How Fuel efficient is your car?

All things outside of Burning Man.

What is your gas mileage"

Under 5 mpg (I funded 9/11)
3
1%
5-10 mpg (Dicked by Cheney)
5
2%
10-20 mpg (quasi-militant Green Peacer)
64
30%
20-30 mpg (I Dicked Cheney)
45
21%
30-40 mpg (I don't need no stinken war)
51
24%
40-60 mpg (Everyone Love's Me)
28
13%
60+ mpg (Only the Gods do better)
8
4%
I only use human powered vehicles!
11
5%
 
Total votes : 215

Postby can't sit still » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:34 pm

Big cock, Diesels are great. I drove my little truck with a MBZ diesel for 24 years. The truck got totalled by a wrong way driver on the freeway. I still have a couple of extra engines.
"They" say that the particulates are particularly dangerous.
2007 trucks have a particulate trap.

Bio-diesel is questionable though. Have you read the study?
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Jul ... y.ssl.html

I'm sure that the "corn lobby" wouldn't push ethanol just so they could grow more corn. Yeah right, Just like they get subsidies to grow corn so they can make us all fat with "high fructose corn syrup"

Brazil can make ethanol economically, but americans are evidently too greedy.
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
can't sit still
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby BAS » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:33 pm

Bio-diesel is questionable though. Have you read the study?
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Jul ... y.ssl.html



That's why people in the know make bio-diesel from fryer waste oil. That's the cost efficient way. (Of course, our governor supports bio-diesel, but apparently hasn't even heard of using wast vegetable oil... :roll: )

It IS possible to make bio-d. using wvo and ethanol, but most people use methanol because it is easier to work with, or so I have read.

It still costs more if produced commercially, but that might change if done on a large enough scale. If produced with unpaid labor (namely, by individuals for their own use [or their parents use... :wink: ], or among a group of friends), it is cheaper than regular diesel or gasoline.

Now, if only I had a diesel vehicle and the equipment to make a nice quantity of bio-d.... :wink:


B.
"Nothing is withheld from us which we have conceived to do.
Do things that have never been done."
--Russell Kirsch
User avatar
BAS
 
Posts: 4237
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:46 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Burning Since: 2006

Postby can't sit still » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:26 pm

BAS, I did a lot of checking. When you make bio-diesel out of veg oil stocks, you throw out the best part. Veg oil has a higher BTU content than diesel. Once you remove the glycerine it has a lower BTU content.

It's not difficult to convert to run on WVO. If you skip the alcohol and lye part, it's a much better deal. Why throw out the 25--30 % thats the best part?
In the warmer climes, many people do nothing but filter WVO. It depends on your particular engine. There are people running veg oil in colder climes. You just need to warm it and have an insulated tank.

It's interesting that the Cornell study didn't test rape seed. It's supposed to be the best. It's actually kinda suspicious.

If you check Craigslist, you can find used MBZs by the dozen. The turbo version is the most effecient. It's 5 cyl, about 117 hp. The 240D is 62 hp.
It's not as effecient but it's better on fuel because it's so much smaller.
The later[85] 6 cyl isn't much good. MBZ went to an aluminum head,,problems.
You can run 90% veg oil in a warmish climate. In a colder climate, you need to have a heater and an insulated tank. You can just wrap a stainless tube around the exhaust head pipe and pick up heat.

The 82 300D seems to be the best MBZ diesel.
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
can't sit still
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby BAS » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:54 pm

Well, right now it is all theoretical on my part, due to the lack of a job and a mountain of bills past due. :(

I do want to go the wvo route, but need the bio-d to clean out the system at the end of the trip (or the wvo sets up in the nozzles and other places you don't want clogged), and, living in a cold climate, I would need it to start out on, until the wvo gets heated enough by the coolant lines.

Weirdly, I couldn't find any local used MZB wagons for sale while I was employed. (I haven't checked since I lost the job, though.) Maybe I didn't look hard enough, since I was living in a town I wasn't familiar with, and had the problem of having no idea where to work on converting a vehicle. (Plus I was sidetracked looking at used school buses, and still want to convert one. I had a nice discussion after getting my car's oil changed with one of the attendants about that, and Burning Man. He seemed to like my idea of adding a few extra fuel tanks and giving the bus a 4,000+ mile range on the wvo. ) :D


Aw crud! It's almost midnight. I should get to bed. Lots to do Thursday.


