rancherman

All good thoughts.^^^Since the very beginning of time, there have been 'whackos'. There is nothing new under the sun. ISX is right, ANY means possible will be used to convey a dasterdly deed. A simple baseball bat would've had similar results, A crude mustard gas can be made in minutes. Mike is correct too; just the simple fact of 'showing' a means of protecting oneself is a huge deterrant. Moral guidelines, accountability and consequences on 'how we live' have been forced out of our lives..... Thanks to the very people who will probably be leading the parade on gun control. (this time, the 'parade' is gonna be huge) I for one, have not, or ever will, 'wait, or rely on our govt. to supply me or my family with protection. The sh*tstorm that yesterday's events, and earlier Fall's shootings will really, really continue a 'tearing' of this Country. And any law that surfaces will only empower the 'bad guys' even more.This event, and anyone who has suffered a loss by the hand of a 'whacko' via gun, baseball bat, drunk driver, hijacked plane... whatever, is a terrible, terrible loss. Most of us know, Life is a gamble. There are risks out there that can't be 'written away' with a stroke of a pen...Stay 'frosty' my friends.... I have a bad feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg.

You allow NO one to:Touch, adjust, clean, repair, operate, or mix the gas/oil. The saw rides 'up front'... on the way to/from the woods....

No problem! I guess I was correlating super dense air with 'efficiency'. My old snowmobile, and all my chainsaws run like BANSHEE'S when it's 0* F !!! I googled 'dense vs. warm' air charge, and the best scenario explaining better 'efficiency' with warm air is: "vechicles with O2 sensors will sniff the extra O2, (in cold dense air) and then add more fuel to hold proper ratio". Therefore reducing mpg's. (makes sense to me). 'rate of burn' is different too. So, if we take the same O2 - richer dense air, and run it thru our diesels, perhaps the 'rate of combustion' is slightly higher... (too quick) for optimum mpg? No doubt coldest air possible for max brake hp is needed!! but you are correct on 'max hp' also means 'max fuel' too!

I agree too, 'cai's' should of been actually named 'air flow enhancers'. COLD had nothing to do with what they did. (pulling air from between the frame and exaust??) really? Ok, Ok, they can come in pretty colors! Anytime we pull air down a length of pipe, it does straighten out flow... but too much adds a friction factor too. So, the BHAF rises to the top!I was just trying to play devil's advocate, mike.. consider me 'blown out of the water'.

MPG's are better due to what? a denser air charge? A buttload of money has been spent by the masses 'buying the ultimate CAI ' over the years... with claims of 'more power, more mpgs'... Shoot, over at ramforumz thats ALL they talk about! (ok, possibly the newest add on cupholder too) Or was the better mpg's gained because of warmer weather caused the vehicle to roll easier? (fluids were 'thinner' quicker)... tires were more flexible.. etc. Or warmer air potentially holds more H20.. (akin to water injection)? * jus kickin a sleepin dog here* Or, running a winter blend fuel? who knows what actually is getting pumped into our tanks in the winter! I'll burn about 1-2 gallons more per hour in my tractors when I'm running blended. 20-25% increase in consumption.

No doubt! 'a cold trans' is a pretty heavy load. Even with syn oil. I don't have the fancy scan load reader like you guys, but I sure can hear it/watch the tach drop when taking the foot off the pedal! (in Neutral) Heck, when the heaters are cycling, it'll pull the idle speed down almost 100 rpm too! (my '00 anyway) It's amazing what load a little alternator will put on an engine! All I was saying, is in all the engines I have OH'd in the past 35 years was, I have seen much more wear on the thrust bearing/surface on the crank in clutched applications... versus 'no load' automatics. I guess I have NOT seen a detrimental engine failure because of this, but I have seen a crank 'beyond' repair from time to time... (main and rod journals were fine, but thrust surface was 'beyond'). For most in here, this probably won't be an issue. (starting a cold engine with foot off pedal) To me, for an engine that has sat unused for a long time, starting in neutral with foot off pedal is least wear and tear. (on the most expensive part of the engine anyway) All in all, it's probably 'six of one, half dozen of another' scenario! At least we agree that cold starting is hard on any engine!

