AH64ID

I found a pic of your manual on another thread, 7500mile is schedule A. Don't get too wrapped up in the volume of the system. A Diesel engine is much harder on oil, so they have to have large sumps. If you had a small sump the oil wouldn't last very long at all. Is 6K on the 1500 schedule A or B? I think you are fine to go longer on oil, but personally I would be testing it to be sure. Oil isn't better than in 2002, and it actually has a lower TBN so it may not last as long. There are lots of things that effect oil life, so while I think your fine at 10k I wouldn't be making a 20K bet when I can know the answer for $25-30 bucks. Test it at 5K and see how it looks, run it to 10K and test again. With good TBN and other numbers continue running it. I did initial testing on the wife's runner to find an oil it liked for 12 month use, it took 2 oils despite only going 8-9K miles and an extra qt of oil and a bypass. Oil was clean, very clean, but the TBN was gone on the first oil.

Yeah, low hours! My 10K mile OCI will be around 400 hours. I run changes annually, about 10K miles. I do a UOA at 7,500 just to check soot and TBN. My oem interval is 7,500. I thought 2nd gens were 3,750 for schedule B? Schedule A use is a unicorn used almost exclusively for marketing IMHO. No towing, no slow dirt roads, no light load in cold weather, etc. basically interstate travel for the entire OCI, no traffic, etc...

UOA is really only necessary for extended drain intervals, aside from that it is a nice to know. Caj did run long intervals in terms of miles, but not in terms of hours.

Same basic operation, but the engine on the Chinook is MASSIVE compared to the Apache. IIRC one Chinook engine makes more shp than both Apache engines. Apaches and Blackhawks use the same engine.

That stiff AAL is going to be very hard on the OEM springs, and does nothing to actually help the axle carry the load. Remember everything in the truck takes up payload, you, the toolbox, anything in the tool box, floor mats, nerf bars, etc... I am guessing that it's a fairly common payload, or you wouldn't be putting an AAL in, so be careful when loaded. Semi-Floating axles do not like being overloaded, and there isn't any real wiggle room on a 1/2 ton.

Ok, that makes a lot more sense!!! Higher horsepower at higher rpms means you can take advantage of more gearing reduction, similar to the helicopter scenario above. Torque is down, but as you stated the gearing compensates.

SOB... had a whole response written up and it's gone!!! The Guru's explanation is only correct if the engine was modified. I read your post to mean that the only change to the car was the gears, which doesn't have any effect on engine output only rear wheel torque. Am I reading that wrong? Increase rear wheel torque and have a decent amount of horsepower on tap and you will accelearte like a SOB. I'd be willing to bet he had lower trap speeds than similar weighted rigs with 200 more hp running the same ET with "normal" gears.

The axle should be strong enough for what the bolt can handle, and I would suggest using the torque from the u-bolt instructions. Different bolt/nut combo's use different torques. You mentioned you want to add payload capacity, but adding leaf's wont do that. The limit to payload on 1/2 ton's is the axle housing itself, not the suspension. A 1/2 ton axle is generally at it's limit with the OEM RAWR, so I would use caution exceeding that value as a failed semi-float rear axle generally means one tire walks away while driving. Did you go with a full length or short AAL (can't tell in the photo)? Short AAL's can be VERY hard on the OEM springs as they don't move at the same rate and end up forcing the OEM leaves to bend in a W shape which stresses and fatigues them. Long AAL's just make a nice truck ride like crap. Looks like the work truck in your sig has about a 2Klb payload, if you need to haul more than that I would talk the boss into a 2500. BTDT with AAL's, and I wouldn't touch them ever again.

But still not close to comparable to how cajflynn uses his truck. Your use is easier on the engine than most, but still a different league.

That's just the nature of the engine and relationship of hp and tq. Any engine that has a peak power rating above 5252 rpms will have more hp than tq, and any engine with peak power below 5252 will have more tq than hp. The more rpms the bigger the delta. The advantage is that gearing can bring the torque back and the hp is still there, so those enignes can do a LOT of work at a good rate. Helicopters are a great example. 355 lb/ft of torque at 21109 rpms is 1428hp, gear that down to rotor speed (292) and you have 25663 lb/ft available. So rpms are great, 1428 hp and 25663 lb/ft... basically you can do a LOT of work at a quick rate. On the flip side a 1 hp 1 rpm engine can do a LOT of work, VERY slow and there is no way to increase the rate of work. A 300hp ISX and a 300hp 1.4L 4cyl can do the same work at the same speed as long as they are both geared to be making their respective 300hp. That fact alone tells me the importance of hp. But I still drive a diesel because the low rpm power means better acceleration, easier to drive, less shifting, quieter engine, and less wear and tear from rpms. Without further testing it's hard to say if he ran out of hp or torque, because both would have the same effect, but I would guess he was out of hp as it's the rate at which work is done and the nature of a diesel power curve). With a diesel we generally run out of hp, simply because the torque curve is generally flat. 1800 rpms and 2500 rpms can have the same torque, but there is almost a 40% increase in hp. As I pointed out in the thread that started this discussion a rig with flat torque curve will pull a grade at 2500 better than 1800, assuming same gear and equal torque despite the additional power requirement from the increased speed. I'll bet they do!! That's a LOT of power. 1950 lb/ft at 1200 is 445 hp, and that is why they scoot!! Lots of work can be done at a fast rate. That is where big displacement diesels really shine, lots of torque and hp at a low rpm... it's just takes a BIG drive line to not tear apart.

