RE: Welding
msmith1199,
You will start with simple projects and then gain in experience, knowledge, and confidence, desire, and will lose that fear of tackling the as now seen more difficult roads. It's called learning and growing. We all do it throughout life's journey. Bet you crawled before you took your first walking step too. I know I did! Now you probably walk every day and are not afraid to hike sometimes either. It all began with the desire to crawl and go places! You're only limited by your imagination and your desire to win in life's short timing. You're never too old to start because you're only going to get older day by day. It's guaranteed!!!
Good luck and what are you waiting for?
RE: Welding
msmith1199,
I have 3 welders at home presently. Just love my "toy barn". I love making things and always have. A real hobby! Our signature has one of the items on the back of the camper rig. The rear porch I made years ago. I've made 4 of them so far along with a couple utility trailers with a 5,000 lb capacity for family members. Just a few of the many large and small projects I've done personally with my welders and my workshop setup.
One of the welders is a Century 85 amp wire feed welder that runs on 110V -- 20amp outlet and uses up to .035 dia wire. I have the argon and oxygen bottles also for when I don't use a flux core wire etc. This welder is good for hobby work or simple sheetmetal work only and lousy for any strength welds. Wire speed and amperage settings are really quite touchy. Not the easiest to use. It's great for the lighter gauge steel welding work only. Looks like bird droppings at best and does not penetrate at all when trying to weld any thick steel. Zero puddling! It's seldom used anymore. It's like sending a boy to do a mans job!
The second welder is a Millermatic 140 amp wire feed welder that requires 30 amps min of 110V. It's good for medium thickness welding up to about 3/16" or 1/4" inch thick steel. Just does not have enough heat (amperage) to penetrate deeply enough to securely weld the thicker metal such as a 1/2" or 3/4" or trailer hitch draw bars etc. It merely deposits it's molten metal rather than puddling deeply into the base metal when trying to weld the thick steels. It's a medium difficulty welder to learn to use. It gets used when it's needed for the jobs it does best. Mine also has the attachment unit on it for welding aluminum. It works "somewhat" at best. I'd label them as very poor welds in aluminum. Constantly burns thru and blows out. Certainly wouldn't recommend it for any aluminum welding! Buy the proper welder for aluminum!
The third and most used is a Lincoln 225 amp (nick name: "buzz box") stick AC/DC welder that runs on a 50 amp 220V circiut and will weld 1" plus thick steel with a 1/4" dia rod all day long and makes excellent structurally strong welds. This same welder has been in production for over 60 years now and still going strong. You can easily stick weld from .047 thick steel sheet using 1/16 dia rod on up to 1/4" dia rods for thick steels. Overhead welding and other difficult welding jobs also. It's by far the most universal welder and there's a weld rod selection always available for about any steel welding job you'll encounter. You can easily weld cast iron, steel, use a cutting torch rod, add a hardened (heat treated) steel edge or surface to almost any steel surface that's needed or wanted to be on, use a deep penetrating rod for strength, a smooth fillet fill rod for looks, weld stainless, etc. It's also the easiest welder to use and learn on. Yes, it uses 220V but it's the one welder that does it all and you'll not need to upgrade later on.
I also had all 3 of these above welders in my business along with MIG and TIG welders and bottled torch brazing and welding etc for the making prototypes etc for trucks, vans, and SUV's.
Once you get started making things yourself, there's no end to it. It's addictive!!! It opens a whole new world for you. There are some other tools you should also consider, You'll want a disk grinder (an acutal disk not a rubber backed sandpaper disk on a drill) to clean up the welds if they are exposed and you want to paint or finish the project for a good appearance. So easy to make it look professional. I also use a right angle air grinder with a 2" dia emery paper on pad to finish the welds, joint appearances, surfaces, and the edges to remove sharpness and blend irregularities. I take pride in all my work and projects and always have. Never have to make an excuse for doing something right!
RE: My 6.0L gasser doesn't seem to be up for the task
Many 5'ers and TT's etc are listed in the manufacturer's specifications/labels as it's base dry trailer weight (axle weight) and then they also give the dry pin weight and tongue weight as a number and often will also list a total dry weight number for the unit or you can add the 2 other weights together. I know for a fact that all 3 of my Carriage 5'ers were listed this way as well as several other TT's and 5er's we have owned. I have always (the last 32 years at least) truck scale weighed our RV's when purchased as the scale's use is free for me. Family ownership is so sweet! Just look at the many ways the specs are given in various RV brochures etc. The new Carriage RV weights are listed with the average popular options included, not a base stripped unit weight. They aren't sold as such and include many options as standard that most other manufacturers list as optional.