B.
"Nothing is withheld from us which we have conceived to do.
Do things that have never been done."
--Russell Kirsch
User avatar
BAS
 
Posts: 4237
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:46 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Burning Since: 2006

Postby gyre » Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:04 pm

There is a small Izusu coupe that was made with the same engine as the pickup, very tough.
I'm sorry i passed on one now.
I was looking at an ambulance with a diesel, but they bring a big premium and don't have enough power without the turbo.
You can add a turbo but w/o an upgraded fuel system you can only add 30% power.
The early nonturbo is much cheaper to maintain but half the mileage.
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire

It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby can't sit still » Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:29 pm

[quote="gyre"]
You can add a turbo but w/o an upgraded fuel system you can only add 30% power.
Gyre, All turbo diesels except early Isuzu trucks have a valve called an aneroid. It reads the turbo pressure and compensates the fuel delivery.

When you add on a turbo, the non-turbo fuel pump doesn't have this valve. They never work right!!!
Also, turbo engines have a larger oil pump because they squirt oil at the underside of the pistons to cool them. They are normally lower compression too. Add-ons are crap.
I have a 70 Dodge Power Wagon. I put in a Perkins with an add-on turbo.
I should have been in the fumigation business. It smoked BAD. It was worse at altitude. It couldn't read the varying air charge.
After 12 years, I yanked it out and put in a Cummins.

Most of the diesel ambulances are Ford with Navistar engines. They're not much good. Some actually run well but the basic design just doesn't get it.
I've never seen a good V8 diesel that was less than 900CID.
Cummins made the 555. They finally gave up.
GM has now gone to an inline 6 from Isuzu. The navistar is the last V8 holdout.
Too low of compression, too low a deck, too low torque or too much torque for the rods.
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
can't sit still
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby gyre » Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:48 pm

I was actually talking of the ford w/turbo.
The Izusu doesn't need more power.
I know people using the ford commercially with good results but I know they have drawbacks.
As for electronics you can upgrade easily to fix the problems with adaptation now.
The di heads will retrofit but are expensive.

My big ford started out with a V6 auto and now does 500 lbs of torque.
Fuel systems are part of the change.

I may go big diesel for an rv and use a trailer.
Of course, in my range I'm told that means 5-8mpg but I could run freestanding much longer.

I can get a big block petrol cheap and add state of the art fuel injection for $1500-2500 and do pretty well on fuel, so could go that way with a van.
The diesel needs gears more too and is more sensitive to cooling.
They make a computerized system but it's not cheap.
You can get a bulletproof 5 speed for the gas engine for $1500.
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire

It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby Blackbird » Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:13 pm

i was thinking of getting an old mercedes or something and bio-dieseling it. I don't technically own the car I drive now though, so that wouldn't really work. I like my car, I've been in a couple fender-benders (none of which were my fault, thankyouverymuch) and not much more than a scratch/paint transfer. I have REAL bumpers, not those stupid ones covered in paint and made of styrofoam. Okay, so they aren't metal like trucks, but they prevent severe damage in the same way. Anyway, OT. . .
I get like 16 mpg. It's really bad. But my car is an automatic 6 cyl so it's really not surprising. I get 20, 25 if I'm real lucky on highway, but I never go anywhere so that doesn't help me.

It's a really good thing I am such a loner, otherwise I would spend way more on gas than I do now.
Blackbird
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:23 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Postby can't sit still » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:34 am

For many years, all Ford light diesel trucks had an engine produced by Navistar, a division of International Harvester. They weren't Ford diesels. That may have changed in the last few years, dunno.
The new Ford 6.6? might be in-house. I haven't paid attention.

Apparently the lineup for new diesel light trucks will have Mercedes engines in the Dodge. Isuzu engines in the Chevy. IH? engines in the Ford
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
can't sit still
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby gyre » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:26 am

I've been looking at the ford 7.3s.
I'm not sure who makes them.

There was a great deal when gm built their exploding V8 diesels.
Under the recall they replaced them with the german diesels that bmw used.
Most people didn't know about the fix, which was a $3500 addon for most cars that were converted at the time.
The only justification I hear for diesel is usually torque.

Blackbird, 16 doesn't sound great.
You may need a tune up.
What kind of car is that?

