the engine hard.

Trailering isn't the same as having that weight on the chassis, but I wouldn't worry about the extra weight on the choices you've outlined. The Roadtrek on the 3500 chassis with the 5.2L/318 is well matched in my opinion,

[arm]

We have a 1996 RT 190P on the 3500 chassis. All the 1 ton vans came with the 3.93 rear axle. My older late 80's B2500 had approx. 3.5 axle ratio. This could make the B3500 as responsive as the B2500. (provides more torque to the ground, which is what gets you up the hills.) You might want to check what the axle ratio is on you RT 170 to compare.

My 190P has preformed quite well 15 - 17 MPG and acceptable torque for the hills. I live in the mountains. It weighs 7640 - 7880 lbs depending on load. I don't think the PW will be much heavier but I know it is a little.

Our friends have a 2000 year PW and don't have any problems. I would pick the one that works best for you.

Good luck

[bsinmich]

I have the 318 in my 190V '95 and it has plenty of power and the good part about it is the 16-18 mpg on the road. I wouldn't call that thirsty or anemic either. I had a 360 i9n an older MH and that was thirsty. The '95 has EFI and is very dependable.

[Bionic_Man]

The difference in power between the 5.2 and the 5.9 is 25 HP and 30 ft/lb torque. Both engines are thirsty and anemic by todays standards, but I don't think you will feel much if any difference if you were able to find the bigger van with the bigger motor.

For the record, I had a 1994 Dakota with the 5.2 (as well as some Grand Cherokees) as well as a 1996 Ram 1500 with the 5.9, and used them to tow a 4500ish pound boat. Couldn't really tell a difference between the two engines from what I remember.

[donn0128]

Worry not. The venerable Chrysler 318 was a good motor. It can easily be modified to get more power. In stock form neither will win any races, but will getmyou there. Pick the one that is in the best overall shape.

[Lwiddis]

I could imagine adding 3k more pounds to my TT and wouldn’t be happy with my TV engine size.