Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
The price doesn't sound too bad even with slightly over 100K miles. My 6spd truck got 22-24MPG empty on the highway, and with the 9000# trailer, it got 16MPG towing on the highway and slightly lower mileage, about 13MPG in the mountains. Stop and go driving will KILL your MPG! It's not really best for driving around town anyway (that's better left to an MB diesel). Kevin in Hillsboro Oregon 1981 300CD 204K miles, Giesela
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
it has 101k miles. A few others are in that price range as well in the 120k range. Seems like high miles for an 03 but no really high miles overall I dont guess. High miles in a relatively short time almost have to be largely highway miles, and they're the best kind and sometimes hardly count. To paraphrase a TV ad, "They sound good 'cause they free. Shewt." -- Jim
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
it has 101k miles. A few others are in that price range as well in the 120k range. Seems like high miles for an 03 but no really high miles overall I dont guess. What kind of mileage do you get with yours? kevin kraly wrote: How many miles are on it? Last year, I bought my '03 Ram 2500 Cummins quadcab 6spd for $27K with 22K miles on it. For the few of us up here in the Northwest who own 2wd trucks, we pay much more than you guys down in OK and TX where 2WD's are everywhere. If that '03 Ram has low miles, and it's what you want, and you have the money, JUMP ON IT! It was more than adequate to pull our 9000# travel trailer, and it would muscle the 2000# 19' Marlin boat around like child's play. The new '06 auto does even better in not only the power, but also the ride and comfort, and the price tag reflects that. Kevin in Hillsboro Oregon 1981 300CD 204K miles, Giesela ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Kaleb C. Striplin/Claremore, OK 91 300D 2.5 Turbo, 90 420SEL, 89 560SEL, 87 420SEL, 87 300SDL, 85 380SE, 85 300D, 84 190D 2.2, 83 300TD, 81 300TD, 81 240D, 76 240D, 76 300D, 74 240D, 73 280SEL 4.5, 72 250C, 69 250 http://www.striplin.net
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
How many miles are on it? Last year, I bought my '03 Ram 2500 Cummins quadcab 6spd for $27K with 22K miles on it. For the few of us up here in the Northwest who own 2wd trucks, we pay much more than you guys down in OK and TX where 2WD's are everywhere. If that '03 Ram has low miles, and it's what you want, and you have the money, JUMP ON IT! It was more than adequate to pull our 9000# travel trailer, and it would muscle the 2000# 19' Marlin boat around like child's play. The new '06 auto does even better in not only the power, but also the ride and comfort, and the price tag reflects that. Kevin in Hillsboro Oregon 1981 300CD 204K miles, Giesela
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
I found a 03 that has the new engine in it for around 17k. That seems reasonable to me. Jim Cathey wrote: On the 24V Dodge Cummins models (98.5+ to common-rail whenever that was) consider it mandatory to install a fuel pressure gauge or idiot light. Treat it like the engine oil pressure gauge. Of the four I know the owners of, _all_ of them have eaten the injection pump (to the tune of $2000-$3000) when either the lift pump failed or the fuel filter clogged due to a load of bad fuel. Otherwise, they're fine engines. -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
On the 24V Dodge Cummins models (98.5+ to common-rail whenever that was) consider it mandatory to install a fuel pressure gauge or idiot light. Treat it like the engine oil pressure gauge. Of the four I know the owners of, _all_ of them have eaten the injection pump (to the tune of $2000-$3000) when either the lift pump failed or the fuel filter clogged due to a load of bad fuel. Otherwise, they're fine engines. -- Jim
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
