K-Note72
Well-Known Member
Just a random question, what's the difference between the 100 and 150 designation of the D/W series trucks?
7mopar
Well-Known Member
Well got this off the Dodge form. Do not know if correct but make since .
Pre 81 its a D100
81 and newer are D150
94 and newer 1500
And with more research that is not even correct.
Some think it has to do with load ratings.
Many be someone will know
K-Note72
Well-Known Member
Yeah I saw a couple saying it was load ratings but others were saying that wasn't entirely accurate either. I've been looking up both w100 and w150, trying to see if I can spot any consistencies, none so far
7mopar
Well-Known Member
I have a D150 that would sag to the ground with 1000 lbs in the back. If a D100 is lighter duty would be almost hard to call it a truck.
If someone put there has an 82 D100 whats the GVW. I will check and post the D150.
If someone put there has an 82 D100 whats the GVW. I will check and post the D150.
K-Note72
Well-Known Member
Can't the springs just be changed!?
7mopar
Well-Known Member
They could but instead the whole frame got changed
K-Note72
Well-Known Member
Got any pics of what either bare frame looks like? A frame change between the two has me a bit more curious
7mopar
Well-Known Member
Would not do much good. My D150 grewup and became a D350 dually.
Frames do not change much as long as the same body configuration is retained. Biggest difference is material thickness of components untill you get to the D250 and D350 frames. I am not sure of the D250s but there where three different frames in the D350 series. Standard, commercial and industrial all of different material weights, member diamensions and lenghts.
Frames do not change much as long as the same body configuration is retained. Biggest difference is material thickness of components untill you get to the D250 and D350 frames. I am not sure of the D250s but there where three different frames in the D350 series. Standard, commercial and industrial all of different material weights, member diamensions and lenghts.
K-Note72
Well-Known Member
Yeah I wanna stick with the W100/W150 because of the smaller wheelbase. I love that look of a short wheelbase shortbed with a small lift, much more than a longbed. Much like this one (but maybe with an inch or two less lift, and a few inches smaller tire size).
If the functional difference is mainly springs then I'd just find some heavier-duty springs to swap in.
7mopar
Well-Known Member
About a foot to tall for me.
The GVW on an 82 D150 was 4800 lbs.. Now if anyone know what it was for the D100?
The GVW on an 82 D150 was 4800 lbs.. Now if anyone know what it was for the D100?
K-Note72
Well-Known Member
That sounds about close to what the owner's manual says for my Dakota (back when they bothered with extra details about axle ratios, engine displacement, transmission, etc). 4600-4800 lbs.
7mopar
Well-Known Member
The 93 Dakota extended cab with v6 has a 6000 gvw. Really should run it across the scales some day just to see how over loaded it is. Its plated at 12000 and the 4 ply side walls bulge a little.
K-Note72
Well-Known Member
For the V6? I can understand extra weight capability with the frame for the extended cab, but I don't see how the V6 has a higher load rating. It'd make more sense if it was the 5.2L, since 93 was the year it changed over from the LA to Magnum, and the Magnums were rated higher.
7mopar
Well-Known Member
The 3.9 mag was rated i believe at 185 hp about equal to the 360 in the 82 D350. But I have a had time buying it.
K-Note72
Well-Known Member
Glad I'm not the only one. Then again, hp and torque are two different factors, plus they probably also tweaked the axle ratio.
Polara_500
Well-Known Member
Initially, to my understanding, it was done for some emissions variance - they classed the D150 as heavier duty so it didn't have to meet "passenger" vehicle emission standards. Not quite sure how they made that differentiation, especially if you check the scans below from the 86 Dodge factory towing information sheet. They also split out California vehicles, (didn't scan CA specs), but from a quick spot check I didn't see any big difference in load capacities or anything else although I did see one truck went from a 3.54 axle to a 3.55 in the chart.
7mopar
Well-Known Member
I don't know what emissions variance there would have been the 82 D150 miser /6, 4 spd od, lean burn, air pump and cat. Not sure what else for emissions would have been required for a non-Cal truck.
K-Note72
Well-Known Member
Yeah the chart shows the W100 and W150 pooled together, so doesn't look like TOO MUCH variance between em. The different load ratings seem to mainly pertain to the engine and axle ratio. The 318 they're saying is only good for 9000lbs GCWR, but I'm bettin that's based on a bone stock 318 turnin that somewhat-higher 3.21 ratio(did they have the 8.25" rear axle? I might've asked before but that was about the D100). Obviously I'm planning a twin turbo 318 build, plus here's a fun fact about the 318: it's the same block essentially as the 340 and 360, just lower-flow heads and smaller bore and shorter crank throw just doesn't travel full cylinder (leaving extra cylinder volume in addition to the combustion chamber, of course that's gonna lower compression). The 318 should be ready for mild forced induction, just need to swap the heads out.
Obviously it's in a car but you see my point
LocuMob
Fluid Technician
I have a Lokar shifter I'd sell ya for a good price, only been mounted, never in a vehicle.
If you didn't want to source a column, and felt like putting another hole in the floor! (Handle is backwards in the pic.)