Mopar1973Man

Yea... Max boost should be about 35 PSI without any issues. so check your max boost again. As for the Edge Comp you might have to turn down to a lower setting like 5x3 to control smoke. But try other sublevels like 3 and 4 and see what works better for you for controlling smoke.

Absolutely... 2k will put you close to optimal torque curve for climbing. This doesn't mean leave it in OD and keep accelerating to 2K of RPM's. You might have to drop down a gear to direct 1:1 ratio (3rd in Auto, 4th in NV4500 or 5th in NV5600) and get the RPM's up and let the Cummins work a milder speed and pulling at optimal torque.

I lost a manifold bolt. Hit the hood and whistled like mad. Found the bolt laying in the injection lines but just a simple bolt hole drop me from max boost of 35 PSI to only 8 PSI and EGT's the spiked out rather hurry while climbing a mild grade (about 6%).

+50HP injectors and HX35W turbo without a issue of EGT's or other wise. Good quick spool up and good power. EGT's are more of a sign of drag and other issues rarely does extra boost fix higher EGT's. but it depends on the issues behind the high EGT's. Like my trip up to Sandpoint to see Hex0rz I typically ran about 550*F on flat ground and no more than 800*F climbing a 7% grade rarely ever got over 10 PSI of boost the entire trip. My Edge Comp is set for 5x3 and ran good nearly smoke free. Just food for thought.

The reason I would know about the oil issues is I've got the same problem on mine. I'm slightly over on the oil so it pumps for about 1-2 second and grunts then its gone. But to watch the gauges the pressure spikes out for a short time as the oil is pumped. But I knowingly added a 8 oz bottle to the compressor knowing I was going to spill some of the oil trying to get most of it in the tiny hole with a tiny funnel. Then I changed my accumulator/drier and orifice tube and assumed the little oil in the rest of the system would be minimal. Nope. Just a tad over done on the oil. But my OE compressor only had barely 1 oz of oil in the sump and it holds 7.1 ozs.

I've not seen a oil filter wrench in a very long time. The only time I go digging to find mine is when some nimrod has crank the filter on way tighter than its required. I just wrap my big ol' monkey paw around that filter and twist it off. 180* to 270* turn from seated is all you need to tighten the filter.

That is true most today's diesel even light footing barely do in the teens. Rarely cross the 20 MPG mark. This is one reason why I will not touch today's diesel truck and the second reason is the common rail factor which not makes all fuel system part majorly expensive. I would consider going older but never newer. Got to look at from history stand point. I grew up around muscle cars and rod hot times. 1960's and 1970's cars were powerful and without limits for the most part then EPA and the oil embargo occurred so then the whole muscle car age died. Well here we are again but with diesel truck and now hit the high point at 2002 with mild EPA (smog controls) to down hill to current times with EGR, EGR coolers, DPF, DEF, and other thing to degrade diesel performance and efficiency. Just like in the late 70's people were chopping out catalytic converters and doing mods to over come smog devices... No different now. So like myself I held on to my 1973 Dodge Charger SE forever before jumping to the 2002 Dodge Ram. So now I'll hang on to the old Cummins forever till the next thing comes.

Hey Hex we're back home now... Safe and sound... Bit more to add. https://goo.gl/maps/u3lCR Ok so I loaded up with fuel in Riggins, ID and drove all the way there and used barely 3/8 of tank. Then load up in Coeur d' Alene and drove home and barely used 1/4 of a tank to get home. Not bad. As for meeting Hex0rz and family is was interesting to say the least. Lot of things in common believe it our not. I got to see his huge RV he got. Wow! Makes my RV look like a compact car. As for comparing notes on the truck we started to but never really got back to the trucks very much. Watched Hex0rz tend to his bee hives on his property that was really cool to see up close how bees are handled and such. His in-law family is wonderful and so is his wife. Great people! Now it your turn to come down this way...

I ran away before you taken all my brains. Seriously we had a good time talking with you and just hanging out. Next time its your turn to come south.

Almost sounds like its over charged in compressor oil.

