RE: Reese Hitch - Movement / Play
I have a Reese Signature hitch with the 4 "pucks" that have rotating cams to lock the base into position. This hitch too had some "slop" in it just as the OP describes. It was like a 4 legged table with one leg that was just a fraction of an inch too short.
The fix on mine was a piece of thin plastic I cut from an automotive mud-flap. I cut the piece to fit the dimension of the puck and cut a hole in it for the locking cam to go through. I then siliconed that piece to the bottom of the base and reinstalled the hitch in the truck. No more slop...solid as a rock.
RE: HOW HARD IS IT TO TOW A 40ft 5TH WHEEL?
I pull a 40' (39'10") 3 axle toyhauler behind a Dodge Cummins QC LB. It's 102" wide. No problems at all. I like the third axle for the extra set of brakes. I also have driven semi's for years, which probably helps with my comfort level. My hauler is also nearly 13'6" high, which I actually worry more about than the length in some instances. Low branches are a real PITA.
RE: One for the Enviromentalists
I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that in 2002, when egr was mandated on heavy heavy duty engines (the ones in big trucks) that fuel mileage suffered. At that time, the mandates called for 20% egr in the intake air. In 2007, mileage took another hit, as egr rates were increased to 40%. In 2010, when the next round hits and egr rates are spiked even higher, efficiency will drop again. The smaller engines have just followed the path of their larger siblings.
Why? It's simple physics. EGR is another word for "oxygen free." Exhaust gases contain no oxygen, hence they do not support combustion. What they do is absorb heat and exhaust it with no benefit. There still has to be enough oxygen for the fuel to combust completely, so more and more total air volume has to be crammed into the cylinders. That surplus air is then compressed, which takes energy which has to come from the combustion event since there's no free lunch. This causes a drop in BSFC. The fact that the timing is also retarded from the optimum also means a big drop in efficiency and an increase in retained heat, which necessitates larger cooling systems and more robust systems that are more temperature tolerant.
The addition of SCR means that the timing can again be optimized and the egr rate can be reduced or even eliminated, both of which will cause efficiency gains.
Detroit Diesel, in 1997 or thereabouts, produced a diesel engine that had a BSFC of less than .30 lbs of diesel per brake horsepower hour. Today's engines are nowhere close to that. Personally, I look forward to the SCR engines, as we should see improvements of at least 5% in the first year and as the systems mature, perhaps even more as the mechanical functions revert closer and closer to the ideal combustion events of the past generations while still keeping emissions in check. I also predict that the needed urea w/ soon be widely available at reasonable cost.
Combining this new (to the US) technology with the more robust mechanical systems of todays engines spell increased longevity and better value to consumers through increased durability and fuel economy when compared to the engines of today.
RE: '08 Dodge Turck Deals
Saw an ad on TV for Reno (NV) Dodge that said 50% off MSRP on everything. I dind't check any further as I already have '06 5.9 CTD that's paid for and that I plan on keeping for a long, long time.
RE: One for the Enviromentalists
Powerdude said: "There is no such thing as global warming, because 60% of global weather is governed by the sun's output."
Just as a guess, I'd say it's a lot closer to 99.99996% of global weather that's governed by the suns output. If it weren't for the heat from the sun, earth would have NO weather except for that caused by volcanoes occasionally bursting through the surface ice sheet of snowball earth.
RE: GCVWR??
Caddywhompus said: " ... Clearly this is because the OEMs have pushed this segment well into skeptical areas by continually increasing ratings with little or no technical merit."
And the reverse is also true. There are vehicles that are markedly under-rated just so the marketing arms of the manufacturers can have a technically differentiated product line to sell. Bodies the same, frames the same, drivetrain the same, everything the same save a couple of overload leaves that the aftermarket can address for a couple of hundred dollars or even less. It's cheaper for the manufacturer to make one vehicle and sell it in two supposedly different segments than it is to engineer two completely different trucks.
Additionally, I wholeheartedly agree with Caddywhompus when he says: "The NHTSA cannot, will not and should not recognize a rating that has no known origin." A DOT rated item is different inasmuch as there are defined standards that must be met in order to achieve the rating, and those standards are identical for every manufacturer.
RE: GCVWR??
