rancherman

Been using the Axiom tread.. fairly quiet and aggressive enough for me. My neighbor runs the crawler, THOSE tires move some dirt!

I do most all my own tire work. I don't balance them either. Over the years, I've acquired a 'bead buster', and several various tire irons. Best way I've broken-down a tire is to use a handy-man jack against the sidewall of the tire and push the bead away from the rim to un seat it, Tire flat on ground, under the hitch of the truck... After that, a little lube and the tire comes right off. Even without balancing, I've never had a 'bouncer'.

well, if you are like me, and see mostly dirt/gravel/sand roads... I sure like treadwright.com tires. I figure as many hazards I come across these days, and as far from any 'name brand' dealers.... these tires fits me to a 't'. I can destroy one in a month if unlucky, or if I'm lucky, might get 40-45k out of em. I never know what's waiting for me in ambush.. These are recapped tires, with several choices of tread patterns. I've had BFG and Michelin carcasses. Last set I got 235 70 16 cost me 100 each, delivered. They claim they use the same rubber compound as big rig tires...

Nissan's are built in Mississippi, gas engines built in Tennessee, and this new v8 cummins is slated to be built in Columbus Indiana... Shoot, These rigs are far more American made than our beloved Dodges! (mexico and Brazil sourced parts)... I read an article about the development of this engine from a few years back.. they were looking at both iron blocked V6 and V8 versions, 4.7 and 5.6 liter respectively. Dodge even supplied the Durango's and ram 1500's for test mules. This was FOUR years ago! What the heck happened? oh, FIAT 'happened'. Neat how this little cummins made 40% more economy than a 5.2 gasser, and was ONLY .2 second slower than the fabled HEMI in the 0-60 times... (That may be another reason the project was tabled by Chrysler) http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/dodge/0612dp_new_cummins_v6_and_v8/viewall.html - - - Updated - - - looks like almost 400 lbs lighter than the I6! aluminum heads, and the Lbs of cast iron per per cylinder goes down in a v-8 configuration. (shared components such as 2 journals per main bearing, and skirt depth of block is shorter)... I wonder how much they've 'shorted' the stroke on this design?

shoot, all the R+D has been done.... as far as their inline lineup! (and this wouldn't be Cummins first dance at ''v'' configuration...) Their current 4 cylinder offering would be plenty for a lightweight half-ton... But the '4 cylinder' stigma wouldn't sell worth a dang! Fiat still going ahead with their v-6 diesel half tons?

ok, so... what did you change/adjust/manipulate to get that 27 mpg? Why the sudden jump

I'd bet you will find your countershaft or input shaft bearings went away from low or poor quality lube... and the spun bearing/s which ate the case... as for the 'ultimate' cause.... give more info please. Miles, usage, maintenance, horsepower put through it...

neat observation... I've wondered in my 4wd tractor with the 903 v8 cummins, there is a sticker on the dash that says I should push the clutch in while the engine is shutting down. This configuration is a 150 lb flywheel, with non-clutched driveshaft bolted to that, (always spins with motor). The 'real' clutch is inside the transmission, with another 130 lb flywheel, 16 inch wet clutch. Pushing in the clutch shouldn't reduce the flywheel effect... but it does seem to be a smoother shutdown. Especially the very last 1 or 2 revolutions. There is a ton of spinning gears which could add a bunch of backlash on shutdown..

Sorry about that! I got a little sideways, off track, so to speak! Sometimes the who-what-where-why-when gets in the way of a simple problem. calculating 'ultimate' pressure doesn't get your truck out of the shop any faster! my bad. Do a leak down test to see where it's all going.. and go from there. your bottom end might not be as bad as you think. (you said blow by is minimal) so I'd suspect valves, cracks in head next.

I have a suspicion that no matter what the intake air temp.... the final 'compressed' temp will be the same, if not pretty dang close. (as long as everything else is constant). cold AiT = more molecules to 'excite' during compression...more heat gain. Hot AIT = less molecules to compress, less heat gain. where: where P is pressureV is volumen is the number of molesR is the universal gas constantT is temperature (K) So, lets say we compress this cylinder (with a perfect seal, no leakage) at the speed cummins cranks their engines to start. Then suddenly stop the piston at TDC, and we have a 'hot' cylinder gas of 650 degrees, with a psi reading of 750 psi. ( in a perfect scenario). Then we allow the gas temp to return to ambient. the law above says 'double the temp, double the pressure'. But that assumes instant compression, not a slow compression (our engines during cranking) which is already dissipating heat to the head and cylinder walls! The OP statement was correct on his calculations....WITHOUT temp factored. My question was his original value of 14.7.... because our compression gauge reads 'zero' at atmospheric idle, not 14.7 Is this becoming a chicken or egg first... need heat to make psi, or psi to make heat? Maybe the dude just needs to rebuild his engine:lmao:

this shows pressure of '1' at max volume... then pressure of '2' at min volume. Pressure is doubled, volume is halved. TEMP is constant. I just assumed his CR calculations would apply... volume is 16.7 times smaller at tdc than bdc. This assumes 100% volumetric efficiency too. Someone out there have a formula for temp variations? Would the 'starting' value be 1 (atmospheric pressure) instead of 14.7? (we don't feel 14.7, because it's inside us too) - - - Updated - - - yep.. the hotter the air, the less moles going in! BUT, with less moles, the less it will INCREASE in temp during the same compression period too. (given the same piston speed) I was considering the NET temp gain on ending psi.