I have one of thoseAN 86 E350 Diesel.The only way to get an alignment done properly is to take it to a REAL truck shop so the I-beams can be heated and bent to spec. VERY VERY durable though. 256K miles and still going strong. As long as the alignment is good(which it rarely isn't with parts that stout) about the only things that make them eat tires is bad shocks or the big bushing at the rear of the, for lack of the correct term, big bar that goes from the I-beam to the frame. Mike - Original Message - From: "Robert & Tara Ludwick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM Ah yes, the curse of the twin ibeams, they will eat tires, but it's just about impossible to break the things. I really loved the bloopers from some of those old commercials where they were dropping the things off of cranes etc where they trucks would bounce sky hi and flip overbut the suspension and frame was still ok . ---Robert David Brodbeck wrote: Robert & Tara Ludwick wrote: No, the chassis is the best part on the ford ( I remember quite a few years ago, about 20, when the city of new york got a great deal on a bunch of new ambulances from chevy and got rid of the fords...after about 6 months they were suing GM because the suspension on their new ambulances was not up to the rigors of NY city streets ( they were breaking suspension pieces and cracking frames left and right ) they got rid of them and went back to fords. The twin I-beam front suspension on the 1980s Ford trucks & vans was ridiculously stout. No one seemed to be able to align it well, but you couldn't break it. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
Kleb: If you don't want an 1113 or 1116, here is what you oughta have, a rollback something like the truck in the foreground. Crewcab IH 4700 DT466, German-designed engine. http://www.scoutconnection.com/photogallery/classicgallery_1/05_1q.jpg
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
Ah yes, the curse of the twin ibeams, they will eat tires, but it's just about impossible to break the things. I really loved the bloopers from some of those old commercials where they were dropping the things off of cranes etc where they trucks would bounce sky hi and flip overbut the suspension and frame was still ok . ---Robert David Brodbeck wrote: Robert & Tara Ludwick wrote: No, the chassis is the best part on the ford ( I remember quite a few years ago, about 20, when the city of new york got a great deal on a bunch of new ambulances from chevy and got rid of the fords...after about 6 months they were suing GM because the suspension on their new ambulances was not up to the rigors of NY city streets ( they were breaking suspension pieces and cracking frames left and right ) they got rid of them and went back to fords. The twin I-beam front suspension on the 1980s Ford trucks & vans was ridiculously stout. No one seemed to be able to align it well, but you couldn't break it. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
rumor has it that David wrote: > Robert & Tara Ludwick wrote: > > No, the chassis is the best part on the ford ( I remember quite a > > few years ago, about 20, when the city of new york got a great > > deal on a bunch of new ambulances from chevy and got rid of the > > fords...after about 6 months they were suing GM because the > > suspension on their new ambulances was not up to the rigors of NY > > city streets ( they were breaking suspension pieces and cracking > > frames left and right ) they got rid of them and went back to > > fords. > > The twin I-beam front suspension on the 1980s Ford trucks & vans was > ridiculously stout. No one seemed to be able to align it well, but > you couldn't break it. There is (was?) a shop in south St.Louis City that could do a proper alignment. I never got to watch the process, but I understand it involved hydraulic cylinders to bend the I-beams! But it was a sturdy suspension, even if the geometry left a lot to be desired... -- Philip, currently Ford-less
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
David Brodbeck wrote: > > The twin I-beam front suspension on the 1980s Ford trucks & vans was > ridiculously stout. No one seemed to be able to align it well, but you > couldn't break it. Heat it and beat it was never a precision adjustment method. I suspect they weren't all that straight when they left the factory. Looking back on it, maybe a ppi at an alignment shop would have been in order when choosing a new truck.