Simply put, for an example, the total capacity of a 225/75/15 D range trailer tire is 2540 lbs at 65 PSI. This adds up to 10,160 lbs total carrying capacity for the 4 tires but the GVW is often specified at up to 2500 lbs over this 10,160 lb weight capacity. The difference is in the tongue or pin weights. Read the manufacturer's printed specifications. The only way to know the actual weight of any stand alone trailer when loaded ready to travel is to scale weigh it. Guessing is for those who really don't want to know the actual numbers.
A toy hauler 5'er supposedly weighing in at 8,000 lbs dry and actually only 9500 lbs total including the pin weight, the OP's bike (motorcycle ?), 50 gallons of water, and all their gear is somewhat suspect to me. Add in the hitch and the 2 people as his post as he had stated along with their dog and any other items in his truck and what is his actual gross weight???
There's no doubt that the large diameter tires are his biggest issue but there is likely more to it at play here. Any headwinds with a large frontal surface area unit is like dragging the brakes or going uphill. With no additional headwind, the wind resistance is 2 to 2 1/2 times the rolling resistance at 55 MPH to begin with. 3+ times the resistance at 70 MPH. What speed is a "heck of a windy day" anyway. It tells you nothing! A 20 MPH headwind is similar to driving his rig at 75 MPH while only moving at 55 MPH actual ground speed. 40 MPH headwind is like 95 MPH. Again, to start with, a tire change to a standard diameter or close is the beginning point. The 265's are a little larger diameter than the standard 245's but that only accounts for an approx 0.16 change in rear ratio revolutions. His 4.10 ratio will then be about 3.94. A slight to moderate loss in torque as applied to the road's surface.
For the weights the OP had listed in his original thread post, he shouldn't be having these issues with a stock 6.0 gas engine and a 4.10 rear end.
RE: My 6.0L gasser doesn't seem to be up for the task
Is your 5'er's 9500 lb estimate including it's pin weight and the hitch in the truck along with the truck's passengers? Most do not include the pin weight and that's another 1800 to maybe 2500 lbs additional to pull alone. At any rate, I'd actually weight ypur rig when loaded and ready to pull so you really know it's weight. The large diameter tires are of no help at all. As said, they alter your effective drive ratio at the ground surface considerably.
RE: Pop-up Camper
Wayne,
I put the aux tank in our 2004 Dmax truck for use when the 5'er is to be pulled but I certainly wouldn't put it in front of a truck camper and wouldn't have the 100 gallon tank in any of our towing trucks at all if it were to contain gasoline. Having the 100 gallon tank in the truck that is in our signature which contains diesel and setup as I have it is bad enough. There's always a degree of danger associated with carrying a sizeable quanity of a combustible fuel. There is so little if any protection for the aux tank in the event of a mishap. Just keeping the odds in my favor as best I reasonably can because I owe atleast that much to my passengers, myself, and others on the roadways. There are also many humans who ride their motorcycles without a helmet too. Some are not here anymore to talk about it! DW and I have ridden our many motorcycles since 1963 up until a few years ago but never once without a brain bucket on and buckled. That's been our choice and others make their own choice. Yes, it's even legal to NOT wear a helmut in some places. What you or anyone else does in life is up to them...
BTW, that's why the OEM factory mounted fuel tank is where it is. Protection!!!!
RE: Pop-up Camper
To define a frontal crash with a truck and 5'er behind or a TC onboard just a little clearer, I'll offer the following:
True it would depend on what you hit with your RV rig. If you were to hit a passenger car etc of perhaps 2,500-4,000 lbs with your RV rig of approx 10,000+ lbs with a TC on the rear or a 5'er rig combo of approx 15,000 to 20,000 lbs total at maybe 50 mph, there wouldn't be much question as to what the results would likely be. A bowling ball smacking into a volley ball or such at 50 mph is kind of a comparison that comes to mind for reasoning purposes. The volley ball would be on it's way to the moon, so to speak! The occupants inside the crushed passenger car etc that was hit hopefully had a good life insurance policy for their family/siblings etc. Most likely, there'd be minor to moderate injuries to the truck's occupants. However, there'd be a severe shock to the RV rig that would raise havoc with it's towed or carried load. Yes, the truck would be heavily damaged in front but nothing like the passenger etc vehicle experienced. No airbags to help the RV's behind or on the back like the inside occupants have! Any body game to hit an 18 wheeler at 50 mph with their 1 ton dually trucks to see what happens and if the comparison makes any sense? I've wittnessed this type of scenario a few times at the domestic manufacturer's engineering test facitilies over the years. It's not pretty! There's also been some video tapes released of these tests that I've seen. Some were on the net but I can't recall the links right off as I'm typing this. Running into a tree, an 18 wheeler, or a bridge abutment, etc at 50 mph with the RV rig is something quite different and the results would also be different.