I remember it being inversely proportional.... (calculating pressure/volume)... I agree now that his 'starting point of 14.7 psi' is the wrong value. But you have to consider the net gain temp , not just the intake temp??

You are very correct in your math, but you forgot to add the temp variant! your calculations are correct when temp remains constant... but change dramatically when air is heated. Some dude named Boyle came up a bunch of laws on this years ago...

I'd agree with your hypothesis too! Dodge is pretty much the only application that uses the side mounting bosses of cummins blocks. When that motor torques over on acceleration or downshifting, all the counteractive force is in the center of the block.... whereas a rear mounted block would allow it to spread it's rotational torque stresses across the full length of the block. And don't forget the all important side to side vibration a mid mounted block will incur as opposed to a front/rear located one. Throw in normal road bumps, a couple hundred thousand miles.. and it's not too hard to see a mid mounted block not nearly as well-supported as a front/rear one would be. Now, on the other hand, most front/rear mounted engines will have their transmissions hanging totally free at the back end. (no trans crossmember) the trans just hangs off the clutch housing. most mid size trucks that DID use the 53 block were spec'd with a different casting... possibly cast in Columbus, not 'south of the border'. let me back up and say the rotational forces should be limited pretty much at the mounting ears of the rear mount. That SAE #3 adapter that contains the flywheel and includes the mounting ears is one TOUGH SOB piece of iron!

presently, in front of my laptop! Holt County, around Oneill U?

welcome neighbor!

$4.39 for a box of 10. sheesh. I'm good for another decade!

ya might tear your pants on this one!

is there provisions to attach the plastic inner fender well to these bumpers? or need to finagle up something?? I had the stocker front bumper off the '00 a month ago... Looks heavy, but I was surprised how light it was! ( I was thinking that the trade off going to aftermarket wouldn't THAT much.... needing heavier springs/spacers to compensate!) WF, I thought the snowplow springs were the same as the diesel option springs... I gotta set off of a '94 2500 parts truck... THAT truck was a real lumber wagon~ Without searching... what do these bumpers cost?

Did you know that shearing a heavy wooled sheep in the summer is the worst thing you can do.. from the insulation standpoint FROM the heat.... and the evaporative effects long hair previous poster mentioned. Some kinds of human baldness is a result of shrinking pores... both sweat and hair follicles. You might also have less sweat up-top to help keep ya cool!

yep. B10 for example, is 10% biodiesel, 90% regular diesel. Of that 10%, there are many recipes depending on what the 'base' is. Biodiesel refers to a vegetable oil- or animal fat-based diesel fuel consisting of long-chain alkyl (methyl, ethyl, or propyl) esters. Biodiesel is typically made by chemically reacting lipids (e.g., vegetable oil, animal fat (tallow[1][2])) with an alcohol producing fatty acid esters.

out of curiosity, how old of a pump/miles are on your pump?

plus the hundreds of thousands on newly plowed up acres to grow this new 'cash crop'. Most corn was grown on good, sensible, ground before the ethanol-crazed-greed pushed growing corn into the fringe areas. These areas were NOT farmed previously BECAUSE EITHER Too steep, too dry, or poor soil. Grass was king/ perfect for these areas. So the extra fertilizers, and fuel to pump water to these fringe areas to 'cash' in on this phenomenon is certainly doing several things: A train load of cash is going to China for imported fertilizers. (most fertilizer is crude oil based these days) Phosphates and Potash are still dug out of the ground. 2. even more crude oil is needed to plant, harvest, deliver, and distribute the ethanol to end consumer. 3. I shudder when I see these areas being farmed around here with no respect for soil/water conservation! Top Soil ( our Nations MOST valuable asset, is NOW exposed to wind/water erosion. And it's heading for the gulf of Mexico every day. I see hillsides so steep that a cow used to have problems standing on,(but grass held the soil in place) being farmed now! It's nutz! What happened to the adage: We may own the land today, but we borrow our soil from our future generations??? I won't even mention what our drinking water has done , besides the nitrates going though the roof! The greenies have missed the boat on this one! The experts even admitted to this ethanol phenom is BARELY energy-positive... I'll concede that what is coming out our tailpipe is somewhat lower in CO emissions, but I have to think the extra CO in the production of the corn more than makes up the difference! My answer?? CELLULOSTIC ethanol. Plant those acres back to grass, and send the grass/hay to be made into ethanol. the soil will never leave, less crude oil to grow/harvest, little to no fertilizer to grow, grass does pretty good on what rain falls out of the sky.... AND, studies have said upwards of almost 2X the ethanol per acre, compared to corn. The MONSANTO'S/ CARGILLS don't like to hear those kind of things!

one side effect for sure, is that it has made special interest groups a mountain of cash!