 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / October 2006If Ford had Cummins?
Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm > Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? i didnt buy a dodge, i bought a cummins. when chrysler replaces the cummins with a mercedes, ill have a new king ranch cummins.  SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? > >i didnt buy a dodge, i bought a cummins. when chrysler replaces the cummins >with a mercedes, ill have a new king ranch cummins. That's what I was wondering, nate... I've heard a few folks say that they didn't buy a dodge, they bought a Cummins with a Dodge wrapped around it.. Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm >>> Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm I bought a 2004 Ram 3500 several months ago to pull my 36' 5th wheel. It is running a little rich so I called the local Cummins shop to set up an appointment and was surprised, no, shocked to be told that they couldn't work on Dodge Cummins newer than 2002 since Dodge totally owned the engine and Dodge dealers were the only ones that could read the computer codes. The dealer I bought mine from had changed the oil and put a sticker on the windshield to have the oil changed again in 3,000 miles! I don't want them working on my truck! How do the folks in here handle this problem. Thanks, Ken > That's what I was wondering, nate... > I've heard a few folks say that they didn't buy a dodge, they bought a > Cummins > with a Dodge wrapped around it.. dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. cummins saved dodge from bankruptcy, and has kept them alive since. this is typical german arrogance....afterall their product simply must be superior to anything we could make.....and it will be their undoing. they just dont understand the american consumer, such as thinking commercials of an elitist german answering consumer questions actually appeals to joe six-pack. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. cummins saved > dodge from bankruptcy, and has kept them alive since. this is typical > german arrogance....afterall their product simply must be superior to > anything we could make.....and it will be their undoing. Did I miss something here? You make it sound like this is a done deal (MB to replace Cummins)? > Did I miss something here? You make it sound like this is a done deal (MB > to replace Cummins)? my understanding is that the cummins contract expires in 2010, and that at that point dodge will switch over to the mercedes engine. this is certainly in keeping with the goals of daimler (cross platform designs showing up particularly in the jeep lineup). SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com I would like to see the MB Diesel in the Dakota, that would be a positive for that line in my opinion. But who cares what I think andy > > Did I miss something here? You make it sound like this is a done deal (MB > > to replace Cummins)? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in keeping with the goals of daimler (cross platform designs showing up > particularly in the jeep lineup). >I would like to see the MB Diesel in the Dakota, that would be a positive > for that line in my opinion. But who cares what I think > andy I would like to see a Hemi in the Dakota. > dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. It would be their only f.ck up since going with the Cummins in 88. Since then, the truck line has consistantly grown in sales until the recent fuel pricing. > cummins saved dodge from bankruptcy, and has kept them alive since. Rubbish. Chrysler was saved from bankruptcy by the K-car. Restyling the pickup was what made the trucks sell more, since 5 years of Cummins availability (88-93) did jack sh.t for sales volume. > this is typical german arrogance....afterall their product simply must be > superior to anything we could make..... Their diesels have consistantly made more power for the weight of the engine. These two key numbers are what makes a vehicle get better fuel economy and performance. Sure, they are arrogant, BUT... the German designed diesel is a very good product. > and it will be their undoing. they just dont understand the american > consumer, The Cummins is very popular but the replacement, if there is one, will be at least as good regardless of popularity. > such as thinking commercials of an elitist german answering consumer > questions actually appeals to joe six-pack. Sadly, Deiter Zeitsche is far from being an elitist German, about as far as Lee Iacocca was from being an elitist Italian immigrant. Certainly both were upper class and well off, but neither was elitist. BOTH realize that to sell cars, one has to market an affordable product to the masses. "Dr. Z" is the only reason Chrysler and DC as a corporation are still operating successfully today. Want proof? Look no further than the Board of Directors who dumped Jergen Schremp in favor of Zeitsche because Deutsch Bank demanded some one who knew what they were doing be promoted. Chrysler was still making a profit when Mercedes started heading for the tank several years ago. You want an elitist German? His name was Jergen Schremp. You want elitist Americans? Look at the execs that sold Chrysler to the krauts in the first place. How about really elitist..... Like FoMoCo dumping 10,000 white collar workers to cut costs..... How the f.ck do you hire 10,000 extra people who are NOT directly involved in production? Easy..... you elevate your cronies so they too can enjoy the upper class payscale. How about arrogant..... Like GM deciding that in order for Delphi to be able to proceed without rolling bankruptcy, all the workers had to take 55% pay cuts to $10 an hour. Yeah, thats down from $24 an hour. Exactly who do you figure would take that deal willingly? Face it, at this point Chrysler is the only american manufacturer that is running anywhere near the black ink, and isn't scurrying for solutions to insolvancy. They must understand something about the American consumer. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> That's what I was wondering, nate... >> I've heard a few folks say that they didn't buy a dodge, they bought a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > elitist german answering consumer questions actually appeals to joe > six-pack. >> dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. > > It would be their only f.ck up since going with the Cummins in 88. no, there have been others. giving up the bragging rights of being top dog (in terms of torque) to the duramax is one. the chrysler/daimler merger is one. the rampant lift pump failure issue is one. i keep hearing something about the #5 cylinder. dropping the jeep cherokee for the liberty is one. killing the tj is one. going with a v6 is one (carries far more significance in jeep circles than truck groups). there are plenty of f.ck-ups, im only saying this will be their (daimler/chryslers not just dodge) biggest to date. > Since then, the truck line has consistantly grown in sales until the > recent fuel pricing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pickup was what made the trucks sell more, since 5 years of Cummins > availability (88-93) did jack sh.t for sales volume. the kcar was a big hit certianly, but it died as fast as it rose. the restyle was great, but surely you dont think it would have been as successful with a foreign diesel? ford has been trying to get their hands on the cummins for some time. for years ive felt that ford builds the best truck on the market, and putting the best engine in the market will be the boost ford needs to get back on top. > Their diesels have consistantly made more power for the weight of the > engine. These two key numbers are what makes a vehicle get better fuel > economy and performance. sure, but that has less to do with sales than marketing. just the fact that it says "cummins" on it sells engines. todays duramax is consistantly getting better mileage than todays cummins, and its producing more power with less weight yet its popularity is dying. > Sure, they are arrogant, BUT... the German designed diesel is a very good > product. most anything german is a good product, but again we have marketing to joe six-pack. > The Cummins is very popular but the replacement, if there is one, will be > at least as good regardless of popularity. being as good and selling as good are two different matters entirely. > Sadly, Deiter Zeitsche is far from being an elitist German doesnt matter much, as he is perceived as such. joe six-pack doesnt like arrogant foreigners and this is critical if youre trying to get joe six-pack to give you his money. > "Dr. Z" is the only reason Chrysler and DC as a corporation are still > operating successfully today. i dont agree. the top sellers were in place since long before the merger. > You want an elitist German? His name was Jergen Schremp. You want elitist > Americans? Look at the execs that sold Chrysler to the krauts in the first > place. agreed, BUT......we're back to joe six-pack. joe six-pack hears his german accent in the commercials and takes note of his arrogance. if you want to sell cars you take the same commercial that "Z" was in and replace him with carrol shelby (or someone similar) and THEN youll sell cars to joe six-pack. > at this point Chrysler is the only american manufacturer that is running > anywhere near the black ink, and isn't scurrying for solutions to > insolvancy. They must understand something about the American consumer. at this point theyre selling the cummins engine. its going to be interesting to see what happens with the release of their new models. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> It would be their only f.ck up since going with the Cummins in 88. > > no, there have been others. giving up the bragging rights of being top > dog (in terms of torque) to the duramax is one. What about reliability and fuel economy, not to mention design? Seen the specs on the new Cummins? > the chrysler/daimler merger is one. Thats not a failure of truck design or capability. > the rampant lift pump failure issue is one. Rampant? According to whom? Yeah, failures were frequent on the modified trucks, but even then it wasn't "rampant". The lift pump failures that did occur were in early ISB models, and the problem was cured easily. > i keep hearing something about the #5 cylinder. So is the Cummins the best engine, or are you busy proving your claim that you bought for the Cummins a poor decision? > dropping the jeep cherokee for the liberty is one. Hardly. The Cherokee was an old model that had run its course. To stimulate sales, a bigger vehicle had to be built for the now middle aged Cherokee owners, and a smaller vehicle had to be built for the new generation of yuppies. Its called Marketing. The only vehicles not subject to obsolesence are the Mustang, Corvette, CJ and pickup trucks. > killing the tj is one. See above. > going with a v6 is one (carries far more significance in jeep circles than > truck groups). Hardly. This "jeep thing" you hin at is rubbish... we do understand, we don't f.cking care. Those of us in the trucks also like the inline six..... have you seen the Cummins design lately? > there are plenty of f.ck-ups, im only saying this will be their > (daimler/chryslers not just dodge) biggest to date. If we followed your criteria for fuckups, Ford and GM would be in worse shape than DC..... wait, they ARE. I guess DC didn't f.ck up all that badly. > the kcar was a big hit certianly, but it died as fast as it rose. Sadly... you are wrong. The K platform served for over ten years, finding itself under sports cars, luxury cars, and minivans. > restyle was great, but surely you dont think it would have been as > successful with a foreign diesel? Yes, I do. The Cummins wasn't a huge success in the early version, and made its biggest impact in the 98.5 and newer models. Styling was the major impact on the marketplace, as evidenced by GM and Ford copycat design in the late 90's. > ford has been trying to get their hands on the cummins for some time. Ford has had the Cummins in the 450 and up models for some time. > for years ive felt that ford builds the best truck on the market, and > putting the best engine in the market will be the boost ford needs to get > back on top. It hasn't worked yet, they've had the 450 and up market to themselves, GM and Dodge don't market a pickup in that segment. If Ford isn't successful there with a Cummins, its hard to say where they would be. > sure, but that has less to do with sales than marketing. just the fact > that it says "cummins" on it sells engines. todays duramax is > consistantly getting better mileage than todays cummins, and its producing > more power with less weight yet its popularity is dying. Wonder why? Its in the design, not the marketing. Your example proves my point and kills your argument. German diesels are better designed than hybrid Japanese Americans. German diesels can and will beat the Duramax at its own game, should they be selected to compete in the same marketplace. >> Sure, they are arrogant, BUT... the German designed diesel is a very good >> product. > > most anything german is a good product, but again we have marketing to joe > six-pack. At the prices of todays pickups, Joe Sixpak has a degree or two, owns his own busines or works for a large corporation, and knows a bit about who makes a good engine. >> The Cummins is very popular but the replacement, if there is one, will be >> at least as good regardless of popularity. > > being as good and selling as good are two different matters entirely. True, and my point is.... the german diesel will sell as well. >> Sadly, Deiter Zeitsche is far from being an elitist German > > doesnt matter much, as he is perceived as such. joe six-pack doesnt like > arrogant foreigners and this is critical if youre trying to get joe > six-pack to give you his money. See my comments on Joe Sixpack and his level of sophistication, above. >> "Dr. Z" is the only reason Chrysler and DC as a corporation are still >> operating successfully today. > > i dont agree. the top sellers were in place since long before the merger. Sadly, you are again wrong. Take a closer look at what happened AFTER the merger and take note of the huge dip in profits DC saw from is Chrysler Corporation. A huge house cleaning was done, and Jergen Schremp unwittingly put his replacement in the CEO chair. DZ then returned the early 90's philosophy to Chrysler, and new designs began to flow forth, as well as a rise in sales. IOW, DZ is what kept Chrysler from being in the same boat as GM and Ford today. > agreed, BUT......we're back to joe six-pack. joe six-pack hears his > german accent in the commercials and takes note of his arrogance. if you > want to sell cars you take the same commercial that "Z" was in and replace > him with carrol shelby (or someone similar) and THEN youll sell cars to > joe six-pack. Again, see the comments above. Joe Sixpack ain't as dumb as the two schmucks on the ads. > at this point theyre selling the cummins engine. its going to be > interesting to see what happens with the release of their new models. Except.... the trucks are being outsold by cars, with Chryslers outselling Dodges for the first time in a long time this past year. Thus the trucks are not the mainstay of sales, and the Cummins certianly isn't in all the trucks. Its not the Cummins, Nate.....its good design, finacial policy and marketing. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. >> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > at this point theyre selling the cummins engine. its going to be > interesting to see what happens with the release of their new models. >>> It would be their only f.ck up since going with the Cummins in 88. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > trucks, but even then it wasn't "rampant". The lift pump failures that did > occur were in early ISB models, and the problem was cured easily. Pray tell, how were they cured? I know of 3 years the damn things were going south on. Roy > Pray tell, how were they cured? I know of 3 years the damn things were > going south on. There were several places that retro-fit kits could be had. After the years there was a problem, Chrysler obviously solved the problem. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>> It would be their only f.ck up since going with the Cummins in 88. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Roy >> Pray tell, how were they cured? I know of 3 years the damn things were >> going south on. > > There were several places that retro-fit kits could be had. which should tell you all you need to know about how common the issue was/is. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com After the years > there was a problem, Chrysler obviously solved the problem. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >> Roy >> There were several places that retro-fit kits could be had. > > which should tell you all you need to know about how common the issue > was/is. It sure does... all those places were performance outlets, catering to those thta were making more power than the factory lift pump was designed to feed. IOW, the problem was found among those that modified their trucks, much as I said it was. Use all the information, and you'll find you get a better picture of reality. Use pieces of it, and you just might invade a Middle Eastern nation for no apparent reason. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> Pray tell, how were they cured? I know of 3 years the damn things were >>> going south on. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> >>> Roy >>> There were several places that retro-fit kits could be had. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > IOW, the problem was found among those that modified their trucks, much as > I said it was. Gotta disagree with you there. Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the average. Most of us carried a spare. Sure those with mods failed quicker. Roy > Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the > average. Most of us carried a spare. nothing to add, just felt it worthy of quoting. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > Gotta disagree with you there. Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a > alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the average. Most of us carried a spare. Sure > those with mods failed quicker. Interesting, my 2000 hasn't had a problem, nor have any in the area. Also, I'm not alarmed. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>> There were several places that retro-fit kits could be had. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Roy >> Gotta disagree with you there. Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a >> alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the average. Most of us carried a spare. Sure >> those with mods failed quicker. > > Interesting, my 2000 hasn't had a problem, nor have any in the area. Also, > I'm not alarmed. My 2K went through 3. What really sucked is that a lot of dealers wouldn't stock them so you were down for a few days. You'd be alarmed if your pump was gone and you were waiting with a foot of snow on the ground. That's why a lot of us carried a spare. While we are at it there has been a few post's about the in tank pump going away. Take a look over at the tdr. Roy > Max > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >> Roy >> Gotta disagree with you there. Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a >> alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the average. Most of us carried a spare. Sure >> those with mods failed quicker. > > Interesting, my 2000 hasn't had a problem, nor have any in the area. Also, > I'm not alarmed. i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for many many years, and you seem surprised by this. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for > many many years, and you seem surprised by this. A quick (very quick - as in, first hit) Google search turned up the following: http://www.asq.org/economic-case/markets/pdf/case-study-24516-six-sigma-saves.pdf where they claim a 17% failure rate of the lift pump over the entire warranty period. They don't break that down by years, but I would assume it includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump mounted to the engine). >> i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for >> many many years, and you seem surprised by this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump mounted to >the engine). thanks tom, a little "bit of facts" never hurts anyone. i have to admit, that surprises me. it is higher than i would have thought. almost one in five going bad isn't too good! good that they got it fixed. > http://www.asq.org/economic-case/markets/pdf/case-study-24516-six-sigma-saves.pdf > > where they claim a 17% failure rate of the lift pump over the entire > warranty period. They don't break that down by years, but I would assume > it includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump > mounted to the engine). according to the article tom, those stats were from before the six sigma project ("It was about a 17% failure rate over the entire warranty period [before the Six Sigma project].) which appears to have been in '01. if that is the case (and its certainly possible that im missing something) then the actual percentage would be much higher. my lift pump failed under warranty in '04. ill read the entire article a little later to see if im missing something somewhere SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com Certainly seems to be a high rate, but the questions it raises are: Is it a quality issue or a location issue? Is this solid data or just grandstanding to prove the success of a new QC program? That said, I find it fascinating that no one I know (and I know quite a few) around my geographic area has ever had a problem, yet the failure rate is said to be 17%. Roy, I can certainly understand the issues of any part failing and not being in stock. But I think the alarm is because of availability, which speaks to a problem other than QC, that of dealership care of the customer. On THAT issue, DC has been lacking. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for >> many many years, and you seem surprised by this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump > mounted to the engine). > Is it a quality issue or a location issue? Broke = broke > Is this solid data or just grandstanding to prove the success of a new QC > program? <shrug> I dunno.... given that it's someone from Cummins providing the data, you'd kinda have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're not just pulling a number out of their a.s. > That said, I find it fascinating that no one I know (and I know quite a > few) around my geographic area has ever had a problem, yet the failure > rate is said to be 17%. Sounds like a conspiracy :) >> Is it a quality issue or a location issue? > > Broke = broke Yup... >> Is this solid data or just grandstanding to prove the success of a new QC >> program? > > <shrug> I dunno.... given that it's someone from Cummins providing the > data, you'd kinda have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're > not just pulling a number out of their a.s. There are points both for and against this, given the nature of the document quoted. I'd prefer an independant source. Second, since the Rams were Chrysler warranty problems, is the document talking about Ram failure or just Cummins installations in chassis? Third, that 17% was "within warranty period", which was 100k miles. How does that compare with fuel pumps in other vehicles in 100k? A failure in 100k is almost normal, since we all know the "nickel and dime" period is from about 70k onward. However, assuming (the big "if") the 17% is correct AND out of line with other fuel pumps, thats significant. Lots of factors are not accounted for here. >> That said, I find it fascinating that no one I know (and I know quite a >> few) around my geographic area has ever had a problem, yet the failure >> rate is said to be 17%. > > Sounds like a conspiracy :) Yeah, Mike Simmons, "the guy", and my local region got all the good trucks. Oh, and Nate got one as well, since failure at 100k is... almost to be expected. Thats why I'm a bit skeptical of "rampant" problems. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Is it a quality issue or a location issue? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Sounds like a conspiracy :) >> <shrug> I dunno.... given that it's someone from Cummins providing the >> data, you'd kinda have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're >> not just pulling a number out of their a.s. > > There are points both for and against this, given the nature of the > document quoted. I'd prefer an independant source. TRANSLATION --> "it proves nate right, so i will simply refute the source" ......you REALLY think anyone is buying your bullshit? > Second, since the Rams were Chrysler warranty problems, is the document > talking about Ram failure or just Cummins installations in chassis? what a DUMB thing to ask. you already know the answer......so does ANYONE else who even glanced over the paper....what a pathetic spin. > Lots of factors are not accounted for here. no max, youre simply grasping at any straw you can at this point. :-) squirm. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > Is it a quality issue or a location issue? lol as if it matters? its a f.ck UP. you were WRONG, and now youll try to piddle your way around it. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com A reply from Cummins on the issue. No hard numbers... again. http://www.turbodieselregister.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53629 SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for >> many many years, and you seem surprised by this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump > mounted to the engine). >A reply from Cummins on the issue. <GASP>.......so now you call it an "issue".....the one that never existed? lol....own it max, youll feel better. :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for >> many many years, and you seem surprised by this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it includes '98.5 through '04.5 (the years of an electric lift pump > mounted to the engine). So 17% is the admitted rate. How many were denied and owner repaired with a stock replacement or aftermarket fix? If the vibration issue is true it sounds like the relocation fix is the way to go. Isn't that the Vulcan fix? I've also heard if you relocate the stock lift pump you'll be denied warranty coverage because it's "modified." >>> i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for >>> many many years, and you seem surprised by this. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > fix? I've also heard if you relocate the stock lift pump you'll be denied > warranty coverage because it's "modified." I read the same. So if you move the pump and then your injector pump goes south you eat about a 2K repair. Roy > i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for > many many years, and you seem surprised by this. Well Nate, thats because I live in reality, not this newsgroup. I look at what I can see with my own eyes and can verify through my own senses far before I look at anything said here without context or verifiable source. That may seem strange to you, but really, its the only way to go. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> Gotta disagree with you there. Stock trucks LP's's were failing at a >>> alarming rate. IIrc 15K was the average. Most of us carried a spare. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > i cant believe you have been such an active member of this newsgroup for > many many years, and you seem surprised by this. > Well Nate, thats because I live in reality, not this newsgroup. sh.t. ill bet in the last 5 years your posts outnumber mine at least 50 to 1. > I look at what I can see with my own eyes and can verify through my own > senses far before I look at anything said here without context or > verifiable source. > > That may seem strange to you, but really, its the only way to go. lol.....so this justifies your arrogance as you shout IGNORANCE on this topic? ......i knew you wouldnt have the integrity to admit that YOU ARE WRONG on this, just like you never admitted to being WRONG about the existance of a 318HD. some things just never change. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Well Nate, thats because I live in reality, not this newsgroup. > > sh.t. ill bet in the last 5 years your posts outnumber mine at least 50 > to 1. Proving what? > lol.....so this justifies your arrogance as you shout IGNORANCE on this > topic? No, it justifies looking for facts instead of screaming about random events without statistics. > ......i knew you wouldnt have the integrity to admit that YOU ARE WRONG on > this, just like you never admitted to being WRONG about the existance of a > 318HD. some things just never change. Until you have proof via statisitics or documented proof, there isn't anything to admit. A single source claiming 17% failure is pretty strong.... but no one can back this, and the single best source of this failure on this newsgroup, Mike Simmons, claims pretty much what I've said... yeah, it was a problem, but it wasn't rampant. Back to your overreactionary bullshit..... SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Well Nate, thats because I live in reality, not this newsgroup. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > this, just like you never admitted to being WRONG about the existance of a > 318HD. some things just never change. >>> Well Nate, thats because I live in reality, not this newsgroup. >> >> sh.t. ill bet in the last 5 years your posts outnumber mine at least 50 >> to 1. > > Proving what? proving that with THAT much time in this newsgroup one would think that you wouldnt be so IGNORANT to this RAMPANT lift pump failure issue. 1 in 5 max. 1 in 5. > No, it justifies looking for facts instead of screaming about random > events without statistics. you HAVE them now. thanks to tom we know that its 1 in 5, and possibly MUCH higher (if in fact that paper was from '01). that doesnt even count the number of failures from modified trucks. it is clearly an "issue", and a rampant one at that to any reasonable person without an agenda that is truly just looking for facts. what say you? (fully expecting spin and bullshit) > A single source claiming 17% failure is pretty strong.... but no one can > back this OMG you are actually questioning toms source????? holy hell......lol......thank you max. youve just proven everything ive said about you. :-) > Back to your overreactionary bullshit..... riiiiight max. it doesnt exist. maybe not in those f450/f550s with the ISB. BUWHAHAHA! :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > proving that with THAT much time in this newsgroup one would think that > you wouldnt be so IGNORANT to this RAMPANT lift pump failure issue. 1 in > 5 max. > 1 in 5. Nate, you're rounding up, 17% is more like 1 in 6. Still with all the weaseling they've done I think the actual rate is higher and I don't have any basis to guess how high it is. Whether it's 1 in 6 or higher, it's well past "lemon" status. Remember, I'm only commenting on the lift pump failure rate, not the truck. > Nate, you're rounding up, 17% is more like 1 in 6. ok, 1 in 5.88........ill go with that. :-) .....course, i think we'll be doing good to get max to own up to 1 in 1000. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > IOW, the problem was found among those that modified their trucks, much as > I said it was. bullshit. i suppose my TOTALLY STOCK '01.5 was some sort of anomaly. <rolling eyes> when you wont even acknowledge KNOWN truths it taints your entire argument. your agenda is stronger than your own truth. thats sad max, especially considering how KNOWN this issue is. need i drag up the archives of when i posted this problem in here from late '04 where many "in the know" discussed the KNOWN issue? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > bullshit. i suppose my TOTALLY STOCK '01.5 was some sort of anomaly. > <rolling eyes> If one were to believe your statements on the "crisis", MY truck would be the anomoly, with no failure and no symptoms in over 70k miles. > when you wont even acknowledge KNOWN truths it taints your entire > argument. Again, I'll refer to the vast number of trucks versus the failure rate. Until we have a well founded rate of failure, lift pump failure isn't the crisis its being made out to be. > your agenda is stronger than your own truth. No, my quest for facts eliminates knee jerk reactionary crap, such as that for which you are known. > thats sad max, especially considering how KNOWN this issue is. need i > drag up the archives of when i posted this problem in here from late '04 > where many "in the know" discussed the KNOWN issue? Yeah, you need to do that, but only if they contain proven information, not just alarmist reaction. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> IOW, the problem was found among those that modified their trucks, much >> as I said it was. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > archives of when i posted this problem in here from late '04 where many > "in the know" discussed the KNOWN issue? >> bullshit. i suppose my TOTALLY STOCK '01.5 was some sort of anomaly. >> <rolling eyes> > > If one were to believe your statements on the "crisis", MY truck would be > the anomoly, with no failure and no symptoms in over 70k miles. give it time. i told you that mine failed at 99,990 "or so" miles. > Again, I'll refer to the vast number of trucks versus the failure rate. > Until we have a well founded rate of failure, lift pump failure isn't the > crisis its being made out to be. just do a google on THIS newsgroup for the word "lift pump" >> your agenda is stronger than your own truth. > > No, my quest for facts eliminates knee jerk reactionary crap, such as that > for which you are known. that you would still argue this point without dont any research (evident by the fact that you cannot acknowledge it) validates my earlier statement. your agenda matters most to you, facts be damned. >> thats sad max, especially considering how KNOWN this issue is. need i >> drag up the archives of when i posted this problem in here from late '04 >> where many "in the know" discussed the KNOWN issue? > > Yeah, you need to do that, but only if they contain proven information, > not just alarmist reaction. how about this quote from tom lawrence: "The only well-known "weak link" on those engines ('98.5 to '02 24V engines) is the factory lift pump. If/when that fails, it kills your injector pump, and that's a 4-figure repair bill. At a minimum, install a fuel pressure gauge to monitor your fuel pressure, so you can detect a failing lift pump before it's too late. If it were me, I'd immediately replace it with an aftermarket pump (as well as install a pressure gauge). " um......he said it was a weak link max. tom full of sh.t too? see it for yourself at http://tinyurl.com/ybwqz8 perhaps you should read the entire thread so that you can continue to argue your ignorance. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >>> bullshit. i suppose my TOTALLY STOCK '01.5 was some sort of anomaly. >>> <rolling eyes> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > before it's too late. If it were me, I'd immediately replace it with an > aftermarket pump (as well as install a pressure gauge). " I've also got a fuel pressure gauge now. When this lift pump goes out, and we know it will, I will also have an aftermarket fix. The only reason I went with a stock replacement the first time was trying to save a few bucks, foolish in hindsight. The difference in what it cost to do it and what DC was willing to reimburse would've gone a good ways towards a FASS. > When this lift pump goes out, and we know it will, nope, NOT gonna happen. max said the issue doesnt exist. :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> When this lift pump goes out, and we know it will, > > nope, NOT gonna happen. max said the issue doesnt exist. :-) He might also tell you I don't have a receipt for replacing a bad lift pump and I didn't cash a $70.00 "reimbursement" check from DC as well. He might also tell you members of our local TDR club didn't have problems either. Most had problems, some were stock, some not. Doesn't matter a whit. I knew when I bought the truck it might be a problem, I DIDN'T know DC wouldn't reimburse the full repair cost. So knowing this, you have a choice, let someone you trust work on it and roll the dice on reimbursement or let the dealer work on your truck. Given this choice and knowing what I know now, the dealer would still NEVER have seen my truck. > > nope, NOT gonna happen. max said the issue doesnt exist. :-) > He might also tell you I don't have a receipt for replacing a bad lift pump > and I didn't cash a $70.00 "reimbursement" check from DC as well. He might > also tell you members of our local TDR club didn't have problems either. All of this discussion has left me wondering when I can expect my lift pump not to go out? :-) Craig C. > All of this discussion has left me wondering when I can expect my lift > pump not to go out? LOL! :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > He might also tell you I don't have a receipt for replacing a bad lift > pump and I didn't cash a $70.00 "reimbursement" check from DC as well. > He might also tell you members of our local TDR club didn't have problems > either. not until his lift pump takes a sh.t on him anyway. ......im really surprised to hear how they treated you. i wonder how much influence the dealership has over these decisions? mine failed within 20 miles of my warranty expiring so they replaced the injection pump "just incase" since they knew my warranty would expire on my trip home from the dealership. THATS customer service like ive never known, and it came straight from the cummins rep that the dealership called. i wonder why they would do so much for one customer, and so little for another. > Most had problems, some were stock, some not. Doesn't matter a whit. i agree. most folks ive met that had the same issue were also running stock trucks. > I knew when I bought the truck it might be a problem i think my '05 bighorn dually ( http://inlinediesel.com/trucks/3gen/1/index.html ) is the "ultimate" truck......the cummins 610, the way towing mode allows overdrive.....i definately prefer the headlights over the '06 model (my OPINION max!).....but if given the chance to buy a new '05 4x4 dually or a new '02 4x4 dually i would take the new '02. i prefer the look (that restyle was awesome from day 1!), i prefer the sound (sounded like a diesel), and i definately prefer the interior. when my 4x4 dually powerstroke ( http://inlinediesel.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=311 )sells im going to replace it with an '01.5/'02 cummins with an automatic. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com Why do most here assume that DC isn't capable of designing and building an engine that is equal to or superior to the Cummins offerings? > Why do most here assume that DC isn't capable of designing and building an > engine that is equal to or superior to the Cummins offerings? Your kidding right? Roy Because the die-hard Cummins fans don't want to see "their" engine of choice replace with something else. Personally, I would be happy to own a Dodge with a MB engine in it, if they would go back the 97 98 body style. > Why do most here assume that DC isn't capable of designing and building an > engine that is equal to or superior to the Cummins offerings? > Because the die-hard Cummins fans don't want to see "their" engine of > choice replace with something else. Personally, I would be happy to own a > Dodge with a MB engine in it, if they would go back the 97 98 body style. Agreed. The only thing I'd miss is the extra traction of the Cummins sitting on the front axle. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > Because the die-hard Cummins fans don't want to see "their" engine of > choice replace with something else. Personally, I would be happy to own a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> an >> engine that is equal to or superior to the Cummins offerings? > The only thing I'd miss is the extra traction of the Cummins sitting on > the front axle. id actually like to lighten my front end a little so that i dont have to be concerned about heavy bumpers and snow plows, etc. im told the reason my truck came with a page saying "not for slide in campers" is due to the cummins being to heavy for the front end, not leaving as much room for accessories as other trucks. personally i think they should just beef up the front end. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > id actually like to lighten my front end a little so that i dont have to > be concerned about heavy bumpers and snow plows, etc. im told the reason > my truck came with a page saying "not for slide in campers" is due to the > cummins being to heavy for the front end, not leaving as much room for > accessories as other trucks. personally i think they should just beef up > the front end. The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight ratings. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> The only thing I'd miss is the extra traction of the Cummins sitting on >> the front axle. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > accessories as other trucks. personally i think they should just beef up > the front end. > The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. > Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight > ratings. ok, im not being argumentative here. please explain that, as tires are unsprung weight. ive never weighed my truck to see what is actually getting to the front end, but it does create some question due to the paper in my truck about slide in campers. it doesnt concern me to much since since my trailer has over 1000 pounds of tongue weight when loaded which should lighten the front end of the truck at least a little, but i would like to build a large basket off my winch bumper to hold the generator for my camper.....but i dont know if that would push the front axle rating or not. my generator is nearly 200 pounds, plus the weight of the basket to secure it (another 100 pounds or so). SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. >> Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight >> ratings. > > ok, im not being argumentative here. please explain that, as tires are > unsprung weight. The weight rating on the tires, not the truck. Tires below Range E wouldn't be up to the task. I think my tires are at 3400lbs capacity, which means the axle rating (5200) is less than the tire rating at 6000+ capacity. > ive never weighed my truck to see what is actually getting to the front > end, but it does create some question due to the paper in my truck about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not. my generator is nearly 200 pounds, plus the weight of the basket to > secure it (another 100 pounds or so). Does it weigh more than a plow? If not, no worries. Do you have the plow springs in the truck? If so, no worries. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. >> Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight >> ratings. > > ok, im not being argumentative here. please explain that, as tires are > unsprung weight. The weight rating on the tires, not the truck. Tires below Range E wouldn't be up to the task. I think my tires are at 3400lbs capacity, which means the axle rating (5200) is less than the tire rating at 6000+ capacity. > ive never weighed my truck to see what is actually getting to the front > end, but it does create some question due to the paper in my truck about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not. my generator is nearly 200 pounds, plus the weight of the basket to > secure it (another 100 pounds or so). Does it weigh more than a plow? Do you have the plow springs in the truck? > The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. > Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight > ratings. Well, looking at the '07 numbers (because that's all I have handy), yes, the axle is rated at 5200lbs. The curb weight on the front axle is a little over 4,400lbs. A 9ft. plow setup goes a little under 900lbs. (Meyer shows 890lbs. for their 9' diamond edge model). The front axle's overloaded, and you haven't even gotten in the truck yet. > Well, looking at the '07 numbers (because that's all I have handy), yes, > the axle is rated at 5200lbs. The curb weight on the front axle is a > little over 4,400lbs. Whats the total weight of the truck? Not GVRW, but "dry weight"? > A 9ft. plow setup goes a little under 900lbs. (Meyer shows 890lbs. for > their 9' diamond edge model). The front axle's overloaded, and you > haven't even gotten in the truck yet. Well, figure this....that axle was originally rated at 3800 or so, and the rating changed without any real change in design, if any at all. Plus, the 01's and 02's had a Cummins w/plow option, IIRC. YMMV. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. >> Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > their 9' diamond edge model). The front axle's overloaded, and you > haven't even gotten in the truck yet. >> Well, looking at the '07 numbers (because that's all I have handy), yes, >> the axle is rated at 5200lbs. The curb weight on the front axle is a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > rating changed without any real change in design, if any at all. Plus, the > 01's and 02's had a Cummins w/plow option, IIRC. They did. Roy > YMMV. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> their 9' diamond edge model). The front axle's overloaded, and you >> haven't even gotten in the truck yet. > The front axle on mine is rated at 5200 lbs, the engine is only 1100 lbs. > Plenty of room for a plow. Tires would be more of a concern due to weight > ratings. Isn't that with the snow plow package? I thought the "regualar" rating was 4,800 or 4,850? >> Because the die-hard Cummins fans don't want to see "their" engine of >> choice replace with something else. Personally, I would be happy to own [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Agreed. The only thing I'd miss is the extra traction of the Cummins > sitting on the front axle. But this actually might be a good thing if the MB was a little lighter. I would hope that it would help prevent some front end failures or problems as it has been established that the front end is a little lacking to begin with. >> Because the die-hard Cummins fans don't want to see "their" engine of >> choice replace with something else. Personally, I would be happy to own [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> an >>> engine that is equal to or superior to the Cummins offerings? >> He might also tell you I don't have a receipt for replacing a bad lift >> pump and I didn't cash a $70.00 "reimbursement" check from DC as well. He [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ......im really surprised to hear how they treated you. i wonder how much > influence the dealership has over these decisions? The dealer wasn't ever involved with this truck so they have no influence at all. It was all DC. Remember I bought this one used but it was still well within the warranty period. You think you were surprised? I was shocked, I knew they would reimburse warranty repairs, I didn't know they'd weasel out of the full cost. Now that it's on my mind again, in the phone call I was told if I wanted a "free" repair I should've taken it to the dealer. Yeah, right, where they'll tell you it still makes a little pressure or the newer "well, it's still pumping enough volume." Sure, I'll go along with that while inadequate fuel pressure / supply kills the VP-44. > The dealer wasn't ever involved with this truck so they have no influence > at all. It was all DC. Remember I bought this one used but it was still > well within the warranty period. i also bought mine used, with well over 99,800 miles on it. i drove it from bozeman to billings and around town a little and then straight to the dealership to find out what the trouble was because the warranty was so close to expiring. > I didn't know they'd weasel out of the full cost. how is that normally handled? i mean, is it "ok" to have an independent fix it under warranty? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com Now > that it's on my mind again, in the phone call I was told if I wanted a > "free" repair I should've taken it to the dealer. Yeah, right, where > they'll tell you it still makes a little pressure or the newer "well, it's > still pumping enough volume." Sure, I'll go along with that while > inadequate fuel pressure / supply kills the VP-44. >> The dealer wasn't ever involved with this truck so they have no influence >> at all. It was all DC. Remember I bought this one used but it was still [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > how is that normally handled? i mean, is it "ok" to have an independent > fix it under warranty? As I've always heard it, it wasn't ever a problem in the past. I think "weaseling" out of the full repair cost in something new because when it happened to me was the first time I'd ever heard of it. Forewarned is forearmed. > that you would still argue this point without dont any research (evident > by the fact that you cannot acknowledge it) validates my earlier > statement. your agenda matters most to you, facts be damned. I've done a search and looked at five pages of possible info.... not one of them has a verifiable failure rate. Tom isn't full of sh.t, but saying the lift pump is the weak link in the engine is like saying the universal joint is the weak link in the driveshaft. Everything has a weak link, even that tow chain that has performed flawlessly forever that lays in the bed of many a pickup. IOW, claiming that something is a weak link doesn't assign a failure rate, nor does it indicate flawed design. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> bullshit. i suppose my TOTALLY STOCK '01.5 was some sort of anomaly. >>> <rolling eyes> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > yourself at http://tinyurl.com/ybwqz8 perhaps you should read the entire > thread so that you can continue to argue your ignorance. > I've done a search and looked at five pages of possible info.... not one > of them has a verifiable failure rate. i do believe that much as been established. 1 in 5 and thats just those under warranty.....add to it the number of failures from modified rigs and you have the issue that you claim never existed. > Tom isn't full of sh.t no sh.t, and neither am i (i did afterall, have to school you on this issue that doesnt exist), but i know you cant bring yourself to acknowledge it. > saying the lift pump is the weak link in the engine is like saying the > universal joint is the weak link in the driveshaft. Everything has a weak > link what bullshit SPIN. it wasnt the weak link like a u-joint max. it was a piss poor design prone to failure. OWN IT. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> I've done a search and looked at five pages of possible info.... not one >> of them has a verifiable failure rate. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > issue that doesnt exist), but i know you cant bring yourself to > acknowledge it. Nate, I have to ask.. How can DC be to blame or held accountable for anything on a vehicle that has been modified, regardless of level of modification and one of DC's parts fail? That would be like modifying a dmax to the max (not you max <bg>) having it fail and then blaming chevy >> saying the lift pump is the weak link in the engine is like saying the >> universal joint is the weak link in the driveshaft. Everything has a weak >> link > > what bullshit SPIN. it wasnt the weak link like a u-joint max. it was a > piss poor design prone to failure. OWN IT. > Nate, I have to ask.. How can DC be to blame or held accountable for > anything on a vehicle that has been modified, regardless of level of > modification and one of DC's parts fail? they arent accountable for those in any legal sense, but due to the rate of failure on the warrantied trucks those numbers cannot be simply dismissed. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Nate, I have to ask.. How can DC be to blame or held accountable for >> anything on a vehicle that has been modified, regardless of level of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of failure on the warrantied trucks those numbers cannot be simply > dismissed. You are correct but you know as well as I that if it is a failure on a modified vechile, they will not count it as a failure on their part. That in itself is a problem, as you, max, Mike and Tom can search the web, or call DC all you want and no one will EVER have an accurate number. > You are correct but you know as well as I that if it is a failure on a > modified vechile, they will not count it as a failure on their part. That > in itself is a problem, as you, max, Mike and Tom can search the web, or > call DC all you want and no one will EVER have an accurate number. agreed......so lets just stick with the valid warranty claims. how do you feel about 1 in 5? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> You are correct but you know as well as I that if it is a failure on a >> modified vechile, they will not count it as a failure on their part. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > agreed......so lets just stick with the valid warranty claims. how do you > feel about 1 in 5? Personally, I feel that it is higher then one would logically hope for when dealing with such an issue. >> agreed......so lets just stick with the valid warranty claims. how do >> you feel about 1 in 5? > > Personally, I feel that it is higher then one would logically hope for > when dealing with such an issue. based on the 1 in 5 of valid warranty claimes (disregarding every modified truck to suffer this failure) would you consider my claim of "rampant" valid? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >>> agreed......so lets just stick with the valid warranty claims. how do >>> you feel about 1 in 5? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > truck to suffer this failure) would you consider my claim of "rampant" > valid? After looking at the various definitions of the word, I would have to say yes. As DC has not issued a recall on it, this is an "unrestrained" problem. >> based on the 1 in 5 of valid warranty claimes (disregarding every >> modified truck to suffer this failure) would you consider my claim of >> "rampant" valid? > > After looking at the various definitions of the word, I would have to say > yes. thank you. .....damn the conversations in here take some interesting turns. :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> I've done a search and looked at five pages of possible info.... not one >> of them has a verifiable failure rate. > > i do believe that much as been established. 1 in 5 and thats just those > under warranty.....add to it the number of failures from modified rigs and > you have the issue that you claim never existed. As I posted in reply to Tom, its not been established with out assuming many things. As Mike posted, (and he's a good source given his vocation) the problem isn't as terrible as you make it out to be, although it is more than Cummins admits. >> Tom isn't full of sh.t > > no sh.t, and neither am i (i did afterall, have to school you on this > issue that doesnt exist), but i know you cant bring yourself to > acknowledge it. Again, you are taking out of context and overreacting. I never said the problem didn't exist. I do however, dispute your exaggerated claims on the issue. > what bullshit SPIN. it wasnt the weak link like a u-joint max. it was a > piss poor design prone to failure. OWN IT. Sadly, the document you trust to set a failure rate also describes the solution... it wasn't design of the pump, but location. It wasn't Chrysler that designed it and had a failure, but Cummins. As such, I'll stand by my statement... the design was fine, and not a failure on Chryslers part. Spin away. I'm done here until relevant info comes to light beyond what we've seen so far. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> I've done a search and looked at five pages of possible info.... not one >> of them has a verifiable failure rate. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > what bullshit SPIN. it wasnt the weak link like a u-joint max. it was a > piss poor design prone to failure. OWN IT. > As I posted in reply to Tom, its not been established with out assuming > many things. heh......thats pretty sad max. it has indeed. just own it, and go to bed with at least a tiny SHRED of credibility left. > As Mike posted, (and he's a good source given his vocation) lol.....on the one hand you whine about people stating opinions, demanding documentation.......then when someone provides valid industry documentation you immediately cling to someone expressing an uninformed OPINION that happens to be closer to your beliefs. to late, you dont even have a shred left. > the problem isn't as terrible as you make it out to be im not "making it out to be" anything. i will accept the published 1 in 5 and thats completely disregarding those with modified trucks. > Again, you are taking out of context and overreacting. I never said the > problem didn't exist. I do however, dispute your exaggerated claims on the > issue. no overreaction at all. im happy with 1 in 5. youre simply trying to spin off it. > Sadly, the document you trust to set a failure rate also describes the > solution... it wasn't design of the pump, but location. It wasn't Chrysler > that designed it and had a failure, but Cummins. as i said before......if its in a chrysler vehicle and honored by a chrysler warranty, its a chrysler f.ck up. if one of my employees is working at your place of business and wires something wrong causing your building to burn down, i feel certain that youll be coming for MY insurance company because MY service is what you bought regardless of who i hired to deliver it. SAME THING. > As such, I'll stand by my statement... the design was fine OMG......the lift pump design was "fine" by max! roy, bigironram.......you guys didnt need to replace your lift pumps afterall.....dont you feel stupid? sheesh max, go to bed buddy. i was having fun poking at you a little, but now youve taken yourself to levels far below what i ever wanted to do. > I'm done here until relevant info comes to light beyond what we've seen so > far. TRANSLATION --> "i cant even convince myself of my own bullshit anymore" max.....just own it buddy. the lift pump issue was a piss poor design resulting in rampant failures. i truly hope that when yours fails you wont be in the middle of nowhere. i recommend that you at least keep a spare on board, and change it before it takes out your injection pump. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com Max, I think issue with the pump was the placement of it which was done by dc. There was a article (yup, another one) a few years ago that went on and on about who was really at fault. It all had to do with failures downstream from a failed pump regards who owned the claim. It's out there somewhere but I gotta tell ya at this stage the gettin' ain't worth the goin' Roy > Max, I think issue with the pump was the placement of it which was done by > dc. There was a article (yup, another one) a few years ago that went on > and on about who was really at fault. It all had to do with failures > downstream from a failed pump regards who owned the claim. It's out there > somewhere but I gotta tell ya at this stage the gettin' ain't worth the > goin' Roy, agreed. My point was not that there was no problem; its clear there is a problem, and I never stated otherwise, despite the misinterpretation of some. Calling it "rampant"... well, its just not so. As to the sources, my point is that no one actually publishes a reliable failure rate, except NHTSA, if they take enough of an interest AND its a safety issue. Thus, again, there is a problem with calling something "rampant" when the facts indicate otherwise. What bothers me about the stats we do have is that they are intentionally vague. Something that is lost on at least one person here. 17% failure rate over the warranty period means its over 100,000 miles. I don't know about you, but having less that 1 in 5 fail in 100,000 miles isn't terrible. I'd like to know what the failure rate of a mechanical pump on the small block mopars would be over 100,000 miles. I can personally attest to installing at least one on my old Dart in the 100,000 I've driven it. I can't remember how many we've put on the 63 in its 200,000+ miles. I'd bet its more than three. All of this is lost on someone like "joe sixpack", because he's only interested in his truck, not the actual facts over thousands of trucks. As to whose fault is was... well, thats anyone's guess. Clearly, the claim that Cummins trucks are selling the brand, while at the same time failing at "rampant" rates, is some sort of conflicting conclusion. But I've come to expect this. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > Max, I think issue with the pump was the placement of it which was done by > dc. There was a article (yup, another one) a few years ago that went on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Roy >> Max, I think issue with the pump was the placement of it which was done by >> dc. There was a article (yup, another one) a few years ago that went on [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >over the warranty period means its over 100,000 miles. I don't know about >you, but having less that 1 in 5 fail in 100,000 miles isn't terrible. i hadn't thought of that but that is a good point. > I'd >like to know what the failure rate of a mechanical pump on the small block >mopars would be over 100,000 miles. another good point max. it would be helpful in the discussion to have a fair comparison. > I can personally attest to installing at >least one on my old Dart in the 100,000 I've driven it. I can't remember how [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >But I've come to expect this. >> Max, I think issue with the pump was the placement of it which was done >> by dc. There was a article (yup, another one) a few years ago that went [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > safety issue. Thus, again, there is a problem with calling something > "rampant" when the facts indicate otherwise. I don't think that they get involved unless it is a safty issue. > What bothers me about the stats we do have is that they are intentionally > vague. Something that is lost on at least one person here. 17% failure > rate over the warranty period means its over 100,000 miles. I don't know > about you, but having less that 1 in 5 fail in 100,000 miles isn't > terrible. What would be helpful is a build number. Also if 17% is a intentionally vague number... it could well be beyond 20%. It has been my experience that when numbers are vague, things are usually much worse. Roy I'd > like to know what the failure rate of a mechanical pump on the small block > mopars would be over 100,000 miles. I can personally attest to installing [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> Roy > What bothers me about the stats we do have is that they are intentionally > vague. Something that is lost on at least one person here. 17% failure [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > driven it. I can't remember how many we've put on the 63 in its 200,000+ > miles. I'd bet its more than three. That figure would be interesting to know. I put 300,000 plus miles on my '82 Ramcharger 318 engine, I remember one pump that failed and put me on the side of the road. There could have been another, I just can't remember...if there were, they didn't leave me on the road, those are memorable. Twice it left me standed, once a fuel pump, once when it was nearly new, about 4,000 miles, it left me on I-55 in the Missouri bootheel well south of Sikeston. I got to a phone, they sent a wrecker, got to the dealer and they had the ignition module replaced before the wrecker had time to get unhooked. Pretty slick. >> What bothers me about the stats we do have is that they are intentionally >> vague. Something that is lost on at least one person here. 17% failure [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > remember...if there were, they didn't leave me on the road, those are > memorable. What is memorable with the LP is when it failed you couldn't go to the dealer and get one put on. Because DC was sitting on the damn thing's. Nor could you go to your local napa and pick one up. Roy > What is memorable with the LP is when it failed you couldn't go to the > dealer and get one put on. Because DC was sitting on the damn thing's. Nor > could you go to your local napa and pick one up. Not to mention that when a gas engine's fuel pump failed, the car stopped. When the 2nd gen LP's failed, the engine also stopped, but by the time it did, a $2K injection pump was wrecked, as well. Think about it in those terms.... what else could fail and produce as much damage, dollar-wise? Timing belt on an interference engine? That's why they have regular maintenance intervals. > Ford has had the Cummins in the 450 and up models for some time. F-650 and up... never offered in the 450/550 (due to DC's exclusivity contract w/ Cummins) > F-650 and up... never offered in the 450/550 (due to DC's exclusivity > contract w/ Cummins) My mistake, I thought that contract covered only matching GVWR's. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Ford has had the Cummins in the 450 and up models for some time. > > F-650 and up... never offered in the 450/550 (due to DC's exclusivity > contract w/ Cummins) > What about reliability and fuel economy, not to mention design? Seen the > specs on the new Cummins? what ive seen is below the dmax published numbers. if youve something that shows otherwise, please share it. >> the chrysler/daimler merger is one. > > Thats not a failure of truck design or capability. i said and listed d/c f.ck ups. i never limited my original statement to truck design. >> the rampant lift pump failure issue is one. > > Rampant? According to whom? according to the cummins rep that authorized the warranty replacement of both my lift and fuel pump (i think it was around $1600) on my '01.5 cummins powered dodge ram. http://inlinediesel.com/trucks/2gen/1/index.html > Yeah, failures were frequent on the modified trucks, but even then it > wasn't "rampant". dont sugar coat it max, as it only hinders your credibility. the problem was indeed "rampant". the cummins rep told me that it was more a matter of "when" than "if". > The lift pump failures that did occur were in early ISB models i dont think my '01.5 was an "early" model max. > and the problem was cured easily. yeah, a $1,600 repair to anyone out of warranty. >> i keep hearing something about the #5 cylinder. > > So is the Cummins the best engine, or are you busy proving your claim that > you bought for the Cummins a poor decision? i dont know how you got this out of what i said max. youre acting like i said something mean about your mother. sheesh. ive already stated that i would buy another cummins before i bought another dodge. i dont care who got cummins, thats who i would buy from. that does not blind me however, to their f.ck-ups over time. .......besides, wasnt the lift pump issue a dodge issue and not a cummins issue anyway? >> dropping the jeep cherokee for the liberty is one. > > Hardly well this is just where we'll have to disagree. we are afterall, arguing OPINION. >> killing the tj is one. > > See above. see above also. >> going with a v6 is one (carries far more significance in jeep circles >> than truck groups). > > Hardly. This "jeep thing" you hin at is rubbish. probably so......TO YOU. > we do understand, we don't f.cking care. bitter max? ......and besides, i wasnt even referencing the "jeep thing". i was referencing a jeepers need for torque at low rpm for rock crawling. > If we followed your criteria for fuckups, Ford and GM would be in worse > shape than DC..... wait, they ARE. I guess DC didn't f.ck up all that > badly. theyre ALL hurting max. even dodge sales are down. as the economy continues to weaken, expect things to get even worse for the big 3. their vehicles are priced out of reach for most, and only continue to get more expensive in a time when interest rates are rising. im due to refinance my house in a couple months (goddamn ARM that was such a good idea when i bought the place!) and its gonna hurt. >> the kcar was a big hit certianly, but it died as fast as it rose. > > Sadly... you are wrong. The K platform served for over ten years, finding > itself under sports cars, luxury cars, and minivans. im not talking about the cross platform components. you mentioned the k car. > Styling was the major impact on the marketplace, as evidenced by GM and > Ford copycat design in the late 90's. agreed.....although chevy really f.cked that one up. > Ford has had the Cummins in the 450 and up models for some time. wrong. you can only get the cummins in the 650/750. not the 450. > It hasn't worked yet, they've had the 450 and up market to themselves, GM > and Dodge don't market a pickup in that segment. If Ford isn't successful > there with a Cummins, its hard to say where they would be. they dont sell the cummins in the 450. or the 550. >> todays duramax is consistantly getting better mileage than todays >> cummins, and its producing more power with less weight yet its popularity >> is dying. > > Wonder why? Its in the design, not the marketing. the design is what works. the marketing is what sells. sometimes the design plays a major role in the marketing, but not in this case. on paper the duramax is the superior design (more power, more torque at the same rpm, less weight), but the cummins name will outsell it due to the marketing of the cummins name. > Your example proves my point and kills your argument. only if you arent paying attention or are blinded by an agenda. > German diesels are better designed than hybrid Japanese Americans. probably so, but again its the marketing that sells to the consumer. > At the prices of todays pickups, Joe Sixpak has a degree or two, owns his > own busines or works for a large corporation, and knows a bit about who > makes a good engine. joe six-pack doesnt imply an illiterate unemployed red neck. i own my own business, have purchased 6 brand new chrysler trucks/suv's and one used chrysler truck in the past 7 years. i am EXACTLY what daimler chrysler depends on......a returning customer. despite considering myself successful, i am the blue collar regular joe six-pack i referred to. > True, and my point is.... the german diesel will sell as well. perhaps, but i dont agree. im sure it will sell dont get me wrong, but i dont think it will sell as good as the cummins, despite anything on paper, because of marketing. > See my comments on Joe Sixpack and his level of sophistication, above. see mine. i earn my living by breaking my back every day and im not impressed by Z looking down his nose at us as if we are inferior. its his arrogance. >> i dont agree. the top sellers were in place since long before the >> merger. > > Sadly, you are again wrong. Take a closer look at what happened AFTER the > merger and take note of the huge dip in profits DC saw from is Chrysler > Corporation. perhaps firing all the inferior american managers and replacing them with superior germans had something to do with it? > IOW, DZ is what kept Chrysler from being in the same boat as GM and Ford > today. stop generalizing. specifically what has Z done? > Joe Sixpack ain't as dumb as the two schmucks on the ads. i NEVER suggested that he was. im not referencing the satire commercials. im talking about replacing the commercials featuring Z with a respected "regular joe" american. > Except.... the trucks are being outsold by cars perhaps in overall numbers, but lets talk _dollars_. the profit margin from a single 3500 cummins would be equal to how many "calibers"? > Its not the Cummins, Nate.....its good design, finacial policy and > marketing. and i would disagree. yes, it is good design and policy/marketing, but i think the cummins plays a much larger role than youre giving it credit for. scan the camping forums sometime, youll see why folks who pull big campers bought dodge trucks. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> What about reliability and fuel economy, not to mention design? Seen the >> specs on the new Cummins? > > what ive seen is below the dmax published numbers. if youve something > that shows otherwise, please share it. Sure, why find it on your own.... http://www.everytime.cummins.com/every/news/release83.jsp "The 6.7L engine delivers more horsepower and more torque in an envelope size comparable to the 5.9L engine it replaces. The horsepower and torque rating increase from 325 horsepower to 350 and 610 lb-ft to 650 lb-ft, respectively." >> Thats not a failure of truck design or capability. > > i said and listed d/c f.ck ups. i never limited my original statement to > truck design. Nor would I expect you to limit your statements to fact. > according to the cummins rep that authorized the warranty replacement of > both my lift and fuel pump (i think it was around $1600) on my '01.5 > cummins powered dodge ram. > http://inlinediesel.com/trucks/2gen/1/index.html Great pics of your truck, this proves......? More to the point, why would/should I accept a reference from a website that you write/own? > dont sugar coat it max, as it only hinders your credibility. the problem > was indeed "rampant". the cummins rep told me that it was more a matter > of "when" than "if". Got proof or just the random ramblings of a guy trying to make you happy? >>> i keep hearing something about the #5 cylinder. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > got cummins, thats who i would buy from. that does not blind me however, > to their f.ck-ups over time. The number five cylinder isn't a DC fuckup, no matter how ya cut it. Try again. > well this is just where we'll have to disagree. we are afterall, arguing > OPINION. Only my opinion is backed by marketing analysis readily available in news releases and technical articles, and yours is...... well, yours. >> we do understand, we don't f.cking care. > > bitter max? No. More like, tired of the jeep attitude that somehow we that drive pickups don't know about engine design. What exactly would I be bitter about? > ......and besides, i wasnt even referencing the "jeep thing". i was > referencing a jeepers need for torque at low rpm for rock crawling. Right... low RPM torque that the rest of us who pull trailers, haul loads, go off road, and count on power to insure a smooth work day wouldn't know about. > theyre ALL hurting max. even dodge sales are down. Right. But DC isn't cutting executives and restructuring the company like Ford, nor is DC selling off divisions that are guaranteed moneymakers in the locomotive and finance markets, like GM. Hurting is one thing, having your stock devalued to "junk" status is quite another. DC isn't there, but Ford and GM stock has been at bargain basement prices for the better part of a year. > as the economy continues to weaken, News flash for you, the economy isn't weak. In fact, unemployment is at a reasonable, if not low, level. Those of us who are working are not lacking for work, and aren't in the least bit worried about our jobs being phased out. > expect things to get even worse for the big 3. their vehicles are priced > out of reach for most, and only continue to get more expensive in a time > when interest rates are rising. Actually, the Fed declined to raise interest rates the last time they met..... catch a newspaper in the last month? > im due to refinance my house in a couple months (goddamn ARM that was such > a good idea when i bought the place!) and its gonna hurt. Just because you made bad financial decisions doesn't mean the country is in a bad economy. >>> the kcar was a big hit certianly, but it died as fast as it rose. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > im not talking about the cross platform components. you mentioned the k > car. If you disregard what the Kcar did for Chrysler over the decade after its release, you fail to take into account the true scope of the design impact. But hey, why bother with all the facts when a certain few will do the job? The fact is, the K platform was under every FWD car they built in the 80's, except the Charger/Omni. It was the basis for the LeBaron Coupe, the Minivans, and all the K derivitives, like the Dodge 400, 600, etc. IOW, Nate, you fail to understand the almost pervasive nature of the K platform. What it did for Chrysler was provide a chassis that had more versitility than the pickup frames built by any of the big three. > agreed.....although chevy really f.cked that one up. No doubt about that. The new Silverado actually looks decent... of course, it looks like 1988 with a couple of nice ribs up the hood..... >> It hasn't worked yet, they've had the 450 and up market to themselves, GM >> and Dodge don't market a pickup in that segment. If Ford isn't successful >> there with a Cummins, its hard to say where they would be. > > they dont sell the cummins in the 450. or the 550. They haven't exactly dominated sales in the 650 and up market either. Of course, I guess the Freightliner FL series with the Mercedes diesel is a player in that market. > the design is what works. the marketing is what sells. sometimes the > design plays a major role in the marketing, but not in this case. on > paper the duramax is the superior design (more power, more torque at the > same rpm, less weight), but the cummins name will outsell it due to the > marketing of the cummins name. No.... on paper, the Duramax design sucks a.s. In reality, its done better than most of us expected. In marketing, the only thing saving it is the reduced compression that allows more fuel to be burned without blowing the heads off the engine, thus they can pull higher numbers. > joe six-pack doesnt imply an illiterate unemployed red neck. i own my own > business, have purchased 6 brand new chrysler trucks/suv's and one used > chrysler truck in the past 7 years. i am EXACTLY what daimler chrysler > depends on......a returning customer. despite considering myself > successful, i am the blue collar regular joe six-pack i referred to. Maybe Joe Sixpack is more ignorant than I realized. > perhaps, but i dont agree. im sure it will sell dont get me wrong, but i > dont think it will sell as good as the cummins, despite anything on paper, > because of marketing. Do some research on Freightliner sales, and see what you find. > perhaps firing all the inferior american managers and replacing them with > superior germans had something to do with it? You'll notice that Zeitsche reversed that trend, thus my remarks about his skills in managing an auto maker. > stop generalizing. specifically what has Z done? I believe I covered that already. Simply put, he returned Chrysler to profitability from its post merger slump, restarted the aggressive design changes that delivered the Crossfire, Charger, Calibre, Magnum, and soon the Nitro. In the performance arena, his leadership put the Challenger on the road to reality, and re-introduced the Hemi moniker to marketing. In engineering, his tenure produced the new generation of Chrysler RWD engines, and vehicles. His work was so well done, his presence was demanded in Germany to fix what his mentor could not..... Mercedes quality control problems, and subsequent slump in sales and profit. DZ's latest good move was to acknowledge the findings of an investigation into corruption in the Mercedes arm of DC, and cleaned house there as well. Try reading about the man before dumping on him. >> Except.... the trucks are being outsold by cars > > perhaps in overall numbers, but lets talk _dollars_. the profit margin > from a single 3500 cummins would be equal to how many "calibers"? Doesn't matter. You think the trucks saved Chrysler... they didn't, and you've offered no proof otherwise. > and i would disagree. yes, it is good design and policy/marketing, but i > think the cummins plays a much larger role than youre giving it credit > for. scan the camping forums sometime, youll see why folks who pull big > campers bought dodge trucks. Try looking at sales figures, and you'll find the Cummins is not anywhere near the big seller you think it is. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> What about reliability and fuel economy, not to mention design? Seen the >> specs on the new Cummins? [quoted text clipped - 183 lines] > for. scan the camping forums sometime, youll see why folks who pull big > campers bought dodge trucks. > Sure, why find it on your own.... YOU made the statement. if i knew you were going to be an a.s about it i wouldnt have bothered to ask. > http://www.everytime.cummins.com/every/news/release83.jsp > > "The 6.7L engine delivers more horsepower and more torque in an envelope > size comparable to the 5.9L engine it replaces. The horsepower and torque > rating increase from 325 horsepower to 350 and 610 lb-ft to 650 lb-ft, > respectively." and how is that superior to the dmax which is doing it at less weight? it was afterall, YOU who made the big deal about more power from less weight, or does that only apply to the argument when YOU are using it to your benefit? >> i said and listed d/c f.ck ups. i never limited my original statement to >> truck design. > > Nor would I expect you to limit your statements to fact. NOPE! you arent going to turn that on me. i made general statements and you responded to them. when i called you on it, you try to spin your way off your own statements by throwing personal insults. nice try. of course, if you didnt try to backpeddle and spin you wouldnt be the max we have all grown to know and love. :-) >> according to the cummins rep that authorized the warranty replacement of >> both my lift and fuel pump (i think it was around $1600) on my '01.5 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Great pics of your truck, this proves......? More to the point, why > would/should I accept a reference from a website that you write/own? it "proves" that the issue was NOT limited to modified trucks as you ridiculously claim. my truck was 100% stock and the LP died at around 99,990 miles or so. the fuel pump was still good, but cummins replaced it anyway "just incase" (cummins advisors words) since my warranty was so close to expiration. >> dont sugar coat it max, as it only hinders your credibility. the problem >> was indeed "rampant". the cummins rep told me that it was more a matter >> of "when" than "if". > > Got proof or just the random ramblings of a guy trying to make you happy? lol.....youre in such blinding denial that it shows just how full of sh.t your entire argument is. go into the camping forums and tell the nice folks there your totally ridiculous statement about LPs being limited to modified trucks, and how failures were rare amongst stock trucks. im really disappointed in you max. to disagree is one thing. to argue a point when everyone reading knows better shows youre either completely stupid (i dont believe that) or blinded by loyalty of some kind. regardless, you sir are completely WRONG on this issue. > The number five cylinder isn't a DC fuckup, no matter how ya cut it. Try > again. if it was in a d/c truck honored by a d/c warranty like it or not it is ultimately a d/c f.ck up. YOU try again. > Only my opinion is backed by marketing analysis readily available in news > releases and technical articles, and yours is...... well, yours. oh yes. now you have news releases and tech articles limiting LP failures to modified trucks? is roy dreaming about carrying spares around? > tired of the jeep attitude sheesh....grow up. > Right... low RPM torque that the rest of us who pull trailers, haul loads, > go off road, and count on power to insure a smooth work day wouldn't know > about. i never said sh.t about truck owners. i was referencing what the v6 does to JEEPERS. > Right. But DC isn't cutting executives and restructuring the company like > Ford not yet, and hopefully they wont. they are hardly the profitable company you suggest though. > News flash for you, the economy isn't weak. news flash for YOU. the economy is weakening. > Actually, the Fed declined to raise interest rates the last time they > met..... catch a newspaper in the last month? not raising it does not mean that it isnt to high. its still MUCH higher than 2 years ago. > Just because you made bad financial decisions doesn't mean the country is > in a bad economy. sheesh there you go. at the time it wasnt a bad financial decision, but either way its no big deal. some of us earn enough to soak it up. some of us dont have to wait on an inheritance to buy new trucks. some of us do what we have to in order to maintain our lifestyle, but paying interest will ALWAYS hurt. > If you disregard what the Kcar did for Chrysler over the decade after its > release, you fail to take into account the true scope of the design > impact. all i said was that it fell as fast as it rose. taking whats left and making other cars from the parts isnt the same thing as the k car doing it for the company. > But hey, why bother with all the facts when a certain few will do the job? heh.....its never stopped you before, i dont know why i would expect different of you now. > They haven't exactly dominated sales in the 650 and up market either. Of > course, I guess the Freightliner FL series with the Mercedes diesel is a > player in that market. those who buy freightliners are typical joe six-packs. they dont buy into the marketing like the average truck buyer does. > No.... on paper, the Duramax design sucks a.s. i disagree. more power, more torque at the same rpm, with better fuel economy. on paper the dmax is the one to buy. >> joe six-pack doesnt imply an illiterate unemployed red neck. i own my >> own business, have purchased 6 brand new chrysler trucks/suv's and one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Maybe Joe Sixpack is more ignorant than I realized. nice spin off the point there. you have bought ONE new chrysler vehicle in the last 7 years. i have bought 7 new vehicles (i forgot about the wifeys cherokee the first time around) and 1 used one. i am exactly what d/c and other companies need, returning customers.....and i find Z ignorant. regardless of the merit of your argument, who is more important to d/c.....someone who buys 1 vehicle in 7 years or someone who buys 7? now spin off that with an insult. > Do some research on Freightliner sales, and see what you find. corporate executives typically buy freightliners for their fleets, NOT joe six-pack which is who i have referenced from the start. >> stop generalizing. specifically what has Z done? > > I believe I covered that already. i dont think you have. youve said hes done great things, but havent been specific. > Try reading about the man before dumping on him. im not dumping on him, i simply find him arrogant. although youve retracted it since, you agreed with me at one point. >> perhaps in overall numbers, but lets talk _dollars_. the profit margin >> from a single 3500 cummins would be equal to how many "calibers"? > > Doesn't matter. it DOES matter. if i sell you 3 widgets from which i profit $1 each from, or one superwidget from which i profit $4, from where have i made the most money? im not saying anything conclusive.....im saying that to reach an accurate conclusion, you need these figures. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > YOU made the statement. if i knew you were going to be an a.s about it i > wouldnt have bothered to ask. Much like your reaction to Mike Simmons? > and how is that superior to the dmax which is doing it at less weight? it > was afterall, YOU who made the big deal about more power from less weight, > or does that only apply to the argument when YOU are using it to your > benefit? If you recall, the Dmax is 6.6l, while the Cummins currently is 5.9l. The Dmax is now all but maxed out on reliable power, while the Cummins 5.9 design could go quite a bit farther, if not for emissions. Now, with the 6.7l design, not only can the Cummins expand the amount of power, it can do it without emissions problems. Thus, the Cummins is superior in that it is at the low end of its power ability with the new design. The Dmax is all but Dmaxed out. Shall we also discuss the little detail you brought up? Why not, lets talk about how an inline six (you jeepers love them, right??) is better at efficiency and torque from a given displacement than a V8 design of similar displacement. Thus, as lone as the Dmax is a V8, and the Cummins is an inline six, the Cummins will be superior in design. With less moving parts, and a longer durability record, the inline design will always be better than a V8, unless you plan to rev the crap out of the engine, in which case, you should stick to the OHC V8 motors. Simply put, the Dmax is defying the inherent nature of a diesel engine, and at some pointin the evolution of uprates, the design won't stand up to the power expectations. > it "proves" that the issue was NOT limited to modified trucks as you > ridiculously claim. Pictures of your truick prove nothing. I found no references to the lift pump. > my truck was 100% stock and the LP died at around 99,990 miles or so. So with nearly 100k on the odo, its a know problem? LOL > the fuel pump was still good, but cummins replaced it anyway "just incase" > (cummins advisors words) since my warranty was so close to expiration. So it died or it was replaced as a preventitive measure? Spin or backpedal? > lol.....youre in such blinding denial that it shows just how full of sh.t > your entire argument is. go into the camping forums and tell the nice > folks there your totally ridiculous statement about LPs being limited to > modified trucks, and how failures were rare amongst stock trucks. I don't take forum debate as statistical evidence. Its not blind denial, its a request for facts. I won't take the word of a bunch of campers or regulars here in reference to a failure rate thats called, "known", "pervasive" or any other description. Come up with statistical evidence, and I'll address that number. > im really disappointed in you max. You always are, nothing new there. Its almost a badge of honor to hear that.... except, I really don't care. > to disagree is one thing. to argue a point when everyone reading knows > better shows youre either completely stupid (i dont believe that) or > blinded by loyalty of some kind. regardless, you sir are completely WRONG > on this issue. Failing to provide proof will get you the reply I've given. Its not loyalty, nor stupidity. Its a lack of facts on your part that leads to my conclusions. >> The number five cylinder isn't a DC fuckup, no matter how ya cut it. Try >> again. > > if it was in a d/c truck honored by a d/c warranty like it or not it is > ultimately a d/c f.ck up. YOU try again. So DC f.cked up by putting the engine with a #5 cylinder problem in its truck... OR..... DC will f.ck up if it removes the engine with a #5 cylinder problem from its truck lineup. Pick one. > oh yes. now you have news releases and tech articles limiting LP failures > to modified trucks? is roy dreaming about carrying spares around? Are you and Roy dreaming about statistical evidence, or does one of you have a failure rate? > sheesh....grow up. Sage advice from one who should follow same. > not yet, and hopefully they wont. they are hardly the profitable company > you suggest though. Until this year, they were the ONLY profitable company, and this year, ONLY the Chrysler end of the company is struggling, and not so badly at that. >> News flash for you, the economy isn't weak. > > news flash for YOU. The economy is weakening. Sorry, its not. One only need look at the Fed and the actions it takes. No action means the economy is balanced in a normal rate of growth. >> Actually, the Fed declined to raise interest rates the last time they >> met..... catch a newspaper in the last month? > > not raising it does not mean that it isnt to high. its still MUCH higher > than 2 years ago. Interest rates are not too high or too low in terms of the Federal Reserve. They are a limiting or accelerating factor in the economic growth. No action means the economy is growing at a steady rate. Lowering them would indicate a sagging economy, raising them would mean an inflationary economy. Either condition is a weak economy. But we don't have either of those right now. > sheesh there you go. at the time it wasnt a bad financial decision, but > either way its no big deal. some of us earn enough to soak it up. some > of us dont have to wait on an inheritance to buy new trucks. some of us > do what we have to in order to maintain our lifestyle, but paying interest > will ALWAYS hurt. And some of us get lucky and buy new trucks with inheritance, rather than pay back taxes and mortgages. > all i said was that it fell as fast as it rose. taking whats left and > making other cars from the parts isnt the same thing as the k car doing it > for the company. Again, you show your lack of insight into the cost of design and manufacturing. > those who buy freightliners are typical joe six-packs. they dont buy into > the marketing like the average truck buyer does. Ok, so if the Freightliner buyer is a typical "joe sixpack", and the typical Joe Sixpack wouldn't buy a pickup with a german diesel, why is it that he WOULD buy a Freightliner with a german diesel? > i disagree. more power, more torque at the same rpm, with better fuel > economy. on paper the dmax is the one to buy. Apparantly you look no further than the hp and torque ratings when purchasing equipment. > nice spin off the point there. you have bought ONE new chrysler vehicle > in the last 7 years. So? > i have bought 7 new vehicles (i forgot about the wifeys cherokee the > first time around) and 1 used one. i am exactly what d/c and other > companies need, returning customers.....and i find Z ignorant. Well, you are still wrong about Zeitsche, despite your purchasing prowess. Again, I guess Joe Sixpack is not as smart as I thought. > regardless of the merit of your argument, who is more important to > d/c.....someone who buys 1 vehicle in 7 years or someone who buys 7? Neither..... they sell to a market place, not one individual. >> Do some research on Freightliner sales, and see what you find. > > corporate executives typically buy freightliners for their fleets, NOT joe > six-pack which is who i have referenced from the start. Except that the particular Freightliner I'm referencing is the Sprinter, which is aimed at the small businessman, one "Joe Sixpack". > it DOES matter. if i sell you 3 widgets from which i profit $1 each from, > or one superwidget from which i profit $4, from where have i made the most > money? Well, certainly not from the 70k Cummins trucks when compared to an overall volume of 300,000 vehicles in the Chrysler end alone, not mentioning the Mercedes sales. > im not saying anything conclusive..... Finally, a correct statement. When you bring some statistical backing, you may have conclusive evidence. > im saying that to reach an accurate conclusion, you need these figures. Quite true. So, when can we expect accurate figures, not "known problem", "Cummins sells trucks," and "campers forums"? SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Sure, why find it on your own.... > [quoted text clipped - 175 lines] > im not saying anything conclusive.....im saying that to reach an accurate > conclusion, you need these figures. >> YOU made the statement. if i knew you were going to be an a.s about it i >> wouldnt have bothered to ask. > > Much like your reaction to Mike Simmons? my response to mike was my reaction to what i perceived as a shot at me, to which i still feel there was to a certain degree. > If you recall, the Dmax is 6.6l, while the Cummins currently is 5.9l. displacement is irrelevant to your earlier argument. your earlier stance was a power to weight ratio. now when that fails, you throw in more criteria. > The Dmax is now all but maxed out on reliable power, while the Cummins 5.9 > design could go quite a bit farther, if not for emissions. "if not for".....nice try! > Now, with the 6.7l design, not only can the Cummins expand the amount of > power, it can do it without emissions problems. and what is going to withstand the power well enough for a factory warranty? > Thus, the Cummins is superior in that it is at the low end of its power > ability with the new design. The Dmax is all but Dmaxed out. the dmax is standing up quite well to power. check the 1000+ ft. lbs duramax in the video section of my website. http://InlineDiesel.com/multimedia > Shall we also discuss the little detail you brought up? Why not, lets talk > about how an inline six (you jeepers love them, right??) is better at > efficiency and torque from a given displacement than a V8 design of > similar displacement. but there is a HUGE difference here in comparing the dmax to the cummins and comparing the jeep v6 to the jeep |6. the dmax makes its SUPERIOR torque at the SAME 1600 rpm as the cummins. the jeep v6 is much higher than the jeep |6. > the Dmax is defying the inherent nature of a diesel engine and quite honestly its doing it QUITE WELL! i wont own one.....i like the inline 6 of the cummins....but ill still give the dmax every bit of credit that it deserves. that you wont once again shows that your importance is in your agenda. > Pictures of your truick prove nothing. I found no references to the lift > pump. http://tinyurl.com/ybwqz8 now what max, you just gonna snip it in hopes that it will go away? do you trust what tom says? i do. > So with nearly 100k on the odo, its a know problem? LOL that was mine. roys was much lower, in fact i think he said the average was around 12k. do you trust what roy says max? i do. >> the fuel pump was still good, but cummins replaced it anyway "just >> incase" (cummins advisors words) since my warranty was so close to >> expiration. > > So it died or it was replaced as a preventitive measure? Spin or > backpedal? apparently the almighty max needs to learn the difference in a lift pump and an injection pump. my lift pump was bad and replaced. my injector pump was replaced "just in case" (another reason im so loyal to cummins, their customer service!). i could explain the difference to you in the lift and injeciton pumps, but youll spin off it instead of acknowledging. therefore, based on the truth ive told you, it is neither spin or backpedal. it is truth, only you dont seem to realize the difference in the lift pump and the injection pump. > I don't take forum debate as statistical evidence. who said anything about debate??? its owners helping owners. .....of course, i wouldnt expect you to accept anything outside your agenda, regardless of merit. > Its not blind denial, its a request for facts. which i have given you, only you refuse to acknowledge anything outside your own box. > I won't take the word of a bunch of campers or regulars here in reference > to a failure