This is easy to explain. If for example, we have a 3000# pressure plate.. The 'squeeze' that is applied to the clutch disk, is contained BETWEEN the flywheel and and pressure plate. It doesn't go any further. BUT.. in order to release the squeeze, a force equal to or greater than the springs in the pressure plate must be applied to the throwout bearing.. transmitted though the release fingers... which tries to push the crank forward. (for every action... there must be a equal reaction). The only thing that keeps the crank located transversally, is the thrust bearing. when the clutch is 'hooked up'.... there is no force pushing the crank foward.... or pushing on the thrust bearing. If the clutch is released, (foot ON pedal) there will be a force of equal amounts against the throwout bearing, AND thrust bearing.

usually, most lp's can handle the fuel straight from the tank. I can understand why you would want a prefilter in front of your LP; to protect it as well. It's a noble idea, but is inherent problem too! Sucking fuel with a high performance lp through a 'tight' filter isn't the best scenario... In fact, pulling fuel through any filter is problematic. a good screen is normally all that's needed to protect a lift pump. My main problem with running a Pre-filter in front of a pump is cavitation, and increased jelling in very cold weather. I'd just run your good filter(S) after your lp.

our local buyers don't care whats packed inside... as long as it sticks to a magnet. They smash em flat here, and the grinder at the mill does the rest. Rolls of wire don't phase the hammer mill one bit. They don't separate cast either. Our mill will mag the ground up car, and what doesn't stick to the mag goes down the road to another smelter (for the non ferrous material)These guys know what a car or pickup will weigh, and if something is 'fishy' they'll take a closer look. I have packed TONS of barb wire in over 20 vehicles. Cars are best.. they want the 'extra' inside the car or trunk. That way, the loose stuff won't fly off the semi headed to the mill. Rust doesn't matter either. It doesn't weigh up at all. What's UNDER the rust does! These buyers know all the tricks of the trade!... The further you are from an actual mill, the more picky/discounting the buyers are. My biggest gripe is being able to get in and out of their yards to unload, without getting at least one flat tire!

"HERE" They'll beat me up pretty bad if it still has rubber. It pays a LOT to remove the tires. Recently got 160/ton for a vehicle. Was 180 earlier this summer. I'll stuff old rolls of barb wire in the trunk to add to the payoff.It also pays pretty well to remove the radiator (if brass) and CC and sell them separately.I took a couple of brass radiators in and got almost $100 each, and the convertors were $80 each.:thumbup2:Having a steel 'mini-mill' 70 miles down the road helps a lot too!

Pitman arm? if so, that is different from 2wd and 4wd. as far as diesel/gasser, I can't find any difference from 1994-1999 http://www.rockauto.com/getimage/getimage.php?imagekey=1281961&imageurl=http%3A//www.rockauto.com/info/Mevotech/MK7239_FRO.jpg

'jeep Gangstaville'... yah, I'll bet the 'thugs' in the shadows around there all have 'Jeep' tatto'd on their forearms.. I did the exact same thing to my '77 chev C20.. the key/gear/pushrod to switch was all balled up, and I took the actual switch (similar to what you show) with a sheet metal screw into the lower dash. A bent welding rod was my 'key'.. I was too cheap to spring for a new lock mechanism...

would that be Marion SD? I'm about 70 miles SW of Yankton.

Hiya neighbor! I am about 20 miles south of your border (NC nebraska) Nice folks in here!

I was almost ready to use a drill and deck screw. You are correct! there was just enough corrosion/hard dirt/grease on the outside of the O ring to really ballthings up.I found by pulling out, it actually got tighter. (until the PB BLASTER took effect)

I think with the O-w it will drain back more. The oil galleries wont have as much in them as the thicker oil, and it takes a few seconds to fill everything up. I'd think there would be enough 'film' to carry you through until pressure builds.This is one reason I defeat the clutch safety circuit. Imagine pushing on the end of a crankshaft with almost 3000# force... course, if you have automatic trans.... that doesn't apply. thrust bearings don't hold much spare in the first place. I have seen the difference it makes! (yah, it takes years to show up)I had a bad habit of jumping in the cab, pushing the clutch down.... waiting for the heaters to heat...THEN cranking. I pretty much had all the oil squeezed out of the thrust bearing by then.