There have been several videos of different test vehicles frontally hitting an impact barrier right on this forum and one thing you always seen was the rear of the striking vehicle raise upward violently before coming to a stop. Simple Physics at work! The vehicle's front wheels are it's pivot point. Where would a truck camper or the 5th wheel be after the impact or how would it react during the impact? Good question! Sure are a lot of variables but one thing is quite certain. Both will go up and forward rather than down or backwards while the impact is in progress.
Would I want a fuel tank in front of a heavy mass heading it's way in an accident? NO WAY! Especially not containing gasoline. I enjoy living far too much!
RE: Pop-up Camper
Wayne,
The lower portion of a normal 5th wheel trailer will hit the bumper, the rear of the box, and the ends of the truck's frame well before it can hit the aux tank. I know because I have measured mine. Besides, the front boxover portion of the 5th wheel trailer is well above the aux tank with only the pin being able to hit the very top of a normal aux tank at best. Add to that, the fact that the rear of a vehicle raises (thrusts upwardly) in a frontal crash. Especially with a 5'er attached so high above the truck's bed level and the road's surface. The pin would normally pass much higher than an aux tank even if it could reach the tank. It's the effect of inertia and the vehicle's lower to the ground front bumper creating the pivot. There are always variables but it's difficult to factor in the possible fringes. All you can do is play with the best odds in your favor. I like to win when I gamble!
Hope this helps to explain and understand it....
RE: Pop-up Camper
rocmoc,
I've seen an approx 59" wide X 24" high X 9" thick aux tank that fits against the front of the truck box. If I remember correctly, it had about a 55+ gal capacity. The 9" thickness is great but still will push the camper's weight backwards and puts more of it's load weight (COG) on the rear wheels/suspension. Therefore, it would depend on the truck's capacity/configuration and which TC you were to put on it with the tank in front of it.
Another important issue to take into very careful consideration is the dangers that will now exist. In an accident, the camper will normally be thrust violently forward (inertia) because that's the direction in which your vehicle was moving. This reaction will very likely crush the simple aux tank and spill it's contents in a gush. An aux tank is no match for a 1500 lb or 2000 lb plus camper flying at it. It's not just the camper's weight to consider but rather you must include everything that's inside it also. Water/liquids, canned goods, options, personal items, etc. Easily an additional 500 lbs min over the base camper's weight and more often about a thousand lbs. SPLAT!!!!!
If it were to be an aux tank containing gasoline that's added? I wouldn't even consider it as it's a real BOMB waiting to explode and then followed by the incinerating flames! Remember how hot the exhaust system is when going down the road. It's several hundred degrees temperature above the flash point of the gasoline! Diesel would leak out also but would be far less apt to be explosive but could surley burn very hot. Even so, I'd sure have to think about it for a long while and find a way to transfer tha camper's forward inertia force to the truck's frame etc before I'd do it to a rig setup of mine.
BTW, I have a 106 gallon capacity (100 gallon usable) in our truck box when our 5'er is used but it is removed when we put the TC on for wintertime use. I built a support basket/cradle to go around the lower half of our 24" X 24" X 45" tank and lift at all 4 corners of the basket/cradle with the 2 ton hoist I have in my "toy barn" (as DW calls it). I put 4 backing plates under the bolt holes in the truck bed with stainless steel nuts welded to them so I only need to back out four 3/8 bolts to remove the 100 gal tank. 10 minutes max.
RE: Adding insulation
All our RV's since about 1980 have been ordered with factory storm windows (Hehr) or were ordered after we had purchased the unit. They are not expensive, only need to buy them once, beyond practical, and so easy to put on and take off each season. They are a must to us and will be on all future RV's also. Only need to remove the storms from the windows you plan on opening in the warmer time of the year. They also help with the A/C needs and the outside noises in the summertime. We had used the heat shrink plastic film and the clear film before our first glass factory made storm windows were purchased and thought it did a fine job but we felt it was a "pita" to put on and take off each year and clean the tape residue 0off compared to just put the glass storms in and turn the clip. To each, his own!
