AH64ID

I would think so. I never used my SGII for boost because it reads in absolute.

Absoloutly. The MAP sensor reports ambient pressure which is 14.7 on a standard day.

I have used Blackstone on multiple occasions with multiple vehicles, and like I said I wasn't impressed, especially if you have to call and talk to them. It's like they read from a script and have no real knowledge of what the report is telling them. I also think the averages are eyewash, but that's just me. The "should be" column is nice, but OAI also provides that. OAI also shows you all of your samples. When I pull mine up it shows the last 6 samples. Some people really like Blackstone, but it's less results for the same money or more money for the same results. What is your preference? What do you use for your personal truck?

I am not sure I agree with bry1216 analysis of your analysis. You appear to need a different air filter, that's the normal cause for high silicone. Based on this I would change the oil and air filter.Most of those are PPM, but some are not, like soot is not but without seeing the sheet or calling cat you may not know the unit of measure. Your wear metals are all fine, Iron is the highest but not even something to think about yet. Aluminum is a little higher than I would expect for the other wear metals being low, and that can be from the higher silicone. Phosphorus and Moly are a little higher than the virgin LE samples I have seen, but Magnesium and Zinc are lower than new oil. The TDR samples show similar (±100 ppm, except Moly, which is almost 500ppm higher with the TDR results). Either way I don't think any of them are high considering they are additives and not wear indicators. I don't see anything showing cylinder wall wear or ring wear, your oxidation and nitration are low and they would not be with those two things. The viscosity is lower than expected, but the sample doesn't show any fuel (or they didn't test for it based on viscosity, which is common). I personally use OAI testing because that's who the several Cummins regional centers I have called recommend. I have used Blackstone before and wasn't impressed with them, nor the fact that TBN costs more money than a normal test and I feel TBN is mandatory. I have also used a company in Spokane, don't recall the name, and they were okay but like I said, OAI is Cummins recommended.

Yeah I don't have any shin issues being 6'4'', but I have 3 little kids so it came to mind. I have looked into Rhino lining on my rockers and it's a lot more $$ than these are.

Will they support any weight?They look like they could be killer on shins. Those are expensive! My truck didn't come with mud flaps and my rockers were hammered. I added dura flap mud flaps last year and if the mud pattern is any indication of there effectiveness its about a 95% solution. They offer a lot better coverage than the OEM flaps on my dad's 06.

I am curious to see how it goes, you are defiantly pushing some fuel for that turbo. I was playing with my tow tune and upped my fuel by a low 5% on the top end and with the 93° temps yesterday I was able to push thru 1250° if I tried up a 7% grade and accelerating at WOT. So back down I go... it's amazing how quick a little fuel adds heat. It's so hard to compare towing EGT's to empty EGT's, I rarely even touch 1100° WOT with my current fuel and empty, but hook up and roll up a 7% grade at just under 18K GCW and it will get there pretty easy.

Could you have set the W/D up a notch too high? Is it easy to change, maybe you need a setting for with and without water. My camper isn't a toy hauler, but it has a higher %age of tongue weight than any of the toy haulers I have seen personally get weighed. I spent a bunch of last summer towing at about 20% tongue weight (1360/6680) until I realized how high it was and have since moved a few things for towing and think I am around 16-18%. I do have plans to reduce it further, but so far I haven't seen any drawbacks I am just above "norm". Like yours my axles are a long ways back, and there is a LOT of weight fwd of the axle (water is all fwd of the centerline between the fwd axle and hitch) and it's by far the most stable towing trailer I have owned. I am not saying it's not your issue, just pointing out that you should ensure it wasn't something else. Too little tongue weight seems to cause a lot more issues than too much.

The ECM meters the fuel on all 98.5+ Cummins. The ECM meters it thru the VP on 2nd gen's and thru the injector on 3rd and 4th gens, but the ECM is where it actually occurs.

I run about 16-18% tongue weight on my TT and have no issues associated with it. How much do you think you are running?My 56 gallon water tank is fwd of the axles.

I am very happy with how the new converter is working, but we only have one weekend on it so more to follow. I just ordered 20 of these. They were listed at $50 the other day so I did a best offer and they were reposted at $130 so what the heck. I read decent reviews on some RV sites so for the price I may as well give it a try.