There are some japanese diesel cars.
I have seen a Lotus Elise converted to turbodiesel that is winning on the track.
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire

It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby Blackbird » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:56 am

It's a 91 toyota cressida. We bought it about two and a half years ago from this guy who looked like he was about 300 years old and being preserved in formaldehyde. He always took it to the dealer to get anything fixed (just like my parents...I don't understand the logic, but again, not technically my car). If I knew how to work on it I would. All I can do is check the oil. I can't even change a tire. It's really not good. But yeah I just had it serviced ermmm well I guess it was longer ago than I thought, probably in August. It seems like I've taken it in since then. But August was when I got three flat tires within a week of each other ( I suspect foul play), so I know it was at least then.
Blackbird
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:23 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Postby gyre » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:00 pm

Sounds low for that car.
Have you checked it on a steady highway speed?
Stop and go can result in very low mileage.
Very hard to get a reading in town that is more than a guide.
You have to check over a period of time to get something useful.
If the fuel injection is dirty or worn, it will often default.
I know ford explorers do that.
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire

It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby mdmf007 » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:01 pm

Navistar (international Truck and Engine Corp.) makes the 7.3litre powerstroke diesel used in pre June 2002 ford and international trucks.

IMHO this is the greatest light / medium duty engine ever built. We have maintenance records for over 130 ford f350/450/550, and Excursions powered with these engines. Lowest cost per mile, and longest life of any of our engines. Heres some reasons why.

The stock powerstrole from ford is putting out 310-320HP, and just under 900 Foot pounds of torque - sure there are other engines with more of both at that time. LIke Dodges duramax, etc. But the Powerstroke engine is only tuned to about the 60% level. We chip them up in house to get 450HP. 1200 ft pounds and take it to the 75-80 persent mark. The duramax at 350HP and a 1000ft/lb is already at the 85-90% mark.

To get 450 Hp (thats tire smoking HP) all you need is the chip or powertuner to change the settings. At the higher settings I can get 18 - 24 MPG at 60 but it drops at interstate speeds.

So - I would have no fear with the powerstroke, Boggles my mind that they ended production. The 6.0 Diesel that came out in June of 2002 to replace the 7.3 Sucks. Right out of the box we had 3 out of 10 eat turbos, heads, and bearings in 4 months.

Later - and if anyone wants a printout of the costs wew actually experienced I can print the bottom page of our spreadsheet.
One of the Meanie Greenies (Figjam 2013)
User avatar
mdmf007
Moderator
 
Posts: 5139
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:32 pm
Location: my computer
Burning Since: 1996
Camp Name: ESD

Postby gyre » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:36 pm

The 7.3s I've looked at don't have that much power, I think, as they are preturbo.
I was told that a turbo addon was limited due to stock fuel injection.
The 6.9 turbo injection could be added but last time I checked was too high.
Can you get that kind of power out of a non turbo 7.3?
I was told I will have limited speed on the highway as the torque runs out.
900 lbs of torque sounds good if I can get it.
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire

It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby can't sit still » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:41 pm

Gyre, you're right, 900 lbs of torque sounds good. A hi-po 454 chevy got 510. A 500 inch Caddy got 550.
I've got 2 old Cummins B engines that are good for about <400>
What do you plan to pull with 900 lbs of torque?
You need to match the truck to the load. You'll get better mileage with an engine that's not working it's brains out.
We just sold a 95 Ford ambulance with a non-turbo 7.3. It was a screamer. I've seen turbo 7.3 that didn't run as fast. It's just one of those things. You have to drive it to know how it's going to run.

I'll take the DT-466 over all the rest. We've got a dozen of them. They're the best mid-size engine. I've rebuilt them all, Cummins, Detroit, Mack, IH
Cat. They all had their problems. The 6.9 cracked a lot of blocks. The 7.3 pin-holed a lot of cylinders.
But , nothing tops the MBZ 617 engine,,,300 SD. It has carbide cam-followers and chrome plated valve train with a steel camshaft.

I'm really not "up" on the later stuff. The trucking industry trade magazines reports that the new trucks can expect 4.8 breakdowns a year averaging 9.7 days per breakdown. The 2007 engines run under-hood temps up to 265 deg. They're dying like flies. This is semi-tractors.
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
can't sit still
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby mdmf007 » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:34 pm

Gyre -

A turbo'd system is the only way your going to get real efficiency from a diesel engine - if you can swing it. They are costlier, and if this is a drop in motor for an older rig, be sure the tranny, (T case if 4x4) transmission, torqu convertor, drivelines, ring gears, and axles can handle the torque.