Well, here's a little more grist for the mill. The following was copied off a post TODAY in the DTR entitled "max towing":
Originally Posted by cincydiesel
"Alot of stuff goes into pulling heavy trailors.. Alot depends on the driver. Just dont forget that anything being pulled thats over the manufactures GCVW is a posiblity for getting sued by a possible accident victim. I've pulled things in upwards to 33,000 gross with the truck below for several hundred miles. Was it legal, NOPE!!! Would I do it again, YEP.. If the trailer has good brakes and the truck is well maintained with the correct equipment I say pull till broke.."
This is the reply to the above from a poster named ddestruel:
This is not legally correct. I would like to point out i have my own personal experience with this. the manufacturers GCVWR is not a legal benchmark. The insurance company and the families of the deceased all three sued and claimed that since i was pulling a 20k lbs gooseneck loaded at 18950k lbs i was over the the GCVWR of the pickup truck the court and jury ruled that i was niether negligent nor in violation of any transportation laws with the weight that i was pulling my total GCW at the time of the accident was 28050 my max licensed GVW was 9900 for the pickup and 20k for the trailer no single axle was over weight and no tires were over loaded all safety equiptment was functioning including brakes were in perfect condition. My lawyer was able to find numerous cases where the courts have ruled that manufacturer GCVWR is a recommendation not a legal benchmark since they set the towing capacity without knowing anything about the engineering of the trailer being pulled. either way it was determined that the moron and his friend who pulled out in front of me on the highway were negligent for not looking before entering a highway where trucks and trailers are legally going 65 mph and cars are moving at 75. shoot i was doing 60 and only had about 40' worth of skid marks before flatting his chevy 1500. the court ruled they were responsible for covering my court costs so that ended that.
This is the first post I've seen by anyone claiming to be a "First Party" to the circumstance thrown in the face of everyone on this forum not running at least a dually or MDT by the weight police. I realize it's heresay at this point, but it makes sense to me and it would seem to support the positions expressed by Wadcutter and Blt2ski, both of whom I regard as being very knowlegeable on this subject. Based on the above, I'm very tempted to take ddestruel's post at face value.
RE: GCVWR??
Outdoorsman2007 said: "Why are so many of you so bent on convincing others to spend way more than they need to buy more truck than they need?"
Thats always been my question. I think it's great if a person can afford a single purpose unit, then a MDT or even a HDT can work fine in certain circumstances -- like pulling the 5er down the freeway. But when you want to boondock or get off the beaten path, some of those setups just aren't going to get it done. Sometimes even a dually has too large a "footprint" to do double duty as a daily driver. Those that have them and are happy with their setup, great -- I'm happy for them. It's just when they start believing what's right for them is also right for me (and nothing less or different could possibly work) that I begin to get iritated with the situation. There's always more than one way to skin a cat.
RE: WW Pin Box Bolts Issue - WOW!!!
My question regards the number of the bolts. The OP said "Four of the six bolts..." broke or bent. The pin box was held on with only 6 bolts? That would be 3 on each side. Mine has twelve 1/2" fine threaded bolts that are grade 8, six on each side. I would think that ten or twelve bolts total would be far more common than six.
RE: GCVWR??
The quote regarding Question 4 makes no mention of certified anything. It says "structurally modified," it does not say by whom. Most of what you have cited above pertains to a vehicle that has been modified to make it more accessible to a disabled person, such as by the addition of ramps or lifts which could detract from the vehicles otherwise stated load capacity, rather than having been modified to handle weights in excess of its oem sticker, which is what is addressed in the following quote:
"Question 4: If a vehicle with a manufacturer's GVWR of less than 10,001 pounds has been structurally modified to carry a heavier load, may an enforcement officer use the higher actual gross weight of the vehicle, instead of the GVWR, to determine the applicability of the FMCSRs?
Guidance: Yes. The motor carrier's intent to increase the weight rating is shown by the structural modifications. When the vehicle is used to perform functions normally performed by a vehicle with a higher GVWR, §390.33 allows an enforcement officer to treat the actual gross weight as the GVWR of the modified vehicle."
Again, it specifically applies to motor carriers, rather than RVers. My only claim is that if the reg. "...allows an enforcement officer to treat the actual gross weight as the GVWR of the modified vehicle" which it obviously does, it might possibly be construed to apply to any vehicle that has been so modified and be an affirmative defense in the event one was called for.