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
Whats the total torque, like 300ft/lbs? So the Ford was less than 10% more powerful. I wonder what mileage penalty is for that power. -Curt Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:12:58 -0700 From: Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM To: mercedes@okiebenz.com Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 09:59:39PM -0500, Robert & Tara Ludwick wrote: > The fords are definitely the sturdiest and most comfortable over the > long haul ( I love my old'90 crew cab ) but the international engines > leave a few things to be desired. It is worthwhile noting that the non turbo 7.3 IDI engine had more torque than the cummins TURBO did in the first generation dodge diesels, by something like 20 ft-lbs. That engine and the 6.9 that preceeded it were in use by medium duty internationals, and owners of those rigs really seemed to like them. - Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2ยข/min or less. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 10 17:43:16 2006 Received: from rwcrmhc15.comcast.net ([204.127.192.85]) by server8.arterytc8.net with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fzzmr-0002Y1-8T for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:43:15 + Received: from ringbill.gull.us (gull.us[67.171.52.98]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc15) with ESMTP id <20060710174302m15004i35se>; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:43:02 + Received: from [69.88.113.178] (helo=[192.168.1.105]) by ringbill.gull.us with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.51 (FreeBSD)) id 1Fzzmd-000HMn-Fz for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:43:00 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:42:54 -0700 From: David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mercedes Discussion List References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.7 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "ringbill.gull.us", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see [EMAIL PROTECTED] for details. Content preview: Robert & Tara Ludwick wrote: > No, the chassis is the best part on the ford ( I remember quite a few > years ago, about 20, when the city of new york got a great deal on a > bunch of new ambulances from chevy and got rid of the fords...after > about 6 months they were suing GM because the suspension on their new > ambulances was not up to the rigors of NY city streets ( they were > breaking suspension pieces and cracking frames left and right ) they got > rid of them and went back to fords. [...] Content analysis details: (-4.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description -- -- -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.] 1.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus Subject: Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM X-BeenThere: mercedes@okiebenz.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.7.cp2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mercedes Discussion List List-Id: Mercedes Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: List-Post: <mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:43:17 - Robert & Tara Ludwick wrote: > No, the chassis is the best part on the ford ( I remember quite a few > years ago, about 20, when the city of new york got a great deal on a > bunch of new ambulances from chevy and got rid of the fords...after > about 6 months they were suing GM because the suspension on their new > ambulances was not up to the rigors of NY city streets ( they were > breaking suspension pieces and cracking frames left and right ) they got > rid of them and went back to fords. The twin I-beam front suspension on the 1980s Ford trucks & vans was ridiculously stout. No one seemed to be able to align it well, but you couldn't break it.
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
I've always heard Ford trucks and GM cars - from the old timers. BTW - What's a Frod? ;-) Larry T (67 MGB, 74 911, 78 240D, 91 300D) www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs Porsche Road Test http://members.rennlist.com/roadtest/ . - Original Message - From: "Kaleb C. Striplin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM Dont ford chassis suck? Or not? OK Don wrote: Well - why didn't you say so. Then - get a Cummins drive train and put it in Ford chassis. That's the only thing I've read on the list that makes any sense for trucks. On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for your response. It was really helpful in me sorting thru the differences. My dad wants my 1 ton, which is why Im looking for another one. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
Kaleb, Here's what you do (just my opinion of course) look at all the trucks in your price range, years etc and take them out on a test drive. Find the one that fits your needs and has all the options, power, comfort you might need. As usual everyone is going to say yea this truck has issues whatnot, consider after all its going to be your truck. Unless you'll be yanking tree stumps out of the ground, it wouldn't matter a hill of beans what make,model you get. I see it this way, American built trucks are the best you'll get hands down! Like I said, they all have their issues, nagging problems and so on. But, once you find one that fits your needs, its what makes you happy in the end that matters...right? Harry 69 280 SEL 120,000 Miles 72 350SL 108,000 Miles 2004 VW Passat 4 Motion 1999 Mazda Miata -Original Message- From: Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mercedes Discussion List Sent: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:53:38 -0500 Subject: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM OK,still sort of looking around for another truck. Not real new, probably mid to late 90's, early 2k if good deal. I know about GM, probably my preference, but am exploring the option of a cummins or or a powerchoke. Between those, which has the most power, which gets the best mileage, has the fewest problems. On the cummins, I have heard the trannies suck, even the 5 speeds. I assume I would want a 5 speed with a cummins rather than an auto. I also know about the powerchoke cavitation issues. What the the trannies in those? What about general body issues? Which hold up better? Any electrical issues on either? I still prefer GM because they seem to be easier and cheaper to work on. I have not had any trouble with any of my 6.2's or my 6.5 td. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 09:59:39PM -0500, Robert & Tara Ludwick wrote: > The fords are definitely the sturdiest and most comfortable over the > long haul ( I love my old'90 crew cab ) but the international engines > leave a few things to be desired. It is worthwhile noting that the non turbo 7.3 IDI engine had more torque than the cummins TURBO did in the first generation dodge diesels, by something like 20 ft-lbs. That engine and the 6.9 that preceeded it were in use by medium duty internationals, and owners of those rigs really seemed to like them.