I am going to go with an MBRP 4 inch system.. not sure which configuration (stainless,powder coat, or aluminized) probably just single. I was wondering if the PAC-brake or if available, other brands of 'improved' exaust elbow was worth the $275+/- ? The original elbow looks awful choked down! Another thing I have to consider is toughness.. are they as durable as the oem's? (cracking issues)(getting ready to start the 'rebuild' here soon!... about another week of gathering cattle.. and my year's work is complete!)......... unfortunately, 'next years' work started a month ago..

Some dude from Missouri scored... ISX??? c'mon man! fess up~ well, my plans are to build this 'ranch truck' from several donor trucks this winter.. and from what I can tell, the driveline from the early 98 5 speed cummins (dana 80) appears the same as what's in our '00 3500;springs, overloads....etc. I haven't looked into if brakes are different tho.. (front or rear) I am going to snag a set of salvage yard dual rims and make the 2500 a drw. I know the 2500's rear axle is 4 inches narrower than a 3500's. It'll still look ok: I am going to run a flat bed instead of a box. Not a real fan of running spacers to get the wheels out where they are on a true 3500.. If it ever rains here again, and gets sloppy muddy, I can take off the duals and run my original singles again. unless there is a difference in brakes, cooling capacity, front springs, my early 98 2500 should have compareable capacity as our 2000 3500 I'll concede the fact the replacement flatbed will weigh about 300 lbs more than a box. ( but with no muffer, I gain a little back!)

another 'drag' parasite is front end alignment. How long since you've done one... how are the fronts wearing?

what was your fuel economy doing before you changed the pump? If it was low, did it come back with the good pump?

LOL.... I love that s%%t... the ultimate 'sleeper'.. Imagine the cash to be made in the side streets in towns where this truck isn't known! ( i would never partake) :whistle:Back in my 'youth' a friend of mine had a '68 D100 shortbed, rusty, and had a mild built 426 wedge... ugliest pickup on the road... but was a blast KICKIN the snot out of the 'rich boys' new camaros and mustangs..

are the bearings in the dana 80 the same if they are single or dual?? ..I thought it was not only spring/engine power/axle ratio that contributed to weight ratings... but also BRAKES

I never thought of that! I'll bet Big Oil might've had a say in it too...Big 3 domestics.. etc etc.. And this is yet another chapter that can be put into the thread "What is happening to US, where are we headed" (Dance, puppets, Dance!!)... says the man behind the curtain... - - - Updated - - - Off the cuff, I remember there several factors involved in figuring 'compliance' on how much 'pollution' was allowed. intent of use.. Work or basic transportation how many passengers type of fuel I'm sure there was others too... and I am pretty sure there was some calculation based on the certified mpgs... which basically figured the amount of 'crap' expelled PER GALLON burned. Not PER MILE travelled. It probably wasn't that black and white.. maybe a ppm/gallon burned/miles traveled.. but still, I think on a per trip basis, the equation fails. with that in mind, the VW would needed to cleaner as a similar vehicle that got 35 mpg.

Remember about 10 years ago, when VW announced a diesel car (cant remember the exact model).. that was getting 70-75 mpg in Europe?? Guess what> DIDN'T MEET EPA STANDARDS ??? I fought that notion in my head for years: How can a vehicle that burns HALF the fuel per mile pollute MORE???? Then I found the reason why... The formula for figuring what a car/truck can emit is factored with expected mpg. So, basically, the VW's were 'screwed' because they got unreal fuel economy. So, VW 'detuned' that version, which got about 40 mpg's... and sent em this way! ( I realize europe's diesel fuel is a little different recipe than ours too) and our's is/was a little dirtier.. Would this Country be better off with a little more 'junk' in the air, or use half the fuel in the first place??? Don't crucify me here... I am not a scientist... or a VW fan! Just relaying what I've read.