RE: Adding insulation
Holy cow! Naked tanks? Sounds like perhaps you are trying to make an entry level type trailer into the attributes of a higher level trailer's colder climate built in comfort and colder temperature handling ability. That is done during the trailer's initial construction. Good luck to you as you have plenty of work ahead of you with a questionable amount of gain. Anything you do will sure help but the max you can gain is still less than 25% improvement because that's all there is to work with for the floor. Still, there will be so many things that are still missing with the insulation, sealing, and items necessary to achieve your probable projected goal. Even after insulating and sealing the floor you'll still need to run heat from the furnace down (heat rises) to your new improved basement. You must add an air escape (cold air return) for the forced air to the tank area etc or the heated air will not go there. Can't pressurize a closed area because the heated air will take the path of least resistance. If the trailer's always going to be plugged into AC, you could add resistance heating pads attached to the tank exteriors but that wouldn't do anything to protect the plumbing runs with water in them. If you plan to pull the trailer around in freezing temperatures, heat will be needed also to keep the water lines etc from freezing.
RE: Adding insulation
lv2rom,
Yup, as my dad used to say when he saw a window cracked open or a door ajar when it was cold outside: "Throw a board in that crack"
You'll find so many air leaks to correct that you'll be entertained for several weekends to get them all. This includes the seals and/or gaskets around each and every door, window, and storage compartment openings, etc. Everywhere!!! No leak is too small in my book. I know how long it takes to do it properly because I've done it so many times. Maybe I'm just too darn fussy but I've never had to make an excuse for doing only half a job. Nearly all our RV's have been purchased new as we have seldom purchased or even considered a used one. We like getting the first use and let someone else have the second. Works for us! The results of properly sealing and insulation of an RV or a home is priceless!
Dropping the trailer bottom enclosing cover and adding appropiate blanket style fiberglas insulation is a good idea. Hard to use a foam type board under there due to odd shapes, openings, and so much stuff in the way. Just remember to find the lowest spot in your reinstalled bottom cover and add a small drain hole or or two etc or even an easily reached spigot (might have to glue one or two on) to be able to allow drainage of the often trapped liquid from condensation, a dripping water line, or even an undetected sidewall leak, or you name it. I'd use unfaced insulation so the facing doesn't collect standing liquid over time. That's what most high end RV builders use under their pullables. There's a big difference in how various RV's are insulated or not insulated.
Not only does proper sealing and insulation work great for cold infiltration but also does wonders for A/C use in hot weather. A double winner!!!
RE: Adding insulation
Correct! On average, 50% of heat loss is thru the ceiling mainly because heated air rises, 25% thru the walls mainly due to the windows and doors, and 25% thru etc the floor. Generally, the floor losses are from air infiltration or cold transfer thru the unit's needed openings and/or pass thru's. While there's heat loss thru all surfaces exposed to the outside, there can be extenuating circumstances (gaps, holes, cracks, ill fitting insulation, various other air leaks, etc) that alter these normal numbers some but they are the accepted averages.
RE: Car Sales
JALLEN4,
You are spot on with your good news. Your thread topic is so important!
Could it be that there's a slight glimmer of hope that finally the public is now learning that their actual jobs, income, standard of living, and futures depend on maintaining or increasing and not decreasing our manufacturer's product sales? That possibly keeping our own manufacturer's profits within our own country is a very very important major part of our economic structure and the future of their own or so many other fellow citizen's jobs? Profit is not a dirty word, it's a requirement or it'll close down! And, that the taxing of our businesses ever so heavily, the extreme mandated governmental etc restrictions, laws, and pressures, the outlandish union contracts, just to mention a few, when we in a world economy will chase and have chased so many millions of our jobs away to those greener pastures. So much easier and more profitable to operate outside our own country. What a dirty shame!!! We, the consumers, have created our environment of the moving and/or failing or failed companies in our country/countries with our continuous practice of our homes filled with mostly foreign made items, and/or in the garage, and/or our driveways. Just might want to look around at your own surroundings and think about it? Our manufacturers are not stupid, they are fighting for their own survival as they must. Wake thyself up!!!!