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
I think I could hit 22mpg fairly regularly in my old '93 Cummins 4x4 Clubcab. Casey Olympia, WA Biodiesel: "I drive in a persistent vegetative state" '87 300TD intercooler #22 (216k) '84 300D (214k) Gashuffer: '89 Vanagon Wolfsburg Edition (187K) http://users.zhonka.net/zeitgeist/Misc/IMG_0171.JPG
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
Why didn't you buy that Dodge 1 ton I mentioned a while back with the sleeper cab? How about this? http://www.auto-rv.com/default.asp?area=browsedetail&adname=BK1080569D http://www.auto-rv.com/default.asp?area=browsedetail&adname=BL647057 http://www.auto-rv.com/default.asp?area=browsedetail&adname=BM1201030D http://www.auto-rv.com/default.asp?area=browsedetail&adname=BI4131815D http://www.auto-rv.com/default.asp?area=browsedetail&adname=BI4131883D An E350 with two rows of seats and a gooseneck might be nice, but I don't see them too often. I've seen retired E450 ambulances without the ambulance body for $2k or so, but the body just ends behind the driver's seat, you'd need to fabricate a rear seating area and close off the back from the weather. I've got enough 24oz fiberglass cloth to fashion a sleeper area if you want to work with foam/glass construction.
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
No, the chassis is the best part on the ford ( I remember quite a few years ago, about 20, when the city of new york got a great deal on a bunch of new ambulances from chevy and got rid of the fords...after about 6 months they were suing GM because the suspension on their new ambulances was not up to the rigors of NY city streets ( they were breaking suspension pieces and cracking frames left and right ) they got rid of them and went back to fords. I don't know what they are currently using The fords are definitely the sturdiest and most comfortable over the long haul ( I love my old'90 crew cab ) but the international engines leave a few things to be desired. The cummins are much easier to work on ( a straight 6 always is, I have no idea why ford put a v8 in aside from the avarage american stupidity that says a v8 is always better ) and cheaper to maintain and generally get better milage. A cummins in a ford is an ideal combination. There are a few places that sell trucks pre modified or will swap a cummins into someones truck, there are also swap kits available ---Robert Kaleb C. Striplin wrote: Dont ford chassis suck? Or not? OK Don wrote: Well - why didn't you say so. Then - get a Cummins drive train and put it in Ford chassis. That's the only thing I've read on the list that makes any sense for trucks. On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for your response. It was really helpful in me sorting thru the differences. My dad wants my 1 ton, which is why Im looking for another one. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
"Kaleb C. Striplin" wrote: > > OK so with the cummins, whats the deal with the different years, the 12 > valve, 24 valve, seems they had completely different ip's. What about > the newer ones, like 02 and up? Those seem much quieter In the beginning, it was rotary pump, 21:1 compression, non intercooled. Somewhere around 1991-92 they dropped the CR into the 18s and intercooled it. 1994 was the new body style and inline pump. Much like our cars, but with an interchangeable torque plate in the governor. mid 98 came the 24v, different injection, more advertised power, but seemingly less useful power. All new motor came out in 2003 or so, I think it's some form of common rail. Ligter block, still all ferrous. I haven't spent hours and hours reading up on either 24v engine like I have with the 12v.