Cant sit still - all of our fire engines are DT466 powered, Great engines, and at only 466 inches they put out plenty of power. Only problems we have had is thatthe new internationals (2005 and newer) eat T cases. 4 of our rigs, have eaten 11 T cases!!! I shit you not.

This was a meritor problem, as they didnt figure on the torque output from one year to another. Short story - make sure your numbers add up.

later all -
155 days or so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One of the Meanie Greenies (Figjam 2013)
User avatar
mdmf007
Moderator
 
Posts: 5139
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:32 pm
Location: my computer
Burning Since: 1996
Camp Name: ESD

Postby gyre » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:15 am

I can't find engine specs even on the ford site.
Damn search engines.
Does anyone know how to make them do simple things like that?
The figures I was given were more like 175/350 on the 7.3 older diesel.
This is on non di non turbo.
The turbo models had twice the power and the same fuel consumption.
I was told the torque was the benefit but I would run out at about 55 mph in a van body ambulance.

If I buy a semi, I'll get whatever is in it, and those are looking like 80s so far.
Looking at one that is about 1985 good brand 15 speed wrecker frame.
Big turning circle but I could put a good rv on the bed.
No rush right now.

The diesel engines are worth more than the ambulances so I pay a premium if I get one with engine.
I'd probably use a richmond 5 speed but i found a place that makes a lockup so strong that they drag race a 4wd to show it off.
They strengthen auto trans too but that is very cheap.
The lockup is dramatic but pricey.
It will tow in lockup.
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire

It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby gyre » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:24 am

Do you use evans cooling fluid?
I've heard it recommended for diesels.
I'm planning on switching over to it for my petrol engines.

I have about 500 lbs of torque in my car through a T5.

It's a much lower load than a truck though and at the limit, I would say.

I don't think I need more than 400-500 lbs of torque for the ambulance and trailer, which is a 31 foot airstream.

The power band on my car is almost flat and I understand diesels have a narrow band so that would take some getting used to.
I would prefer the turbo, but I think maintenance is much higher.
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire

It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby can't sit still » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:43 am

Gyre, as 007 pointed out, more and more vehicles are limited by thier drivetrain. More US builders are going to ZF and Gerhard? boxes. These boxes are generally engineered with very little "reserve".
Brakes are getting better but drivetrains are getting weaker.

Todays engineering decisions are made by beancounters, not engineers.
1 fleet that I'm familiar with, Dryers ice cream bought new Sterling's. They won't stop. The brakes were speced out by beancounters and will only work OK until you warm them up good.

The Richmond trans might not be good for high weight. Transmissions produce a lot of heat. Many manual trans now come with a pump and trans coler. I think that the Richmond is more suited to drags rather than constant heavy loading.
If you want to pull the Airstream with the lowest investment and the highest safety, you should look at IH. You could buy a new F-550 but the cost will kill you.
It's easy to find an old IH with a DT-466 and an Allison. They're 185 to 205 hp. They go for about $ 2000. That way you'll have a heavy chassis with good brakes. The parts are cheap and you can change it to a 2 speed axle and you'll always have the "right" gear.
They aren't bad on fuel and the cab is moderately low,,,wind resistance.

I took motorhome caravans to Mexico and Alaska for 10 years. Believe me, good brakes are real important when pulling a trailer. Also, a heavy stable chassis keeps you in control much better.

A ball type hitch tends to "wag the tail" If the tail weighs more than the dog,,, it's the dog who gets wagged.
You can buy an old semi-tractor, but the cabs are such high profile, you can't expect good mileage. Freightliner is the best.

As far as the cooling fluid, there are lots of good additives and bases. Now Cool is highly recommended too.
The other thing that's important to the cooling system is electrolysis. The new trucks have so much electronic'electrical stuff on the engine that electrolysis is becoming a huge problem.

The best solution is a water filter. Most mechanics don't realise that the water filter contains a "sacrificial anode" This anode is disolved by ion exchange. This prevents your radiator from being disolved. Dis-similar metals always have an ion exchange.
That's why boats have zinc anodes attached to the metal parts.