RE: GCVWR??
JIMNLIN said: "Question 4 is for certified vehichle modifiers/upfitters that "structurally" modify a vehicle under 10000 lbs. Which isn't a RVer adding bigger tires/wheels. A vehicle that is structurally modified is required to be relabeled..."
Where does it say that Jim? None of the imbedded links take you to any part that discusses "certified upfitters" and question 4 certainly makes no mention of "certified upfitters." If that was the intent, it certainly could have said so, but it doesn't! It says what it says:
"Question 4: If a vehicle with a manufacturer's GVWR of less than 10,001 pounds has been structurally modified to carry a heavier load, may an enforcement officer use the higher actual gross weight of the vehicle, instead of the GVWR, to determine the applicability of the FMCSRs?
Guidance: Yes. The motor carrier's intent to increase the weight rating is shown by the structural modifications. When the vehicle is used to perform functions normally performed by a vehicle with a higher GVWR, §390.33 allows an enforcement officer to treat the actual gross weight as the GVWR of the modified vehicle."
Note that it specifically refers to a motor carrier, who is in fact the end user, just as I said. Additionally, as you yourself have said, the immediately preceding Question 3 was about vehicles where no sticker existed at all, yet alone "relabeled."
Further, you appear to take the position that the tires and wheels don't matter. This would mean that one could modify the frame, modify the suspension, and modify the axle but leave the wimpy oem tires and wheels on the vehicle and call it upfitted to a higher GCVW. I don't think so, inasmuch as if an enforcement officer bothered to look at an RVer at all for weight issues, the FIRST thing he'd look at would be the DOT ratings on the tires and wheels.
Further, if the tires and wheels don't matter, if they are not a part of the vehicles supporting structure, in your opinion which parts do matter?
RE: GCVWR??
The link provided by JIMNLIN is for commercial carriers and may or may not apply to RV'ers (I rather doubt it) BUT there was some interesting info in that link, that if applicable lends credence to those who modify their vehicles to handle more weight than the door sticker shows. Specifically:
"Question 4: If a vehicle with a manufacturer's GVWR of less than 10,001 pounds has been structurally modified to carry a heavier load, may an enforcement officer use the higher actual gross weight of the vehicle, instead of the GVWR, to determine the applicability of the FMCSRs?
Guidance: Yes. The motor carrier's intent to increase the weight rating is shown by the structural modifications. When the vehicle is used to perform functions normally performed by a vehicle with a higher GVWR, §390.33 allows an enforcement officer to treat the actual gross weight as the GVWR of the modified vehicle."
The key portion in my view relates to the INTENT to increase the vehicles capacity by performing unspecified modifications. This lends credence to the positions of those on this forum who believe that the END USER is recognized as being capable of modifying a vehicle to perform tasks beyond the door sticker rating.
FWIW, the "FMCSRs" referred to at the end of the paragraph beginning with "Question 4" stands for "Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations." They were not drafted with the RVer in mind and they do not apply to us. If they did, we would be required to run log books, meet the physical requirements of commercial drivers and a myriad of other requirements that we are simply not required to meet, like start of shift comprehensive vehicle inspections, etc.
RE: GCVWR??
Here's the answer to the only question raised in this post that actually has a definitive answer: The reason the GCVWR does not appear on the door sticker is because there is no law requiring it to be there, as there is with the GVW and the FAWR & RAWR.
The door stickers are like mattress tags. The government requires them to be placed there by the manufacturers and also defines what information is required to be posted --- and GCVWR is not one of the requirements.
RE: Wheel Heat
FWIW, 140 deg. F. is generally considered to be the temp where you cannnot leave your hand on whatever it is that is getting warm for more than a couple of seconds.
RE: JT Stongarms question
If I remember correctly, mine came with instructions to lightly tighten the T-handles when traveling to prevent their falling out.
RE: Sports Chassis VS. other MDT
I think 22 mpg empty w/ a MDT is a pipe dream. The 14 pulling is too, unless its a pop-up. That little Mercedes may be ok until it breaks and the ONLY place that might have parts or service is the F/L dealer. And if their little engine is anything like the larger models they use in 18 wheelers, the parts that break are weird...like plastic injection lines that crack and cannot be repaired but the whole shebang (not just one) replaced at exhorbitant cost.