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
OK so with the cummins, whats the deal with the different years, the 12 valve, 24 valve, seems they had completely different ip's. What about the newer ones, like 02 and up? Those seem much quieter Mitch Haley wrote: "Kaleb C. Striplin" wrote: OK,still sort of looking around for another truck. Not real new, probably mid to late 90's, early 2k if good deal. I know about GM, probably my preference, but am exploring the option of a cummins or or a powerchoke. Between those, which has the most power, which gets the best mileage, has the fewest problems. On the cummins, I have heard the trannies suck, even the 5 speeds. I assume I would want a 5 speed with a cummins rather than an auto. I also know about the powerchoke cavitation issues. What the the trannies in those? What about general body issues? Which hold up better? Any electrical issues on either? I still prefer GM because they seem to be easier and cheaper to work on. I have not had any trouble with any of my 6.2's or my 6.5 td. Best mileage is going to be with a non intercooled 160hp Cummins, 1989-1991 or so. They had a higher compression ratio than the later engines. Also had larger injectors and a minor tendency to crack the heads near the injector holes. Just buy a 1989 5sp, bump the timing up to 2mm, and expect 25mpg empty with reasonable driving style. Getrag 360 five speed in 1989-1993 had a weak fifth gear, just don't go towing heavy loads at full throttle in 5th. The "killer dowel pin" can be fixed by pulling the radiator, drilling a hole in the timing cover over the pin, and threading it for a bolt to jam up against the pin. KDP failure is probably about as frequent as cracked heads in 1987 300ds w/o trap oxidizer. Most of the autos in the big three pickups can be beefed up to handle very heavy torque, but stay away from early Dodge 518 four speed. There's an improved retaining nut kit for fifth gear in the 1994-up NV4500 tranny, if it falls off, you lose fifth gear until you put it back together, not a catastrophic failure. Powerchoke and Cummins can be modified to whatever torque you want to modify the driveline to handle, later Dodge and all Powerstroke Ford can do it with a superchips programmer. They usually were within 10% for power in most years, Dodge usually had a slight edge in power and a bigger edge in mpg. A 2000 Dodge can outrun a 1995 Ford, and a 2000 Ford can outrun a 1995 Dodge. For mileage, get a stick shift, single rear wheel and make sure the axle ratio is 3.xx, not 4.xx. With Dodge or Ford, cruise at 1600-1800 rpm. Ford's electrical weakness is the crank position sensor (worthwhile $80 spare, buy it at the Navistar dealer, it's cheaper there) Just need a few minutes and a 10mm socket. The other electrical weakness is the throttle position sensor, the foot pedal has a sensor on it, drive by wire. If the oil anti-foam additive wears out in a Ford, the hydraulic/electronic injectors can act up, the cure is an oil change. I've heard nothing bad about the ZF stick shifts on Ford. Lots of guys install LUK clutches, but I don't see anything wrong with the clutch in the 2001 6sp I drive. I don't really know that much about GM, but for an indirect injection engine, the 6.5 seems to get pretty good mpg. I don't think any 6.5 can outpull even a 1989 Dodge, but the 6.6 Duramax is competitive. (but did I mention I dislike aluminum heads that don't have the star on them?) ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
"Kaleb C. Striplin" wrote: > > OK,still sort of looking around for another truck. Not real new, > probably mid to late 90's, early 2k if good deal. I know about GM, > probably my preference, but am exploring the option of a cummins or or > a powerchoke. Between those, which has the most power, which gets the > best mileage, has the fewest problems. On the cummins, I have heard the > trannies suck, even the 5 speeds. I assume I would want a 5 speed with > a cummins rather than an auto. I also know about the powerchoke > cavitation issues. What the the trannies in those? What about general > body issues? Which hold up better? Any electrical issues on either? > > I still prefer GM because they seem to be easier and cheaper to work > on. I have not had any trouble with any of my 6.2's or my 6.5 td. Best mileage is going to be with a non intercooled 160hp Cummins, 1989-1991 or so. They had a higher compression ratio than the later engines. Also had larger injectors and a minor tendency to crack the heads near the injector holes. Just buy a 1989 5sp, bump the timing up to 2mm, and expect 25mpg empty with reasonable driving style. Getrag 360 five speed in 