3.9 and 5.2 reliablity? and other q's

[NJRodeo]

I am looking into getting a different car, I rolled my Isuzu Rodeo, so I need something else. This is what I am thinking of right now

91-95 Dodge Dakota (Ext Cab)
4.0 Jeep Cherokee
89-95 Toyota Truck <-- prolly wont go with that

I am going through the reliablity of all the engines. I know the yoto 22re cant be beat for reliablity, but I need more power than that 4 cyl, I have a jet ski to haul around. Anyway, to my questions, how is the 3.9 and 5.2 for reliablity? I need something that will last me a decent amount of time, and would rather not have to rebuild or swap in the next few years. Also, whats the 3.9 and 5.2 (1991-1995) hp and torque ratings?

Thanks
NJ

[1989 DX R]

Well the 5.2L is the same 318 that's been in Dodge/Chrysler cars for 30+ years now, so it doesn't have very many bugs. The 3.9L V6, I believe its just a 5.2 minus 2 cylinders. Maybe not.

Get the 5.2 if you are going to use the truck like it's supposed to be.

[HillbilySailor]

Dx R is right on both counts. The 318 is a good motor. Dodge has been using it for years. Replacement parts are easy to find. It should have no problem at all hauling your jet ski around. He's also right about the 3.9 being a cut-off 318. If all you plan on hauling around is that jet ski, the 3.9 will work also. However, if you plan on doing any serious hauling, stick with the 318. Believe it or not, gas mileage for both engines is about the same.

[Brent F]

In my experience the 3.9 is a strong motor with the 5speed i haven't had any problems pulling a jet ski or a lawn mower or a trailer. MIne has the 3.89 rear end option with the low first gear 5speed and that gives it alot of kick for towing but i pull 3 grand on the highway typical fuel milage is about 18mpg but 75% of my driving is on the highway steady interstate running will get 4-5 mpg more never really tested it for an entire tank so i could get that number. And they are right this engine wants and trys to be a v-8 and the gas milage shows it but you gain alot of torque for that the factory says 225 but in my set-up that feels conservative cause it takes very fine clutch work not to light the tires in first

[LiveDakota]

Actually the 3.9L v-6 (239ci) is the 5.9L v-8 (360ci) but with 2 less cylinders. Im not quite sure about the HP and TQ of the 95 3.9L but it should be in the park of 175HP and 225TQ. Not sure of the 5.2L engine specs but if i remember correctly the HP is in the range of 220-230. I have a 00" Dakota sport with the 3.9L with the 5 speed manual tranny (NV3500). Its one hell of a v-6 engine. I've pulled many of things including a toyota celica on a rollback through the mountains of west virginia and never one was is struggling to make it up the steep grades. Hope this helps.

[BleedDodge]

I know this is old but I gotta correct that last post. A 3.9 is a 360 with 2 cylinders missing? Not so. It's simple math.

239 cubic inches divided by 6 cylinders = 39.8

39.8 multiplied by 8 cylinders = 318.4 cubic inches

A 3.9 V6 is based on a 318 V8.

[Revolution13815]

Yeah I'd also like to add I am very pleased with the power of my V6 3.9 with 5 speed. I haul around a 500lbs four wheeler in the back and it doesn't even seem to make a difference being back there. You can't "feel" the extra weight, even up hill. And I can easily cruise up a pretty decent hill in four gear.

[Romanyshyn]

I've found my 91 3.9L 5speed to be very lacking in power for towing, it's not a total dog, but the 318 would be much better.