Hey guys,
I have an opportunity to buy a '79 RamCharger with what the owner claims is full time 4-wheel drive. I was wondering if you guys know what axles and transfer cases came in these vehicles. Do they make good trail riders/light rock crawlers? Any help would be appreciated.

9 1/4" Chrysler Corp rear, Dana 44 front, NP203 transfer case.

Yes, it is full time 4WD, but I do not recommend these trucks. Small bolt pattern and weak front wheel bearings make them a pain to deal with and big/heavy tires just compound the problem. Decent cruiser and snow runner, but not anything sporting. Look for an 82-84 model if you want a Ramcharger with decent drivetrain or be prepared to go axle hunting. Just my .02

Hey guys,
I have an opportunity to buy a '79 RamCharger with what the owner claims is full time 4-wheel drive. I was wondering if you guys know what axles and transfer cases came in these vehicles. Do they make good trail riders/light rock crawlers? Any help would be appreciated.

It all depends on what size tire your planning on running. I would say it would make a good trail rig if your running 33s. But i never had one YET.

Nope, 33s will eat the wheel bearings pretty quick, especially with decent backspacing. I had a guy want to swap me a 4" lift, rims and 33" tires off a 79 Trailduster, for my stock suspension and 32" tires off my 84 Ramcharger. He got tired of doing the bearings every few months or so. I didn't because of the bolt pattern difference though, lol. Either way there are much better trucks out there to be had cheap that don't have the issues of the mid 70s era trucks. Look for an early 80's 3/4 ton...

Try this web site www.ramchargercentral.com They have some pretty good info on there

All good points, but the older ones make great convertibles. :D

My brother just got a 87 4x4 ram w 35s full time 4wd and a 440, should he be worried about chewin up bearings too?

the only problem i see with any of the 70s era ramchargers and powerwagons are the wheelbearings. i have a 78 3/4 ton powerwagon with the 203/ unit bearing frontend, and i am fixing this by swapping out the outer knuckles, spindles, axles, etc. with those from a 70s model ford

74-79 dodges used Unit bearings, which suck (worse than the 94+ ones).

80-93's used tapered roller bearings.

How about issues with the 72 1/2 ton PW's. I kno it has the d44 front and chrysler 9.25" out back, so is it the same as the RC?

A 72 model should have a D44 front and a 8 3/4" Chrysler Corp rear, which is a 3rd member axle, similar to a Ford 9" and is very desirable in my opinion. Probably has a divorced NP205 transfer case also, which is a good thing in my opinion also.

Also, fulltime 4x4 was not available in 1987, so I have no idea why someone would swap that useless junk under a good truck. If the truck has no hubs up front, (ie, nothing but a retaining nut flush with the wheel face) then someone has swapped an older unit bearing front end under it and yes, you will have to worry about wheel bearings. I suspect that you are mistaken and it is not fulltime though. Double check!

Thanks Elwenil, i sent u a PM.

-Greg

The only thing wrong with '74-'79 RC's is the narrow front wheel bearings and small bolt pattern. BOTH are easy to solve with a knuckle/hub and shaft swap, or a 3/4 ton/1 ton axle swap.

The '74-'79 unit bearings are very similar to the '94+ Dodge unit bearings in size and strength. The newer unit bearing are sealed units, the early units have a grease zerk, accessed through the hub face, and should be serviced regularly. The lack of regular greasing causes these bearing to fail quickly.

I'm familiar with several Dodge trucks running these axles with 33" or 35" tires on 8" and 10" wheels. These trucks are mostly daily drivers, with light trail use. All are regularly serviced, and none of them have any bearing problems.

I agree with what you guys are saying about being leery of the small bolt pattern fronts, if you have the option go with the 5.5, no question. BUT, here goes nothing. I am running a small bolt pattern D44 out of a 79 power wagon in my 78 CJ with 38.5s. Granted it has only been one season, but the bearings have held up SO FAR. I know they are going to need replaced eventually, and sooner than they would if it were a newer style, but I just thought that I would give you a success story, since there don't seem to be to many.

Elwenil,
Agreed on the 8 3/4 being desirable. That’s what I am running in the rear, and all has been great, after I found out the hard way that it is a soft housing and it needed to be braced.

Phil

Hmmm, I've never bent one, at least not enough to cause problems. Eh, on second thought, maybe I'd better go take a closer look at mine. If it ain't bent yet, now would be a good time to whip up a truss or something. Thanks for the heads up.