1989-1993 had a weak fifth gear, just don't go towing heavy loads at full throttle in 5th. The "killer dowel pin" can be fixed by pulling the radiator, drilling a hole in the timing cover over the pin, and threading it for a bolt to jam up against the pin. KDP failure is probably about as frequent as cracked heads in 1987 300ds w/o trap oxidizer. Most of the autos in the big three pickups can be beefed up to handle very heavy torque, but stay away from early Dodge 518 four speed. There's an improved retaining nut kit for fifth gear in the 1994-up NV4500 tranny, if it falls off, you lose fifth gear until you put it back together, not a catastrophic failure. Powerchoke and Cummins can be modified to whatever torque you want to modify the driveline to handle, later Dodge and all Powerstroke Ford can do it with a superchips programmer. They usually were within 10% for power in most years, Dodge usually had a slight edge in power and a bigger edge in mpg. A 2000 Dodge can outrun a 1995 Ford, and a 2000 Ford can outrun a 1995 Dodge. For mileage, get a stick shift, single rear wheel and make sure the axle ratio is 3.xx, not 4.xx. With Dodge or Ford, cruise at 1600-1800 rpm. Ford's electrical weakness is the crank position sensor (worthwhile $80 spare, buy it at the Navistar dealer, it's cheaper there) Just need a few minutes and a 10mm socket. The other electrical weakness is the throttle position sensor, the foot pedal has a sensor on it, drive by wire. If the oil anti-foam additive wears out in a Ford, the hydraulic/electronic injectors can act up, the cure is an oil change. I've heard nothing bad about the ZF stick shifts on Ford. Lots of guys install LUK clutches, but I don't see anything wrong with the clutch in the 2001 6sp I drive. I don't really know that much about GM, but for an indirect injection engine, the 6.5 seems to get pretty good mpg. I don't think any 6.5 can outpull even a 1989 Dodge, but the 6.6 Duramax is competitive. (but did I mention I dislike aluminum heads that don't have the star on them?)
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
uh, no LT Don wrote: Why don't you buy what's-his-name's Benz straight truck? On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dont ford chassis suck? Or not? OK Don wrote: Well - why didn't you say so. Then - get a Cummins drive train and put it in Ford chassis. That's the only thing I've read on the list that makes any sense for trucks. On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for your response. It was really helpful in me sorting thru the differences. My dad wants my 1 ton, which is why Im looking for another one. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
Why don't you buy what's-his-name's Benz straight truck? On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dont ford chassis suck? Or not? OK Don wrote: > Well - why didn't you say so. Then - get a Cummins drive train and > put it in Ford chassis. That's the only thing I've read on the list > that makes any sense for trucks. > > On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Thanks for your response. It was really helpful in me sorting thru the >> differences. My dad wants my 1 ton, which is why Im looking for another >> one. >> > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Proudly marching to the beat of a different kettle of fish. 1977 240D 1983 VW Quantum turbo diesel 5-speed 1972 Honda CB-500K motorcycle
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
Oh, ok. That sort of makes sense. On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: because my 1 ton is a regular cab, and an extended/crew cab would be more useful OK Don wrote: > If you're so happy with the GM's you have, why are you looking for > something else??? > > On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> OK,still sort of looking around for another truck. >> I still prefer GM because they seem to be easier and cheaper to work >> on. I have not had any trouble with any of my 6.2's or my 6.5 td. >> > > > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Proudly marching to the beat of a different kettle of fish. 1977 240D 1983 VW Quantum turbo diesel 5-speed 1972 Honda CB-500K motorcycle
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
Dont ford chassis suck? Or not? OK Don wrote: Well - why didn't you say so. Then - get a Cummins drive train and put it in Ford chassis. That's the only thing I've read on the list that makes any sense for trucks. On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for your response. It was really helpful in me sorting thru the differences. My dad wants my 1 ton, which is why Im looking for another one.