Help or lose the life you've have or had that had been prepared for you by our gutsy parents and grandparents and just think of what you will so proudly or not proudly pass on to your children and their children etc. Gives you a sick feeling doesn't it? Most employment comes only from being able to sell the products the employee/company makes or there will be NO employment or company to work for. It's called real jobs! People in our country seem to be constantly railing against big or medium sized businesses especially the domestic automotive manufacturers and their suppliers but just don't appear to realize it's those big and medium companies that are actually employing millions of our population. Can these same people name ONE poor person who has employees or meets a payroll? Keep looking!!! It takes money and/or investment to start/build a business and only one in five will even be there five years later. ROI (Return On Investment) is paramount. It does take a large company to build vehicles not a Mom and Pop operation. Keep the money in your own country or face the consequences and they sure aren't pretty!
I love and respect small businesses as that's what I've had and been a practicing part of for my 4+ decades. As few as 1 and up to 262 employees and that 1 being me, myself, and I! Yes, a small business works with big businesses! Small businesses are the backbone of much of American/North American's financial earnings and employment but cannot be such without having the larger businesses to work with. Mom and Pop operations just can't remotely begin to mass produce a big ticket item such as vehicles etc.
I wonder if the ALARM clock in our citizen's heads has finally sounded? Will they turn it off, reset it for a little longer rest and veg, or get up and begin a new day to reclaim our future and our kids future????
RE: Car Sales
Just reported on TV at 8:02 PM:
The domestic big 3 vehicle sales... GM, Chrysler, Ford
GM --- sales are down 16% from last year
CHRYSLER --- sales are down 33% from last year
FORD --- sales are down 34% from last year
RE: 2010 GM Ultimax Diesel, 6.9L, 425hp/750tq ?
surveyorjp,
Sorry, I had misread your signature info. Old eyes I guess!!! I thought you had a 5.9 CTD but I should have known better with it being a half ton. With only 68,000 miles on her, I'd sure hope your gas truck runs excellent. It should for double that mileage and maybe more. A CTD would only be "just broken in" like with any of the diesels. We have more miles than that on our 2004 D/A in our signature and it's only one of our vehicles or tow vehicles. I'm planning on keeping our 2004 D/A for many years because it's simply outstanding, gets great mileage, and we just love it. Have fun!
RE: 2010 GM Ultimax Diesel, 6.9L, 425hp/750tq ?
Actually, we're leaving in the morning for a week or so of RV'ing and fishing etc in Northern Michigan. Then, we have to bring the boat home and go to DW's doctor appointment etc. Gonna be home for a few days and then back RV'ing again up North for a few weeks for our annual leaf peeping duties. Can't miss it ever. So gorgeous! Will the torture ever end????
Good thing we're only a days drive away from there and with the excellent fuel mileage of our diesel, the pump $$$ pain is tolerable. Well, almost!
RE: 2010 GM Ultimax Diesel, 6.9L, 425hp/750tq ?
Engineer9860,
It should suffice to tell you I have quite close connections to the Big 3 engineering etc and the opportunity to learn a lot more than I'm permitted to reveal or should reveal. I will not violate the trust! It doesn't make me any smarter than someone else. I just get more opportunities as to the actual happenings and facts. Many of the new products, designs, and/or features are very fluid as they are going in several directions at the same time until the final decision is made. Few manufacturers put all their eggs in one basket. It's a formula for failure. I read some of the publications but don't care to subscribe to too many. I'd rather go RV'ing, camping, boating, fishing, and all that dumb kind of stuff! Besides, it has to happen well before any of the publications can report on it so why would I rely on a a magazine write up? They often speculate and put their slant on it which may or may not be accurate. Life is great isn't it???
surveyorjp,
Your quite old 1995 5.9L Cummins was a good engine for it's time but it's time has long past. In fact, 14 model years have past since you could have purchased it new. It's a dinosaur in today's world of new regulations and needs. It couldn't even be sold in any new vehicle in the USA since 1/1/2007. If you love it, maybe you should keep it forever. The world has changed and is even changing a lot more!
The DPF and regen system was the accepted method to meet the new emission standards timing until other methods were prefected, proven, certified, and tooled for mass production. Call it a "stop gap" method. Maybe you are not aware of how many years it takes for design, prototyping, development, testing, certification, and tooling of anything that has to go thru the EPA etc government agencies. Even though new laws and regulations can and are passed quickly. You'd grow a very long beard and trip over it a lot of times just waiting for the total process to take place to meet these new, often brain storm, regulations. Hint, only in America!!! Foreign countries have it so easy because of the regulating agencies cooperation! Not so here. Watch closely for the big changes comming to Cummins diesels in the next few years. You may not hardly recongize them anymore. They want to sell engines too! You're in for an education my friend...