So if you drove round trip to Lewiston and got 17.2 with the scan gauge on a 15.5% calibration the SGII thinks you burned 13.5 gallons. That's at 115.5% of the fuel it received from the 100% baseline, the 100% baseline would have been 11.7 gallons, and to bring it to 109.2% would have been 12.7 gallons for a net mpg of 18.2 mpgs. Think about how you calibrate the scan gauge, if you were to go from 15.5% to 9.2% it takes the left arrow decreasing the fuel burned for the tank, thus increasing the mpgs, not decreasing them. The ECM was in a higher load category based on less fuel per injection from the smaller injectors. This means, on any truck, that the ECM thinks you are burning more fuel than you actually are and the OBDII/Overhead indications go down. It's also the same with larger injectors. With 400K miles on the RV275's we won't know until you calibrate the SGII if they were worn enough to flow more fuel than the new ones or not; however, lets assume they were still +40 and the new ones are +50. If you run the SGII on the 15.5% setting with the new ones you are actually getting worse mileage than the SGII is telling you because for every gallon of fuel the ECM tells the SGII you are burning the injectors are actually flowing more fuel. Anything else is just a guess. My point is that you got better mileage with the stock sticks than the SGII told you, but the stock sticks still appear to be worse in the mileage department than the RV275's by a few points. Additionally until you calibrate the new injectors with the SGII you don't know if your mileage is going up or down, despite any increase in the SGII readings.I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, I just see this confused by a lot of people on many forums and want to make sure anyone reading it sees what actually occurs inside the ECM as you adjust fueling with injectors. This is something I deal with when tuning other peoples trucks with UDC when they have aftermarket injectors. The HPCR ECM is a lot more complicated but the base computations and operation is the same in terms of how they report fuel usage to the OBDII and overhead.

What calibration were you on? You have a post that said 15.5%, but I just want to verify.

If it was on the 5x5 setting I calculate it was really 19.3 mpgs, and if it was on the 5x3 setting it would have been 18.2. Remember if the calibration isn't changed you are getting better mileage that the SGII will tell you with a smaller injector.

15 miles, that's nearly a gallon... I went from Last Resort, I couldn't remember any more and I knew you were close to it. Too bad you didn't calibrate it with stock sticks, I would have been curious at the outcome. I bet your mileage was closer to 18.5, maybe 19.

Come on Michael, you know better than to make claims without numbers around this crowd :-) Espeically since you are further from Lewiston than Ontario :tongue:I am saying you may have been surprised at the mileage increase over the SG readout with smaller injectors, many are surprised how much even small injectors effect the OBDII/Overhead mileage readout.

Hand calc or scan gauge? If it was scan gauge then there may not have been any mileage loss, or a really small one, with the injectors swap due to the differences in the injectors. 50 hp injectors will throw the CR computers off by 3-5 mpg's pretty easily.

There really isn't a way for the SG to recalibrate, or the ECM to adjust. The ECM thinks it's injecting 20mm3 of fuel per injection, but the larger injector is actually injecting 24mm3, so your SG reporting would be 20% off assuming it was correct on the stock injectors. Arbitray numbers just for reference. There are 2 ways that injectors effect mileage on. The spray pattern is more efficient and since the ECM thinks less fuel is being commanded the timing is generally more advanced (in the cruise region). There are also 2 reasons EGT's may decrease under normal driving, and that's the efficient spray pattern and added fuel means added boost and cooler air. Generally EGT's will increase under WOT operation, but may be lower at partial throttle.

Awesome!The SG will take a recalibration since the injector size is different, and I bet that's why the stockers showed a 3mpg drop on the SG.

I have a single gauge on the a-pillar, 3 on the dash, and one down by the trailer brake controller.

Are you back to having bigger injectors installed?At 400K miles I bet those injectors were much bigger than +40hp (isn't that what RV's are?), I wonder if your power and mileage will be down even with 50's?

I ran a column pod for a while, the gauge location is nice but it blocks too much of the regular dash (like the 4wd light) so I removed it.

The DPF's were never installed on 5.9's, or 2ng gens. If your truck was a Cali model it would have had a cat, otherwise??? DPF's also require software to remove on a 6.7. MY 07.5 was the first Dodge to use a DPF. As Wild and Free said some models also had resonators, I am not sure about 2nd gens but 3rd gens only had resonators on Mega Cabs.

Sorry, I was talking to CUMMINSDIESELPWR.

I just noticed your sig... How did you 01 have a DPF?