He's right I do have WiFi but after talking to his in-laws last night for most of the evening we came back to the room and crashed. Take note in Hex's post time at 3:25am I'm sure I was still sawing logs laying in bed. Even worse I started a thread in the staff area before I left.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/no-go-for-standardized-tow-ratings.html Even if most pickup owners never actually tow anything, they still pay attention to how much trucks can tow. It's an unofficial litmus test of strength, durability and plain ol' bragging rights. The marketers of pickup trucks are all too aware of this. They have waged a seemingly never-ending arms race of tow ratings — particularly among the ultra-competitive Detroit Three automakers. But since every automaker defines the parameters of its own towing capacity tests, the temptation is always there to "exaggerate" a bit, especially if it means beating the competition's latest model by a few hundred pounds or so. For buyers, it can be misleading since a pickup truck that advertises it can tow 9,800 pounds isn't necessarily "better" than one rated at 9,500 pounds. Testing variations from one manufacturer to the next means most tow numbers are rarely ever comparable. The Solution With this in mind, engineers from the Detroit Three automakers and several Japanese truck makers got together with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The idea was to create a voluntary standardized testing procedure for tow ratings. It took years, but by 2008 the cooperative developed SAE standard J2807: "Performance Requirements for Determining Tow-Vehicle Gross Combination Weight Rating and Trailer Weight Rating." Finally, a 9,800-pound tow rating for a Ford F-150 would be the same as a 9,800-pound rating for a Chevy Silverado 1500 and any other truck certified to J2807. The SAE committee recommended that the new testing procedures be adopted by at least the 2013 model year. Problem solved, sort of. Marketing Roadblock A predictable detour came on the road to standardized towing tests, though. Although the automakers' engineers toiled for years to create tow-rating commonality, the gang in marketing had a much harder time discerning the benefit. If everybody had to test to the same standards, tow-rating superiority would become much tougher to claim. And perhaps equally alarming, it became apparent the new towing tests were going to lead to a significant tow-rating reduction for many models. Why? Most manufacturer procedures generate higher tow maximum ratings because they assume that the truck has no options, you are alone with no luggage and you weigh 150 pounds (the average between a 50th percentile adult male and a 50th percentile adult female). This matters because the tow rating is what's left when you subtract the curb weight of the truck and its occupants and their cargo from the Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR) of the truck. Make the driver and truck weight smaller and the tow rating will grow in response. There's only one problem — the extra weight of passengers, cargo and options matters even if they're not part of the trailer. The engine and transmission cooling systems can only handle so much weight and heat and these components don't know or care if that weight is in the truck or trailer. The Result With the possibility that implementing J2807 would reduce tow ratings, most manufacturers chickened out. When the 2013 model year rolled around, Toyota was the only manufacturer that had fully embraced the new towing capacity testing procedures. It currently lists J2807-derived tow ratings for the Tundra while the pickup segment's big dogs, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors, all refuse to dive into the pool and cede tow-rating valor. Ford spokesman Mike Levine said that his company's reading of J2807 is that it should be applied in 2013 or after when a vehicle is all-new or significantly reengineered. As an example he said the new-generation 2013 Escape crossover's tow rating was derived under the SAE standard. Ditto for the 2013 Flex and even the 2013 Fusion midsize sedan. Critically — and conveniently — that interpretation leaves a pickup-size loophole for Ford's market-dominating F-Series pickup line. The F-Series isn't due for a redesign until 2015 and Ford doesn't intend to deal with the likely lower SAE-generated tow ratings for the next-generation F-Series until it absolutely must. The 2014 Chevrolet Silverado, launching this summer, is all-new and seemingly would be the poster child for J2807 applicability. But at a media drive event for the new pickup, Chevrolet engineers flatly told Edmunds that the new Silverado's tow ratings were not derived via the new SAE standard. GM sources have said elsewhere the company won't fall in line with the new standard until others automakers begin reporting J2807-compliant tow ratings. A spokesman for Chrysler presented us with a succinct summation of the company's position regarding the Ram pickup line: "When the market leaders adopt J2807, Ram will as well." In this theater of the absurd, the Big Three are all fighting for the lead role. What's a Buyer To Do? If tow ratings — standardized and comparable tow ratings — are important to you, right now there are a few options. As mentioned, all of Toyota's light trucks have tow ratings derived under the new standard. Toyota spokesman Sam Butto admits the standard cost most Toyota models, on average, 300 to 400 pounds in tow-rating reduction. The highest tow rating for the Tundra full-size pickup dropped from 10,800 to 10,400 pounds under the new standard, for example. Models such as the Tacoma midsize pickup (max tow: 6,500 pounds) and the Highlander crossover (max tow: 5,000 pounds) were unaffected. Ford's Levine said the J2807 test procedures are for "more than pickup trucks," but we all know this brouhaha is totally about pickup trucks. So it's fairly simple right now: if you're in the market for a pickup and want one with a tow rating generated by the SAE method, the Toyota's Tundra is the only model complying with the new standard — and its tow rating subsequently is not the highest you'll find. If you want a Chrysler, Ford or GM full-size pickup truck rated under the new towing standard, it appears you'd have to wait until 2015 when Ford launches the new-generation F-Series. That's assuming the three companies stick to their positions and all bite the reality bullet at the same time. Until then, it's best to continue to view tow ratings skeptically, particularly when comparison-shopping.

24V injector - mount directly above the piston. 12V injector - mounted at angle above the piston.

Right now here in Idaho diesel is coming down ($3.929) and gasoline is going up ($3.769). With the MPG's I pull with the diesel hands down the diesel is cheaper than the gasoline power truck. Here is comparing my two truck using current data. This is calculating 1,000 miles.

Really your doing fine! You should see the drywall work in my shop.

Not quite but its the control center for my hydro/solar system. My house is just a bigger scale of the RV system that's all.

Hence what powers my stick and bricks... 6V deep cycle batteries are very popular and tend to have better storage and amp/hour ratings. http://www.trojanbattery.com/markets/mr/6v/

Yeah it seem you got the wrong batteries. Deep cycle batteries are about how many amp hours there are compared to cold cranking amp.

I would of kept the old phenolic pistons over the steel ones. Brake fluid is hygroscopic so as brake fluid ages it collects water and what does water do to steel? Rust it out... They don't swell. What happens is the heat transferred to pistons now cakes the brake fluid up on the pistons over time. The phenolic pistons don't ever change size per say but the caked up brake fluid does occur.

I rarely even use 4WD modes. I might use 4LO for the trailer but once again very very rare.

Here is a start. http://www.superbrightleds.com/cat/wedge-bulbs/

Even in stock form way back when I barely installed my gauges (no fueling mods) I towed a flatbed trailer to Boise, ID to pick up a Chevy truck that was just painted. Coming back over the grade I was rudely woke up watching the pyrometer climbing well above 1,400*F even in stock form. Just because the truck can pull it at any speed doesn't mean its safe to do it.

Absolutely... MnTom is right. I do the same thing as well ST tires are rated for 65 MPH and hold my max speed to no more than 60 MPH. But climbing grades I typically back off of 5th gear drop to 4th (1:1 Ratio) and blast up most 6-7% grade well below 1,200*F and still running 53-57 MPH putting me right at about 2,100 to 2,300 RPM.

Secret. Any time your off road or in dusty conditions make sure to be running MAX A/C to close the air off from outside so you not drawing dust into a sweaty evaporator.