RE: 2010 GM Ultimax Diesel, 6.9L, 425hp/750tq ?
I do also Engineer9860 and that the way GM is headed. There's no going back to the old dinosaur very heavy and bulky diesel engine designs of today and yesteryear. Compact size and lower weight per pound of power output will rule the future in all reciprocating engines, gas and diesel, the motoring public buys. Especially lowering the weight of diesel engines. "ALL" manufacturers will follow or drop by the wayside. They'll have little choice! Max MPG (fuel economy) while still performing the required task at hand is where it's at! No excuses! There are even more very advanced diesel engine designs being worked on presently at GM but they are still 5-7 years away from mass production worthiness. Some exciting times ahead for sure! The urea system accounts for more than half of the fuel economy gains the new 4.5 exhibits. The DPF regen system in today's diesel engines is a "fuel waster" and adds additional weight and service issues into the mix. Very inefficient! It will be a thing of the past across the board within perhaps five years or less.
1000 HP diesel! So what?
HP numbers are a non issue to me. HP numbers are only a calculation using both RPM and torque. Torque is the true measurement of twisting force applied to the vehicle's drive wheels. highest HP numbers are generally acheived at an RPM the vehicle's engine is very seldom operated at. So why be so thrilled by a number that you're not going be able to use when driving on the normal roadways? Save the HP hype for the drag or race track! The RV'ers I know including myself generally want to keep their engines below 2000 RPM's while still having all the power they need to go down the road no matter the size and weight of their rigs. That's important to getting the better or best fuel ecomony....
RE: 2010 GM Ultimax Diesel, 6.9L, 425hp/750tq ?
Engineer9860,
What you have written about the 4.5 vs the 6.6 is true and I know it as well. The 72 degree angle on the 4.5 is to narrow the engine width and it has no effect on how the basic engine runs or operates internally (pistons, crankshaft, diesel principles, etc). It does change the block design. It's a size factor improvement and well overdue. The "V" design is very important over the inline design to save considerably on engine length and weight requirements. Vehicles must be lighter in the future and have less wasted space to be more fuel efficient. Weight takes fuel to move it! A given!!! The re-routing of the exhaust gasses is something I hadn't pointed out. My bad! It was not only done to shorten the exhaust gass travel to the turbo but also narrows the total assembled engine width considerably more. It also lowers the engine shake and vibrations very markedly by narrowing the width of the shaking engine and keeping all moving, vibrating, rotating parts or systems as close to centerline as possible. A super smart idea! Whether the injectors are piezo-electric or the present injector ssytem is not a "basic" engine design characteristic. The 6.6 could also be redesigned to use them if GM so desired. Overhead or pushrod valves both do the same job and the overhead system makes more sense. Both have their limitations though. The intake ports had to be re-routed thru the valve covers due to the 72 degree block design. No room! Maybe my "basic" wording was not the best way to describe it.
RE: 2010 GM Ultimax Diesel, 6.9L, 425hp/750tq ?
ib516, BINGO!!!! One size doesn't fit all....
The new 4.5L GM diesel is basically a scaled down version of the present 6.6L Duramax configuration with a totally new concept of packaging and design. It's so compact that it will fit into the medium/downsized trucks, vans, and SUV's etc as well as the full sized trucks, vans, and SUV's. With the 4.5's 310 HP and 520 torque at low RPM, the 4.5L diesel is bound to be a popular choice for many vehicle buyers not needing the awesome power of the 6.9L at 425 HP and 750 torque who still need/want to pull substancial loads (GCVWR) while having the increased fuel economy in mind. The fuel economy of the 4.5L is showing to be 22% - 38% better than the pre-regen (DPF) 2006-2007 LBZ Duramax 6.6L engines, depending on which vehicle platform the 4.5L engine is put into. The present regen DPF system should be replaced with the new urea selective catalytic reduction system to meet 2010 emission requirements. The vehicle future is in diesel, CNG, electric, and alternative fuels etc to replace the present gasoline now used in today's engines. Finally, more than one size diesel engine choice to match the needs of the perspective buyer.
Stay tuned!!!