Mechanics don't change the filter because it isn't dirty. They rarely know about the anode.
There is a company in Texas that builds the DT-466E as a propane engine in case you're interested. It's 250 HP
I'm rambling, gotta fly.
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
can't sit still
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby gyre » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:27 pm

Will the IH work in a ford van chassis?
I would tend to use one with a stock engine or go petrol unless I can justify the extra costs.

If I use a semi, I would be towing a short reefer trailer if I needed the extra space-unlikely with the wrecker chassis approach.

The ambulance would be adapted as an rv, so I would be pulling the trailer only when needed.
I am aware of the drawbacks to a standard hitch.
I have looked at the hensley.
The airstream is as light as 5000 lbs w/o water.

The richmond gains it's strength from beefiness and is quite heavy.
A lot of them are used for sustained high torque and towing.
They have a lot of users in heavy high powered pickups.
They even make a high strength sixth gear for the 6 spd version.
About six people had needed one when I talked to them.
One was a high power truck.
The richmond can be cooled like most manuals.
There is an upgrade available that reinforces the input also.

The two speed kits are quite pricey unless you find a good deal used.
I would lean to the lockup torque converter first.
That acts as an extra gear in each speed in an auto,
The strong one was about $2500 last I checked.
If they have mass produced the price will drop, I hope.

The evans fluid uses no water and ford recommended it at one point to avoid cavitation erosion.
It doesn't work exactly like water though.

There are some clear reliability advantages to a tractor, but it's not a casual weekend travel rv.
A van bodied ambulance would come with one ton equipment at least to start with.

I am pretty up on brake conversions.
They get easier all the time.
My car has lincoln brakes in front and the same size brakes in the rear from another ford.
I use napa police pads currently.
This setup has outperformed brembo kits, but I have some wheelbase advantages.
There is a lot you can do to upgrade even the stock one ton truck brakes.

I think the wrecker is a freightliner.
It is that or a peterbilt.
It seems like a good deal.
A lot of people don't want that chassis for towing so when it is too old for a wrecker, they are very low.
High strength frame, very stable on the road, looks like a 40 foot wheelbase.
I don't get the wrecker bed, of course.
Those are worth a mint.
It has a standard height cab.
Living space would be just as high probably.
It is a manual trans.
15 speeds.
Tranny and brakes would be maxed, I would think, for a wrecker.
Should be able to carry a few hundred gallons of water on the tractor itself.

The real cost of the rig would be fuel.

I checked and once the conversion is done, I can insure as an rv.
Much cheaper than commercial.
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire

It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Anodes

Postby gyre » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:29 pm

I have seen filters with a replaceable anode.
Also separate anodes to mount in the system.
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire

It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby can't sit still » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:55 pm

Gyre, the high-torque engines get their torque from having a long connecting rod. This necessitates a tall block. The DT-466 is too high for a van. I know a guy who put 1 in a suburban, but he must have done a lot of sheet metal work.

You're going to tow a trailer of reefer!!! That should make you very popular.
I wasn't aware of the recent specs of the Richmond.
The wrecker that you're talking about sounds good. If it has a 40 ft. wheelbase, it might be hard to manuver..
If you're lucky it should have a Cummins NTC 350 or something close.
It also should have a Roadranger trans.
Most people don't know it, but you can get different configurations in the same box,,, low bottom gear, overdrive, etc.
You might find that you don't need all 3 axles. You might be able to take out the third axle if your weight isn't too high. It will help your mileage.
If it's a dual drive, you can't just take 1 out.

Peterbuilt had nightmare electrics. Freightliner has great electrics.
A friend of mine has a roll-off business.
We had considered building a RV on rails. When he was ready to go camping, he could just hoist up the RV and go.
We estimated that it would get 12 mpg.
Good luck on truck hunting!!!
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
can't sit still
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby mdmf007 » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:56 pm

Another problem with the DT466 in a conventional rig is that it weighs over 3500 pounds with all of the dressing, and the radiator it takes - this would exceed the rating for all vans I can think of.

later
One of the Meanie Greenies (Figjam 2013)
User avatar
mdmf007
Moderator
 
Posts: 5139
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:32 pm
Location: my computer
Burning Since: 1996
Camp Name: ESD

Postby gyre » Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:51 am

I was afraid you were talking about industrial engines there.
I have 4 inch rods in the ford and torque is so addictive.
The thinking of the drivers I know is that a long wheelbase will be easier than a short tractor plus trailer.
The stability on the highway should be superb.
I've driven cargo trucks but never anything articulated.