Why don't you think speed or rpms are important for towing as a performance parameter? I am not sure hp is irrelevant if tq exceeds load. Assuming the load needs 500 ft/lbs to move it a 1 hp 1000 ft/lb motor isn't going to do a lot of work anytime soon, but a 500 hp 500 ft/lb motor is going to. Remember there is no time associated with torque, it takes horsepower to get it done. More hp the work gets done faster. As you mentioned gears multiply torque, but hp doesn't change with gearing. That means the hp has to be available for the desired rate of work. You can always gear down for more work, but the rate is constant for a power output.

Nice article... Not all dyno's work that way thou, as dyno's that cannot vary the load only measure power based on a known load. But all in all a very good read.

I like the flares, and they do a decent job keeping the big chunks off the truck.

I am about 2" wider with my 19.5's than the OEM wheels and I like the look of the increased stance. What size tires do you plan to run? Chains may be an issue with decreased backspacing. Here is what I came up with for widths. OEM steel/Alum 17x8 6.25" BS. Outer rim is 1.75" from WMS Aftermarket 17x9 with 5" BS. Outer rim is 4" from WMS, or 2.25" wider. Unless your tires are brand new and worth keeping I wouldn't spend a penny on aftermarket 17's. 17's are the bastard child of LT tires, with 3195lbs quickly becoming the highest rating you can have. Tires that were 3970 a couple years ago are now stamped 3195lbs. 17's are rated lower than 16's, 18's, and many 20's. The #1 reason I ended up with 19.5's was the lack of options with 17's and I was able to get into 19.5's for barely more than 18's and a LOT higher load rating and service life. If 6380lbs on the rear axle is enough for you then disregard :-) Just wanted to throw it out there. Here is a pic of my 19.5's. They are 19.5x7.5" with a 0 offset, or 3.75" of BS. The outer rim width is 3.75" from the WMS, or 0.25" narrower than the Aftermarket 17's you listed. There will be approx 1.5" more rim to the inside on 17x9's, and tire depends on the size. I have Yukon hubs which are wider than the Spyntec's, but my lockouts are narrower.

That is why I bought Dynatrac's. If they do wear out the can be rebuilt without having to remove them from the knuckle, which saves on knuckle wear.

While not unheard of that is certainly past average miles. A lot depends on road conditions. Between myself, my dad, and my brother none of our 3rd gens made it to 100K miles and my brothers where the worst. His truck is also a Hemi, so the weight wasn't a factor. The only BJ's I have heard of that enlarge the knuckle are MOOG's, thou I am not sure how to visually identify them vs OEM. When I installed my dynatrac's around 85K miles they certainly were not a loose fit.

See if any of the local bee keepers want them?

Apologies... done here. I have had a couple readings in the 20's and one at 31 one my UOA's. The 31 was taken shortly after I had the valve cover off a couple times for the ARP head stud install. I purposly did the install at the end of an OCI, but should have done the UOA before the engine work. All of the readings in the 20's were with the early HPCR 2" filters, which were undersized. I now run the OEM 4" pleat filter and even with all my additional airflow I have very little silicon. My reading on my last UOA was 8, and the highest I have seen (aside from the stud install) with the OEM filter and ±415 rwhp is 17. Most the samples are around 7-9K miles. Another place to check for a tight fit might be the crankcase breather. Pressure should generally be positive, but???