Let's just say there are no MB diesels in my future, at least none of the current iteration. Maybe a DD-15 but thats a whole 'nother thing.
Also, back to the mileage, the MDT is a much higher profile vehicle (wider too) than a pickup truck. It has more wind resistance than a pickup, period. None of the newer pickups can deliver 22 mpg running empty, so unless you want to crawl along at 40 / 45 mph, tops, 22 mpg just isn't happening with today's emissions equipment.
An earlier post said that the 4500 5500 trucks had the same engines / trannys as their smaller 3500 series brethren. Not the case with the Dodges. The Cummins engines have different programming and the automatic transmissions are entirely different in the larger trucks.
RE: sagging rear end on 04 gmc 3500....now w/pics
Donn0128 said: "Adding that much extra to an already taxed front end that is carrying a diesel motor will probably push the front axle to near it's limits."
According to OP, he has an 8.1 gas popper....
RE: sagging rear end on 04 gmc 3500....now w/pics
Donn0128 said: "That winch hanging on the front end will not help your weights any."
It doesn't look like its the front end that's sagging, and unless he's over the front axle or tire rating, I wouldn't worry about that very much. One thing about a winch: When that's what you need, that's about the only thing that's gonna work.
Back to the OP's original question: A set of airbags looks like the ticket to me. I have Firestone Ride Rites on my truck, and they've been flawless. On board air and an in-cab controller are really nice as they allow you to adjust your ride height on the fly. Oncoming traffic blinks at you, a push of the button cures that problem instantly. I'd think they would be particularly helpful with your gooseneck, as your pin wt's could vary a lot with that setup.
I know theres been some discussion on here about frame problems that can theoretically happen because you end up placing a load on a part of the frame that's supposedly not designed to accept it. I don't know how the bags would mount on your truck, but on mine the upper mount replaces the bump stop and is positioned on a straight, flat section of frame that has obviously been reinforced at that point with additional steel. If the frame can handle impact loading at that point from bump stops bottoming out, I certainly think a cushioned, progressive load being applied there is not going to overstress it.
RE: I Need Help??
You say the knock appears to be coming from the pan. Did you use a stethoscope (or anything -- a mop handle would work for that matter) to try to isolate the sound? (Place one end of a solid rod of any kind against the side of the engine where you think the sound may be coming from and the other end near your ear to transfer the sound. Move around the engine to various locations like the fuel pump, injector lines, etc. to see if you can isolate the source of the noise.)
If you aren't sure about idling the engine, there must be somewhere in Helena where they can do an oil sample. You could get enough for a sample by using a 1/4 inch plastic swamp cooler line down the dipstick tube or pull the pan plug and get it that way. If you do the pan plug, you have to let it drain for a bit and then take the sample or it's likely the sample would be contaminated by dirt, etc. from around the drain plug hole. A benefit of getting it from the bottom, however, is that you could inspect the magnetic plug for pieces of a broken ring or something like that.
If you sample the oil and it comes back with no metals indicating bearing materials or wrist pins or pistons or something of that nature, the noise probably isn't in the bottom end. For that matter, it would be fairly rare for something in the bottom end of the B-Series to fail unless you ran it out of oil or really have the fuel turned to it. The bottom end of the 5.9 is pretty substantial.
If you determine the noise is coming from the fuel pump area, or an injector, the first thing I'd do is pull the fuel filter, fill the housing with Lucas fuel conditioner or Howes Meaner Kleener or Power Service or something that doubles as an injector cleaner and fire it up and see if it doesn't clear it up. I'd dose the fuel in the tank with the same stuff before doing that so you can really try cleaning up the fuel system. Another option is Sea Foam. If the problem is carbon deposits some where in the fuel system, Sea Foam will definitely do a job on that. There are those who have done that with Sea Foam and claim it works great and they have no problems, but I've also heard that the ingredients in Sea Foam aren't recommended for the Cummins CR fuel pumps, so take that for what it's worth.
It's difficult to diagnose a noise problem without actually hearing the sound, but certainly there's a Cummins shop in Helena or a Dodge Dealership where you could get it diagnosed fairly quickly. I hope it turns out to be something minor and still under warranty.