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
Well - why didn't you say so. Then - get a Cummins drive train and put it in Ford chassis. That's the only thing I've read on the list that makes any sense for trucks. On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for your response. It was really helpful in me sorting thru the differences. My dad wants my 1 ton, which is why Im looking for another one. -- OK Don, KD5NRO Norman, OK "The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives." Sir Winston Churchill '90 300D, '87 300SDL, '81 240D, '78 450SLC, '97 Ply Grand Voyager
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
because my 1 ton is a regular cab, and an extended/crew cab would be more useful OK Don wrote: If you're so happy with the GM's you have, why are you looking for something else??? On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK,still sort of looking around for another truck. I still prefer GM because they seem to be easier and cheaper to work on. I have not had any trouble with any of my 6.2's or my 6.5 td.
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
Thanks for your response. It was really helpful in me sorting thru the differences. My dad wants my 1 ton, which is why Im looking for another one. LT Don wrote: Are you also looking around for another wife? Dude, you already have a mega-truck and a Suburban. Both diesel. You'd better dump one of those (the trucks, not the wife) before you get another (truck, not wife). On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK,still sort of looking around for another truck. Not real new, probably mid to late 90's, early 2k if good deal. I know about GM, probably my preference, but am exploring the option of a cummins or or a powerchoke. Between those, which has the most power, which gets the best mileage, has the fewest problems. On the cummins, I have heard the trannies suck, even the 5 speeds. I assume I would want a 5 speed with a cummins rather than an auto. I also know about the powerchoke cavitation issues. What the the trannies in those? What about general body issues? Which hold up better? Any electrical issues on either? I still prefer GM because they seem to be easier and cheaper to work on. I have not had any trouble with any of my 6.2's or my 6.5 td. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
If you're so happy with the GM's you have, why are you looking for something else??? On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK,still sort of looking around for another truck. I still prefer GM because they seem to be easier and cheaper to work on. I have not had any trouble with any of my 6.2's or my 6.5 td. -- OK Don, KD5NRO Norman, OK "The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives." Sir Winston Churchill '90 300D, '87 300SDL, '81 240D, '78 450SLC, '97 Ply Grand Voyager
Re: [MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
Are you also looking around for another wife? Dude, you already have a mega-truck and a Suburban. Both diesel. You'd better dump one of those (the trucks, not the wife) before you get another (truck, not wife). On 7/9/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK,still sort of looking around for another truck. Not real new, probably mid to late 90's, early 2k if good deal. I know about GM, probably my preference, but am exploring the option of a cummins or or a powerchoke. Between those, which has the most power, which gets the best mileage, has the fewest problems. On the cummins, I have heard the trannies suck, even the 5 speeds. I assume I would want a 5 speed with a cummins rather than an auto. I also know about the powerchoke cavitation issues. What the the trannies in those? What about general body issues? Which hold up better? Any electrical issues on either? I still prefer GM because they seem to be easier and cheaper to work on. I have not had any trouble with any of my 6.2's or my 6.5 td. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Proudly marching to the beat of a different kettle of fish. 1977 240D 1983 VW Quantum turbo diesel 5-speed 1972 Honda CB-500K motorcycle
[MBZ] cummins, frod, GM
OK,still sort of looking around for another truck. Not real new, probably mid to late 90's, early 2k if good deal. I know about GM, probably my preference, but am exploring the option of a cummins or or a powerchoke. Between those, which has the most power, which gets the best mileage, has the fewest problems. On the cummins, I have heard the trannies suck, even the 5 speeds. I assume I would want a 5 speed with a cummins rather than an auto. I also know about the powerchoke cavitation issues. What the the trannies in those? What about general body issues? Which hold up better? Any electrical issues on either? I still prefer GM because they seem to be easier and cheaper to work on. I have not had any trouble with any of my 6.2's or my 6.5 td.
