AH64ID

I was doing 20K plus a year until I got my little pos DD.. http://www.dynatrac.com/products/freespin-dodge/dynatrac-ball-joints.html http://www.xrfchassis.com/parts-balljoints.htm http://southbendclutch.com/g56.html

I highly recommend a South Bend Con-OFE SMF conversion. The noise you are hearing is probably the DMF failing. I am probably going to run either the dyna-trac's or XRF's when the time comes.. which isn't too far for me, hoping to make it about 10K miles which would be a year. XRF's are a bit cheaper and probably what I'll get as they have great reviews.

I would get a scan gauge II and an extra cable. Wire one cable into the rig you use most and use the second cable for scanning other rigs. It at least lets you get a little more out of your money than something that sits on the shelf most of the time.

I started calling my local distributors, listed on their websites, and found that I could get them locally for the same price as online. If you have no local distributors I have heard good things about www.apartsdepot.com

Pretty average for these trucks, my old man gets even less miles out of his as he tows a bit heavier and lived 5 miles up a dirt road.. Torque and tires don't like each other.

I wish I could get that kind of life out of my tires! I wore thru 4/32 (28%) of my OEM Michelin's in less than 7K miles this summer, 3900 of those miles were towing with several hundred being on dirt. That's the average, 3/32 front and 5/32 rear.. and these tires are HARD! Based on that wear rate they will be only be good for 25K miles or so. At least I can pickup OEM take-off's for 200-300 bucks, and have a set of KM2's for hunting/winter.

I had the same thing happen, rolled 65K and before I knew it I was at 70K, then 71K... Thou its that time of year now where miles will start slowing down.

I would change the f/w sep out, but the final fuel filter is fine. Its 5um absolute, vs the 3um for the Donaldson.

We like heart as well! I have seen a few deer in post-fire years that have that much fat on them.

I agree that stock grows larger faster than wild game, but lb for lb are they more or less meat? A typical wild bull will have such low body fat that there is nothing to even pull off, and it's so lean you have to mix it with beef or pork fat to make burger or sausage. I haven't ever held one, so what does the average beef hide weigh when wet and still has the hair? I would say that an average elk hide weighs about 60 lbs. Not really on this topic but I couldn't beleive how thick and heavy the hide was on some feral pigs I shot a few years ago, it was probably 25-30% of their body weight. It has always amazed me how much weight does go into the garbage thou! I try to do a very good job not wasting any meat. A lot of the meat from the lower legs is a PITA to get the tendon's and gristle out, but still a lot goes to trash relative to the grinder bag. I have seen some pretty ____ poor butchering over the years too. Some would be lucky to get 10% to the freezer! I will agree that on average 30% is probably a good number. We seem to get a little less on younger animals and a little more on mature animals, even with that I am still surprised your only getting 150lbs from a 550 lb cow, thou the fat content surely is a large reason for that.

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/FIP-2071/Application/?query=Make|DODGE|Year|2001|Model|RAM+3500|Drivetrain|4WD

$270 at summitracing.comI have bought all my airbag kits from summit as I have never found a better price.

You're welcome, and thank you!I would run a Baldwin BF1275 f/w sep and a Donaldson P551315 on the AD, and a Baldwin PF7977 in the OE canister.

Well let me rephrase the hanging weight (in case I am not using the technical version), it's more of packing weight. 4 quarters and a neck, no guts, hide, head, or legs. .just the part that comes off the hill. Of the 375 lbs that came off the hill about 190-200 was put into the freezer, and I am not sure there was even 10 lbs of fat on this bull. Being an older animal there was more meat than a young animal per lb, I would put the meat I was able to save at about 35-40%. Thou honestly we have never weighed the guts, maybe they are heavier than the 50 lbs we account for. The bull my dad shot had a noticeably bigger body and we only hauled about 30lbs more off the hill. My bull was in the top 10 for body size in the last 25 years and his was top 3, out of 60+ bull elk. I didn't think about the cow you shot being penned and fed, she probably had a very large fat percentage which would correlate to a much lower freezer:live weight. Considering I have never butchered a farm raised elk I can't really correlate them to wild animals. It does make me curious thou, how much fat was on her? I have a degree in Wildlife, so I am fairly familiar with wild animals, at least the ones that stay wild. Wild game and stock have very different body compositions based on food/fat/energy burn. A 500 lb beef will put less meat to freezer than a 500 lb wild elk would. We have found the older the animal the higher percentage of meat goes to the freezer. The deer I shot this year put about 30lbs in the freezer and was about 125 on the hoof but was also a yearling and didn't have much muscle mass due to its age. Same thing with elk. The 2 year old cow I shot was right about 25-30%, but it was January and she had a bit of fat on her, probably more than all the bull's I have shot combined.

Sorry, missed these questions before. We have horses to help us pack. I shoot a 300 H&H. I am pushing 200 gr Swift A-Frames at 3,010 fps. I figure he was about 500-525 on the hoof. Hanging weight was ~375 lbs. Add 50 for hide, 50 for guts and 25-50 for incidentals...

Good deal! I love elk meat!If she was 550-600 she was HUGE and should yield a lot more than 150lbs of meat. The big bull I shot last year was about 375lbs hanging weight, which would have put him about 500-525 on the hoof, and he was one of the larger bodied elk I have seen. I ended up with about 150 lbs of grinder meat and about 50 lbs of back-straps and steaks.