Yes I gave an opinion based on the title of the thread, and Ryan's first sentence. Generally threads are started to entice discussion. It worked :-) And??????? So is the no shipping included kit. Again, really not sure why you are basing you cost analysis on a shipping option???? Apples to Apples, OAI Testing (It's a division of Amsoil but the lab is NOT Amsoil.. It's Polaris Labs, and OAI contracts them to do the tests) is cheaper for a full report than Blackstone is for a partial report. Not really reading the thread are you? If you want a hint look at my post that was made 56 minutes before you asked the question. So how is this magical makeup happening why you just buy the kit? Maybe it's Blackstone that is adding 40% to the cost for TBN since they know how important it is. It's a way to get more money for a test that doesn't cost that much to do. Really hard to compare Amsoil to competitors, as I am not aware of any competitors that offer identical products. But their bypass filtration kits are cheaper and more efficient than the FS2500 kits. There is one, and that didn't involve any research. Since you don't like Amsoil go elsewhere, but you should really start looking at the facts when you make an opinion. You brought Amsoil into the thread to show they weren't cheaper than Blackstone, that backfired and you're now using fuzzy math to convince yourself. I highly doubt anyone else reading the thread is following your math. Just a recap Blackstone report with TBN $35 + shipping of the sample to Blackstone OAI Testing report with TBN $24.15 + shipping of the sample to OAI.. Or $33.90 with a pre-paid label. Cheapest option either way. Return shipping options aside the OAI report is more bang for your buck. Since both companies use similar bottles and quantities actual shipping costs should be near identical... OAI Testing thru Amsoil is cheaper and more comprehensive. It's pretty hard to argue with the black and white of UOA testing costs. This should have stopped long ago... post #8 got me wound up since it had some false data, but it didn't need to go on. Done here. Give them a shot and see what you think. With dealer price it is only $17.95 for a kit and $25.75 for a pre-paid kit.

Who brought Amsoil into the thread? Who made a false statement about the cost of the Amsoil kit and doesn't want to admit it? How are they charging double for shipping? Charging double implies that there is additional shipping charges from Blackstone.. there isn't a shipping option for Blackstone so double of zero???? There isn't a single comment in this thread about who I use, nor did I recommend Amsoil to Ryan. Amsoil was brought into this thread by you, with false information about the cost of a UOA kit. I simply stated how useless a UOA test is without TBN. You are all hung up on what Amsoil offers for shipping, but what about Blackstone not including the single most important result for oil life/longevity??? What about Blackstone charging 140% more to include TBN than the competitor??? Anyway you look at it the general customer pays $24.15 for a kit, that's ALL (just like Blackstone there is not a shipping charge to get the bottle to your door). There are 3 return shipping options. One is the customer pays the return shipping, one is USPS, and one is UPS. If you choose USPS or UPS Amsoil charges an additional $9.75 to provide the shipping. Is that a lot for shipping, YES!!! Do plenty of customers want to pay the $9.75 and not deal with a shipping center, yep! For those that don't want to pay extra they can take it to UPS or USPS and pay the exact shipping charges. The UOA kit is $24.15 and includes TBN, that is $10.85 cheaper than Blackstone for the same test results. Shipping is the customers choice, if they want to overnight it for $20 they can or they can prepay, or they can ship it slow and cheap.

What does a rep, which I am not, have to do with an online purchase? No human interaction needed, just make the choice you want. Options are just that, options. Some people obviously feel that a prepaid shipping label is worth a few extra bucks and some don't so they offer both options. I'd say it was 100% intentional on your part, by the simple fact that you are trying to convince us that $4 and $10 are the same. I really cannot figure out how $10 is the same as $4. But if you really think they why don't you ship me all your $10's and I'll send back $4 for every $10 you send me.

Amsoil is ONLY $34 if the purchaser WANTS it. It is an OPTION, as has been stated many many times. The difference is $10, but you can justify it anyway you want. I have never seen an issue with Amsoil shipping, they just show you the cost vs many places incorporating it into the shelf price. In the end it's all what the consumer thinks is a better deal, but you pay the shipping/handling costs either way. Is it expensive to buy a hydraulic fitting from them? yes! They are set up for large/heavy shipments.

$10 is a few bucks??? It's 140% of the cost for the same report with the same shipping. He was asking about his Blackstone report, and based on their BS charge $10 more for TBN the report doesn't tell him how the oil is working in the engine. How is one to know what is high and low based on how Blackstone does their universal averages anyhow. He really doesn't know if it looks good or not, TBN is quite important. Blackstone has a bad rap for a reason.... OAI Testing also happens to be who Rocky Mountain Cummins recommends, and they don't deal or use Amsoil.

Blackstone makes you pay for shipping as well.... Who is the angry one?

How are you coming up with that???? Blackstone kit is $35 with TBN. OAI Testing kit is $24.15 with TBN. Take them both to the USPS or UPS, or whoever and they will cost the same to ship. Amsoil offers prepaid shipping labels but Blackstone doesn't. If you want to compare apples to apples you need to use apples.... Prepaid shipping labels are a convenience, and are not required. Anyway you look at the direct cost of the test the OAI kit is cheaper than the Blackstone is without TBN. If it's a new oil I would be especially concerned with TBN, it's a great indicator of how it's holding up. I have seen certain engines not like certain oils and eat up the TBN quickly, even with less than standard wear metals. What model filter?