One thing I really like about the richmond is it is available with a range of lower gears.
Fifth gear is a direct drive always.
First is available as low as 4.4.
Most companies don't offer that kind of multiplication.
It is strong enough that a clutch is often the weak link and a steel bellhousing is recommended.
There are few comparable choices until you get into the very high dollar ones or go automatic.
It is listed at 95 lbs dry.
Rating is 450 fp stall.
I drove a car with a locked axle and slicks with a frame mounted 351 revving to 8000 rpm and the richmond could lift the front end off the ground with this setup.
It did have the steel input mount on it.
I think first was a 4 to 1.
Tremendous feeling as the grip tried to steer the car from the rear.
I think my T5 is rated at 330 pounds or so, but it can be deceptive because they only offer a 3.3 lower gear.
Some of the race transmissions are 70 or 80 lbs.
Many racers consider the richmond quite heavy.
The T5 makers claim to be getting strength through better steels but the richmond is proven for some things.
It is quite a heavy shifting tranny.
Not unpleasant though with the right setup. (Long brand)
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire

It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby gyre » Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:01 am

There is a company that makes steering dampers for heavy tractors and rvs that is spring and damper loaded on both sides.
It was designed to allow safe control after a blowout, but I find dampers usually make all driving more comfortable.
I think the name was Safe-T-Plus.
http://www.safe-t-plus.com/Home.aspx

Do you guys have any experience with this sort of thing?
It looked like quite a high quality unit.
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire

It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15465
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Postby can't sit still » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:04 am

Gyre, the P-30 Chevy chassis came OEM with a steering dampner. They blew regularly so they must have been working.
I've worked with the combo spring and dampner used on steering tag axles [4th axle] They work great also.
The OEMs try to use a big enough steering box that it's not hard to maintain control with a blowout. Cement and trash trucks with a 20,000 lb front axle have 2 steering boxes.
In general, the OEMs have improved items that might expose them to liability judgements. That's why brakes have gotten better and transmissions have gotten weaker.
Chassis have gotten thinner and steering has improved.
The biggest problems with new trucks are related to sensors, smog control and peripherals.
The electronic controlled engines are capable of more economy and power, but the parts are horrifically expensive.
Mercedes is trying their hardest to squeeze Cummins out of the market. You can rebuild a Cummins for 30% of what it costs for a Mercedes.

Try to stick with Cummins B, C or N. The parts will always be cheap.
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
can't sit still
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby BAS » Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:17 pm

Well, it figures. Now that I am unemployed, I am finding a whole bunch of Mercedes diesels for sale..., and not too far away, either. :roll:

Well, maybe eventually I will have the money, work space, and opportunity all in one place at one time! :?


B.
"Nothing is withheld from us which we have conceived to do.
Do things that have never been done."
--Russell Kirsch
User avatar
BAS
 
Posts: 4237
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:46 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Burning Since: 2006

Postby Jus Say Ventura » Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:22 pm

I just bought a Pius

I am now more holier then thou!

Now I want to buy a bumber sticker that says, "My Penis get 46 mpg!"

Is that too shocking?
"Da Mind, Da Bod! Da Governor of BRC!"
(Governor since 2001)
User avatar
Jus Say Ventura
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 1:56 am
Location: Black Rock City, NV

Postby skibear » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:01 pm

I bought same 2 months ago.

Can I have that bumper sticker too !!
crash & burn ski lessons given
skibear
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:21 am
Location: Nevada City CA
Burning Since: 2002

Postby madmatt » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:22 am

Rob the Wop wrote: Also here is a concept a lot of people don't get. The majority of car driving is with one person in the car. If that car is made mostly of metal, and is big enough for four people- you are paying mostly to move all that steel around.


Very interesting and relevant point! IMHO, a disproportionately high part of people's decision-making in purchasing vehicles is based on non-rational, often incorrect instinctual factors. Such as: "I want a big-ass SUV because they're safer." Well no.

In a fatal accident involving a car and an SUV, the SUV driver is far less likely to be the one killed. But that is only because they are the heavier vehicle, so they destroy the other driver's car.

However, in single-car accidents, SUVs have a far higher rate of injury or death than sedans. That first statistic is often the one stuck in people's mind.
madmatt
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 9:28 am
Location: Los Angeles

PreviousNext

Return to Open Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AntiM, Bing [Bot] and 3 guests