About the only time I see Timbrens working better is if you are heavy with a constant weight, the rest of the time the adjustability of airbags is worth the little higher cost. I have seen plenty of people selling Timbrens to buy airbags, but never noticed anyone doing the opposite.

You didn't pull the DDP 50's out at the same time did you?Opening the exhaust valve sooner should give you higher EGT's, as it would have a similar effect on EGT's as retarding the timing, less time for the exhaust in the cylinder. With the ramp rate of our valves based on the tappet size I am really surprised that there is any change at all. The stock cam opens the valve at a very steep rate and a few thousandths on the valves may only relate to a degree or so on the amount of open time, hardly enough to get more of a charge into the cylinder. When all the variables are kept constant but boost, a general rule of thumb is 10° for each 1 lb of boost.. very general! But 150° is a large difference.

The 3422 is 2um nominal, which is generally a 50% rating. That could be anywhere from 5um to 10um absolute. One of the reasons I don't like Wix filters is they don't publish water separation rates, nor do they publish absolute ratings on most filters. The few filters that have an absolute rating don't filter as good as the filter they are crossed to. The 1202 part number doesn't come up.

Some great info in this thread, but i'll throw my .02 in there. The stock turbo on your 07 5.9 is so restrictive itself that unless there is a major malfunction with your exhaust you really will not tell a difference in performance with adding or removing components. The stock cat, in good working order, is very high flow and dyno testing has shown it to only rob 2-4 hp, and if it flows that good it will have no effect on low flow data, as in just off idle. In fact some dyno testing has shown that too much exhaust restriction will actually hurt bottom end performance becuase the power required to push the exhaust out is greater, thus slower moving exhaust and slower exhaust means a slower spinning turbine. The stock turbine wheel is only 2.36" across, so the exhaust back pressure has to really stack up to effect a 2.36" hole with a 4" one! It takes added feet of exhaust. The stock 4" exhaust on 3rd gen's is good for 600-700 rwhp without sacrificing performance. A 4" exhaust is really the best size for nearly all 5.9's, it matches the flow very well. A 5" exhaust will likely not effect performance or EGT's in any way, but will be louder and have the possibility of droning easier.So I would say stick with 4", and as far as the cat.. It's probably more of your butt meter wanting to see a change, and not seeing one so the results feel negative.

05+ (and 03-04 with the retro fit) have a lift pump in the tank. This is a very good pump, but is helped by the fact that the CP3 does not need pressure for lubrication like the VP44. Bosch specs the flow requirements at -5 to +15 psi, but most believe 2-15 is better. I am running 400 rwhp and 3 filters on the stock lift pump and with clean filters don't go below 5 psi WOT. I just noticed I drop to about 3 psi WOT, but have 22K miles on my filters. 450 rwhp and below is fine with the stock pump. Tell him to put a Baldwin PF7977 in the OE filter canister and to look at improving his fuel filtration.

To give FASS and AD a little credit they have started improving their filters. I guess they had enough of me bashing them all over the forums a few years ago about worse than stock filtration! So the stock VP44 filter was 10um absolute with 95% free and 95% emulsifed water sep, the HPCR filter is 7um absolute with 98% free water sep and 95% emulsified water sep.. So here are the original specs FASS 95 (little filters) 10um absolute, 50% free water 0% emulsified water.. water removal ratings were at 20 GPH on a 95 GPH pump. FASS 95 (big filters) and FASS 150. 3um absolute (multipass, so unknown single pass.. but prob 5-10 single), 0% free water and 0% emulsified water. AD's 5um absolute 50% free water 0% emulsified water.. water removal ratings were at 20 GPH on a 95 to 165 GPH pump. Updated filters FASS Titanium and Platinum, 4um absolute, 95% free water sep, 90% emulsified water sep. GPH ratings are fine for a 95 GPH pump, 150 is a little under rated. FASS HD (If it has the upgraded f/w sep.. I don't know if they are upgraded at FASS yet or not). 3um absolute (multipass, so unknown single pass.. but prob 5-10 single), 98% free water and 95% emulsifed water sep at 90 GPH. AD's 5um absolute, 95% free water sep and 75% emulsifed water sep at 90 GPH. As you can see the FASS Titanium and Platinum are the only ones that come close to OEM overall filtration (which includes f/w separation). The ADs can have a Baldwin BF1275 and a Donaldson P551315 put on them for 99% free water and 96% emulsified water removal and 3um filtration, at 120 GPH.. which is probably fine because I believe the GPH ratings are at zero psi, so at 15ish psi the flow is much lower. Nothing you can do on the FASS HD. FASS Platinum is pretty good, even better if you run it thru the OEM filter. FASS Titanium can have a Baldwin BF1275 added and get the 99% free, 96.5% emulsified removal rating. I would put a Baldwin BF1275 on your FASS for the f/w sep and then call FASS and get the adapter to run a different thread filter for the fuel filter and run a Donaldson P551313 and then thru the OEM canister and call it good.. you will have CLEAN fuel.

Oh you would be surprised! Don't worry your not the only one that fell for the marketing ploy!

The PF7977 is the best (I presume thats what you meant)..If you click the link in my sig, then at the bottom of that page is a link to the filter install.