rate thats called, "known", "pervasive" or any other > description. ok, i guess tom is full of sh.t as far as youre concerned then. http://tinyurl.com/ybwqz8 > Come up with statistical evidence, and I'll address that number. lol no you wont, youll spin off it. > Failing to provide proof will get you the reply I've given. Its not > loyalty, nor stupidity. Its a lack of facts on your part that leads to my > conclusions. uh-huh.....just like you can get the cummins in the f450/f550 according to you, as well as a 650 ft. lb cummins in a dodge according to you. <roll eyes> > So DC f.cked up by putting the engine with a #5 cylinder problem in its > truck... yes, it was a f.ck-up. ANY widespread issue is a f.ck up. > DC will f.ck up if it removes the engine with a #5 cylinder problem from > its truck lineup. > > Pick one. i dont have to pick one, its BOTH. the latter being the larger f.ck up. i dont even know what the #5 cylinder issue is, only that i read about it a lot on the camper forums. > Are you and Roy dreaming about statistical evidence yes that must be it. in fact, roy emailed me a couple days ago and said "hey, lets f.ck with max" <roll eyes> > Interest rates are not too high or too low in terms of the Federal > Reserve. they have risen in the last 2 years substantially, and will only continue to rise with whats coming around the corner (north korea, another topic entirely). > And some of us get lucky and buy new trucks with inheritance you were lucky she died? dude, thats sick, even for a childish internet argument. > Again, you show your lack of insight into the cost of design and > manufacturing. and you totally overlook the federal bail out....the one that keeps dodge from being able to offer anything to compete with the f450/f550 in the united states (although they sell it in mexico). > Ok, so if the Freightliner buyer is a typical "joe sixpack", and the > typical Joe Sixpack wouldn't buy a pickup with a german diesel, why is it > that he WOULD buy a Freightliner with a german diesel? the freightliner buyer is NOT the typical joe six pack. read it again, typo......but feel free to get whatever mileage from it that you think you can. > Apparantly you look no further than the hp and torque ratings when > purchasing equipment. if that were the case i would not have bought 3 cummins dodge trucks. > Well, you are still wrong about Zeitsche, despite your purchasing prowess. hey max, OPINIONS arent "right" or "wrong". theyre OPINIONS. sheesh! > Again, I guess Joe Sixpack is not as smart as I thought. yes, we cant all be as smart as someone claiming that the ISB is available in the f450/f550, that you can go buy a dodge with 650 ft. lbs, and that the lift pump issue is NOT widespread afterall! :-) > Except that the particular Freightliner I'm referencing is the Sprinter, > which is aimed at the small businessman, one "Joe Sixpack". its still typically a fleet type vehicle purchased my corporate bean counters that will most likely never even see the vehicle purchased. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > Sure, why find it on your own.... > > http://www.everytime.cummins.com/every/news/release83.jsp I find this interesting because dodge and Cummins don't seem to agree on engine power output. on the Cummins link above they claim 350hp and 650 torque on the 6.7 http://www.dodge.com/en/chassis_cab/index.html but on this dodge link, dodge is claiming 305hp and 610 torque on a 6.7 cab and chassis truck. Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. >>> What about reliability and fuel economy, not to mention design? Seen the >>> specs on the new Cummins? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > rating increase from 325 horsepower to 350 and 610 lb-ft to 650 lb-ft, > respectively." >> Sure, why find it on your own.... >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but on this dodge link, dodge is claiming 305hp and 610 torque on a 6.7 > cab and chassis truck. apparently dodge requires the engine be detuned for their application. ok, what now max? sorta REALLY blows your argument out of the water. now the dmax on paper is FAR superior, making WAY more torque at the same rpm from a lighter engine. wow, thats less power and the same torque as my '05. .....now im not about to jump from my cummins to any dmax, but once again it does show the merit of max's argument. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >>> Sure, why find it on your own.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > apparently dodge requires the engine be detuned for their application. if so i dont see why, the nv5600 and g56 have been holding up well on the bombed trucks as far as i know. autos are always a problem with performance upgrades but obviously they can be built to hold the power so why dodge wouldnt build it that way from the factory to accomodate the new engine i wouldnt know. > ok, what now max? sorta REALLY blows your argument out of the water. now > the dmax on paper is FAR superior, making WAY more torque at the same rpm > from a lighter engine. > > wow, thats less power and the same torque as my '05. i said the same thing...im waiting to see if in a year or 2 it doesnt get unleashed to what Cummins claims. im guessing, but could it be an auto trans issue holding it back? or maybe who ever wrote the code for their website has the info wrong or (heaven forbid any one do this) typo'd. i dont know thats just merely speculation on my part. > .....now im not about to jump from my cummins to any dmax, but once again > it does show the merit of max's argument. i dont blame you. i didnt post that to debunk max i was just posting a curious controdiction between the 2 companies websites as i had noticed it months ago. >> apparently dodge requires the engine be detuned for their application. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > why dodge wouldnt build it that way from the factory to accomodate the new > engine i wouldnt know. i can only guess (max, this is MY OPINION) that it would be to keep the warranty claims down. its a real shame, we all know the cummins is built far better than the d-max and as far as the engine it can handle a lot more. perhaps chevy is just willing to take the hit on the warranty claims in order to lay claim to having the most powerful diesel. >> wow, thats less power and the same torque as my '05. > > i said the same thing...im waiting to see if in a year or 2 it doesnt get > unleashed to what Cummins claims. that would be sweet to see, but i think dodge would have to rebuild a lot of the truck around it. > im guessing, but could it be an auto trans issue holding it back? that would be my guess, although i was told that the stock 48RE was good for 850 ft. lbs. by the tranny tech at my local dodge dealership. > i didnt post that to debunk max i understand completely.......i just couldnt give up the opportunity to show the omnipotent one that even he can be wrong sometimes. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com well this is a little off this topic, but a while back you asked about a toy hauler.. how did that turn out? im curious as to how functional they are for family camping. as i am torn between the toy haulers or a more conventinal 5ver when i get ready to get one. (still a few years away though) and to stay with the topic of this thread *grin* if ford and dodge both used the cummins isb i'd still drive the dodge! Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > well this is a little off this topic, but a while back you asked about a > toy hauler.. how did that turn out? im still looking, but decided to wait until november/december. camper dealers are more willing to deal when its 10 below zero, like snowmobile dealers are more willing to deal in june. :-) > im curious as to how functional they are for family camping. as i am torn > between the toy haulers or a more conventinal 5ver when i get ready to get > one. (still a few years away though) i guess it depends most upon your toys. if it werent for my 4 wheelers i wouldnt go camping nearly as much, so without them i really wouldnt even need a camper at all. i like going up into the mountains, setting up the camper, and hitting the trail. if you have toys you need a toy hauler, unless you plan on pulling tandem trailers. in all reality the truck camper works best for the places i go, but its just not quite big enough for when the whole family comes along. i could upgrade to a bigger truck camper, but it still wouldnt be big enough. id _really_ like to just get a class c camper and pull my enclosed trailer with it, but class c 4x4s are rare and really over-priced. that said, and to keep on topic, if the earth roamer (based on a 4x4 F550 http://earthroamer.com/main_truck/vehicles.html ) gets the cummins ill spend the $200,000 on one. :-) ......see, i DID tie that in to be on topic. lol SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com see my problem is I don't need another truck to license be taxed on and maintain. with a slidein I know my wife would never go, they just don't have the room. and I've got to consider her comfort too. I know I wouldn't be able to tow the boat and camper tandem (30 foot of boat trailer behind 30 foot of camper is probably a little excessive) the golf cart or a motorcycle or a sidebyside would be more what id like to take along. heck even jet skis could roll up in and avoid the whole tandem thing. let me know how it works out for you, if you would. id be interested to know how the family likes it when they are using it as a camper ect. Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > see my problem is I don't need another truck to license be taxed on and > maintain. gotcha. i on the other hand, enjoy doing just that for some damn reason. :-) > with a slidein I know my wife would never go, they just don't have the > room. and I've got to consider her comfort too. they have some really nice once, and some really big ones. if it was just me and the wifey what i have now would be perfect. > I know I wouldn't be able to tow the boat and camper tandem (30 foot of > boat trailer behind 30 foot of camper is probably a little excessive) the > golf cart or a motorcycle or a sidebyside would be more what id like to > take along. heck even jet skis could roll up in and avoid the whole tandem > thing. i didnt even think about a boat. would be awful tough there without going tandem or a truck camper. if its just you and the wife, perhaps you should consider some of the larger truck campers with slide outs. i didnt go that route because as the wife and i travel we take turns driving while the other sleeps in the camper. with the slide outs slidden in it takes up to much room and blocks bathroom access, etc. > let me know how it works out for you, if you would. id be interested to > know how the family likes it when they are using it as a camper ect. will do. that earthroamer sure would be nice with a cummins! :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> with a slidein I know my wife would never go, they just don't have the >> room. and I've got to consider her comfort too. > > they have some really nice once, and some really big ones. if it was just > me and the wifey what i have now would be perfect. if i didnt want this to be family events i'd get a slidein for me and the boys. like i said me and tara have looked at slide-ins and came to the decision that they (even with the slides) dont have the room she wants. another snag with a slide-in is my truck is a 2500 it doesnt take a whole lot of slidein to be pushing upper limits of payload capacity. >> I know I wouldn't be able to tow the boat and camper tandem (30 foot of >> boat trailer behind 30 foot of camper is probably a little excessive) the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the other sleeps in the camper. with the slide outs slidden in it takes > up to much room and blocks bathroom access, etc. well that was one of the reasons we got the diesel liberty. it has the trailer tow capacity to pull the boat. and does it fairly well, atleast as well as you can expect a small truck to handle that size trailer. we have used it on the past couple of holiday weekends to launch the boat at the local lake. its much easier to park that combonation in a overly crowded launch parking lot than it is with the lwb dodge. >> let me know how it works out for you, if you would. id be interested to >> know how the family likes it when they are using it as a camper ect. > > will do. that earthroamer sure would be nice with a cummins! :-) thanks man, and yea that looks like a nice rig....if only it had a good engine *grin* > i can only guess (max, this is MY OPINION) that it would be to keep the > warranty claims down. its a real shame, we all know the cummins is built > far better than the d-max and as far as the engine it can handle a lot > more. perhaps chevy is just willing to take the hit on the warranty claims > in order to lay claim to having the most powerful diesel. But Nate, you have countless times said that the Dmax was the superior engine, just look at its hp rating..... So, which was your above statement, backpedal or spin? SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> apparently dodge requires the engine be detuned for their application. >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > i understand completely.......i just couldnt give up the opportunity to > show the omnipotent one that even he can be wrong sometimes. >> i can only guess (max, this is MY OPINION) that it would be to keep the >> warranty claims down. its a real shame, we all know the cummins is built [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But Nate, you have countless times said that the Dmax was the superior > engine, just look at its hp rating..... WRONG. i clearly stated that it was superior ON PAPER (relevant becasue that is what bean counters look at). > So, which was your above statement, backpedal or spin? it was spin, but it was MAX trying to spin a victory out of his own failure to comprehend my clear statement. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> But Nate, you have countless times said that the Dmax was the superior >> engine, just look at its hp rating..... > > WRONG. i clearly stated that it was superior ON PAPER (relevant becasue > that is what bean counters look at). Its not a good diesel on paper. Good diesels come in inline six design, and have cast iron heads. Good diesels do not require grid heaters AND glow plugs. The Dmax doesn't have the durability ratings of the Cummins, and has more parts to fail. Last, its a light duty diesel competing against a medium duty diesel. And you admit all this in your statement: >>>we all know the cummins is built far better than the d-max and as far as >>>the engine it can handle a lot more. perhaps chevy is just willing to >>>take the hit on the warranty claims in order to lay claim to having the >>>most powerful diesel. You squashed your own point again. Moving on. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> i can only guess (max, this is MY OPINION) that it would be to keep the >>> warranty claims down. its a real shame, we all know the cummins is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it was spin, but it was MAX trying to spin a victory out of his own > failure to comprehend my clear statement. > Its not a good diesel on paper. more power, less weight, BETTER MILEAGE....it is PERFECT on paper. >>>>we all know the cummins is built far better than the d-max and as far as >>>>the engine it can handle a lot more. perhaps chevy is just willing to >>>>take the hit on the warranty claims in order to lay claim to having the >>>>most powerful diesel. > > You squashed your own point again. WRONG.....because i clearly differentiated between the two (on paper which the bean counters look at, to real world bottom line). i dont however, expect you to acknowledge ANYTHING, including the RAMPANT lift pump issue that you claim doesnt exist. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > ok, what now max? sorta REALLY blows your argument out of the water. Hardly. You are aware, in your vast knowledge, that a diesel can be fueled to meet specific levels of power at any given RPM, are you not? Do you think Cummins arbitrarily picked specs that match the DMax? Cummins tuned it to those specs to beat the Dmax. Rest assured, the engine will have those specs when it hits the street. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> Sure, why find it on your own.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > .....now im not about to jump from my cummins to any dmax, but once again > it does show the merit of max's argument. >> ok, what now max? sorta REALLY blows your argument out of the water. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it to those specs to beat the Dmax. Rest assured, the engine will have > those specs when it hits the street. your claim was that it was available and the dodge site says otherwise. you f.cked up max, just OWN IT. when/if the engine is actually released, THEN you can make those statements. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > your claim was that it was available and the dodge site says otherwise. > you f.cked up max, just OWN IT. > > when/if the engine is actually released, THEN you can make those > statements. I believe TomL has already addressed this issue, and I was correct, it will be available in the DMax matching ratings. Have a nice day. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> ok, what now max? sorta REALLY blows your argument out of the water. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > when/if the engine is actually released, THEN you can make those > statements. > I believe TomL has already addressed this issue, and I was correct, it > will be available in the DMax matching ratings. you were NOT correct. WILL BE is not the same thing as available as you claimed, and its certainly subject to change at any point prior to. yet another f.ck up, own it max. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> I believe TomL has already addressed this issue, and I was correct, it >> will be available in the DMax matching ratings. > > you were NOT correct. WILL BE is not the same thing as available as you > claimed, and its certainly subject to change at any point prior to. yet > another f.ck up, own it max. Since the 6.7 engine is not currently available in ANY rating , my info was correct. Try a remedial course in grammar. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> I believe TomL has already addressed this issue, and I was correct, it >> will be available in the DMax matching ratings. > > you were NOT correct. WILL BE is not the same thing as available as you > claimed, and its certainly subject to change at any point prior to. yet > another f.ck up, own it max. > Since the 6.7 engine is not currently available in ANY rating , my info > was correct. NOT what you said before. we were comparing the cummins to the duramax.....not what might happen in the future. nice try, miserable failure. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > but on this dodge link, dodge is claiming 305hp and 610 torque on a 6.7 > cab and chassis truck. The C&C truck is definitely a de-tuned engine, because of the transmission options. Starting in January, the regular 2500/3500 pickups will be available with the 350/650 engine, when equipped with the new 68RFE auto. 6spd manuals will still be 325/610, I believe. Oh, and BTW - the Dmax is also de-tuned in manual trans configurations, too :) why do you think they are detuning the engine for the standards? the clutch or another reason? Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. >> but on this dodge link, dodge is claiming 305hp and 610 torque on a 6.7 >> cab and chassis truck. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Oh, and BTW - the Dmax is also de-tuned in manual trans configurations, > too :) > why do you think they are detuning the engine for the standards? the > clutch or another reason? Not sure... it may be due to the DM flywheel, but I suspect the torque rating of the G56 isn't up to 650ft.lbs. > the kcar was a big hit certianly, but it died as fast as it rose. the > restyle was great, but surely you dont think it would have been as > successful with a foreign diesel? Have any of you folks *ever* driven a k-car????? It was junk. >> the kcar was a big hit certianly, but it died as fast as it rose. the >> restyle was great, but surely you dont think it would have been as >> successful with a foreign diesel? > > Have any of you folks *ever* driven a k-car????? It was junk. Agreed but it was cheap to build and dc sold a sh.t load of them. >>> the kcar was a big hit certianly, but it died as fast as it rose. the >>> restyle was great, but surely you dont think it would have been as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Agreed but it was cheap to build and dc sold a sh.t load of them. I rated it as pretty close to the Escort. Not real good, not horrible either. By todays standards, awful. >> dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > running anywhere near the black ink, and isn't scurrying for solutions to > insolvancy. They must understand something about the American consumer. Amen Max! DC and Cummins just entered into a long-term agreement for a new LD diesel for pickups and SUV's... see the Cummins website. Also, the 6.7L ISB was developed mainly for DC so it is doubtful that DC will drop the MD Cummins anytime soon. When I visited the Cummins MRD plant in Columbus in August, they were already working on some new stuff for DC which is a good sign that DC and Cummins will remain together. Finally, Dieter Zietsche is anything but arrogant! Anyone who knows the man will tell you the same. Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke. Mike > Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all > about. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> commercials of an elitist german answering consumer questions actually >> appeals to joe six-pack. > Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke. im stating my opnion of him. i find him arrogant, just as i find you to be an a.shole. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com Damn Nate, what the hell has gotten into you? >> Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke. > > im stating my opnion of him. i find him arrogant, just as i find you to > be an a.shole. > Damn Nate, what the hell has gotten into you? somebody replying: "Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke." in response to my personal opinion of someone that neither of us knows. perhaps i misread mikes intentions, thats sometimes easy to do when all you have is printed text in front of you, but it sure looked insulting to me. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >>> Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke. >> >> im stating my opnion of him. i find him arrogant, just as i find you to >> be an a.shole. >> Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke. > >im stating my opnion of him. i find him arrogant, just as i find you to be >an a.shole. wow, you gotta go quite a ways to see mike simmons as an a.shole. quite a ways off track that is. i think max is right on. there would be complaints from some circles, but the german diesel would win even those people over. don't get me wrong, i love the cummins, i just can't write off the mercedes. have talked to a lot of very knowledgable people lately and have found no one that has a single bad thing to say about it. i8t wold work out fine after the initial complaints. it isn't an international and it deosn't have aluminum heads after all. >>> Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > fine after the initial complaints. it isn't an international and it > deosn't have aluminum heads after all. I don't do many "me too" posts but this one is good for me as well on all points. With some trepidation I have a new Freightliner M2 on order with the Mercedes engine, 7.2L 300 hp, FSO 8406 six speed. We ( I ) wanted the C series Cummins but it's not available in the 106 chassis with hydrodraulic brakes. Freightliner isn't accepting orders with the Cat engine right now, don't know what's up with that. Even the Kenworth rep didn't have a negative thing to say about the Mercedes power plant, we'll see. I DID get the order in time to avoid the '07 emmissions standards. >>> Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >fine after the initial complaints. it isn't an international and it >deosn't have aluminum heads after all. I drove a MB turbo diesel for a while and loved it.. great engine, IMO... I'd also have to factor in the it was an early 80's engine and must have undergone several improvements since then.. Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm >>im stating my opnion of him. i find him arrogant, just as i find you to >>be >>an a.shole. > > wow, you gotta go quite a ways to see mike simmons as an a.shole. > quite a ways off track that is. if i misread his intentions ill certainly give him his due apology. ive yet to finish reading the thread. > i think max is right on. dont misinterpret my feelings. im just saying that if they do drop the cummins, it will be their biggest f.ck up to date. > there would be complaints from some circles, > but the german diesel would win even those people over. i just dont see it. perhaps certainly, but the strength of the cummins (from a marketing perspective) is in the name cummins. > it isn't an international and it > deosn't have aluminum heads after all. although i dont foresee myself ever buying one, i have to give the duramax the credit that it deserves. theyre producing amazing power and holding up far better than i ever thought they would. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > although i dont foresee myself ever buying one, i have to give the duramax > the credit that it deserves. theyre producing amazing power and holding > up far better than i ever thought they would. Agreed about the "not blowing their head gaskets all over the place" like many expected to see (me included). But the amazing power/reliability issues? Ehhh... not so well. At stock or mild levels, sure - they're pretty reliable. Turned up to sick levels, they're wearing down pretty quickly. This shouldn't really be a knock on the engine itself, because people are pushing them to do a lot more than they were designed to do. >> Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke. > > im stating my opnion of him. i find him arrogant, just as i find you to > be an a.shole. Nate, that's a bit harsh don't ya think? Or did I miss something again? Roy >>> Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke. >> >> im stating my opnion of him. i find him arrogant, just as i find you to >> be an a.shole. > > Nate, that's a bit harsh don't ya think? Or did I miss something again? possibly, i dont know mikes intentions but i would like to know how i could be accused of "overreacting" or "blowing smoke" in my PERSONAL OPINION of someone that neither of us knows. i will apologize if its in order. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > possibly, i dont know mikes intentions but i would like to know how i > could be accused of "overreacting" or "blowing smoke" in my PERSONAL > OPINION of someone that neither of us knows. i will apologize if its in > order. Its in order to do so. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>> Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > OPINION of someone that neither of us knows. i will apologize if its in > order. > Its in order to do so. i think id like to see what mike has to say. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Its in order to do so. > > i think id like to see what mike has to say. I think he deserves an apology no matter what he says. You overstepped your bounds and reason. Man up and do the right thing. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Its in order to do so. > > i think id like to see what mike has to say. > You overstepped your bounds and reason. sheesh, cut out the drama already. youre starting to sound like a girl. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> You overstepped your bounds and reason. > > sheesh, cut out the drama already. youre starting to sound like a girl. No, girls have a lack of logic, much like your statements about Mike. Get it straight. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> You overstepped your bounds and reason. > > sheesh, cut out the drama already. youre starting to sound like a girl. >>> You overstepped your bounds and reason. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Get it straight. only whiney bitches would say something like "you overstepped your bounds" <roll eyes> sheesh, grow a set. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > only whiney bitches would say something like "you overstepped your bounds" > <roll eyes> sheesh, grow a set. I thought that was preferable to other means. Grow up and show some maturity. Wait for it....... SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>> You overstepped your bounds and reason. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > only whiney bitches would say something like "you overstepped your bounds" > <roll eyes> sheesh, grow a set. >> only whiney bitches would say something like "you overstepped your >> bounds" <roll eyes> sheesh, grow a set. > > I thought that was preferable to other means. sure.....to a whiney bitch. ;-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > im stating my opnion of him. i find him arrogant, just as i find you to > be an a.shole. Interesting Nate, since I'm betting that all you know of Mike and Deiter is the same that I know, and your opinion is certainly not based on the same evidence I've seen. Mike is informative factual and reasoned; Deiter is congenial, has a sense of humor, and a great leadership style. Anyone claiming differently has something clouding their vision of the facts, or has access to info they aren't sharing. On the side of irony, Deiter is doing exactly what Lee did, and yet, no complaints about Lee. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is just blowing smoke. > > im stating my opnion of him. i find him arrogant, just as i find you to > be an a.shole. > Anyone claiming differently has something clouding their vision of the > facts, or has access to info they aren't sharing. thats funny. even YOU admitted to his arrogance in your original reply to me. "Max Dodge" <max340@verizon.net> wrote in message news:eZEYg.3969$5v5.999@trndny08 "Sure, they are arrogant, BUT... the German designed diesel is a very good product." why would you change your statement now? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > On the side of irony, Deiter is doing exactly what Lee did, and yet, no > complaints about Lee. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> im stating my opnion of him. i find him arrogant, just as i find you to >> be an a.shole. > thats funny. even YOU admitted to his arrogance in your original reply to > me. Incorrect and taken out of context. Nice spin, but expected.... > "Sure, they are arrogant, BUT... the German designed > diesel is a very good product." This was in reference to Germans in general, not a single individual. > why would you change your statement now? I haven't, you've simply excised it from its context and tried to spin it to suit your needs. Moving on.... SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Anyone claiming differently has something clouding their vision of the >> facts, or has access to info they aren't sharing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Max Dodge" <max340@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:eZEYg.3969$5v5.999@trndny08 >> On the side of irony, Deiter is doing exactly what Lee did, and yet, no >> complaints about Lee. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> im stating my opnion of him. i find him arrogant, just as i find you to >>> be an a.shole. >> thats funny. even YOU admitted to his arrogance in your original reply >> to me. > > Incorrect and taken out of context. Nice spin, but expected.... spin MY a.s. i took you at your literal statement. >> "Sure, they are arrogant, BUT... the German designed >> diesel is a very good product." > > This was in reference to Germans in general, not a single individual. i was referencing d/c marketing, and Z in particular to which you responded. NEVER did i reference germans in general. > Moving on.... fair enough. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > spin MY a.s. i took you at your literal statement. Then you would do well to read all the words, not just those you wish to hear or spin. >>> "Sure, they are arrogant, BUT... the German designed >>> diesel is a very good product." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > fair enough. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> thats funny. even YOU admitted to his arrogance in your original reply >>> to me. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > fair enough. > DC and Cummins just entered into a long-term agreement for a new LD diesel > for pickups and SUV's... see the Cummins website. Also, the 6.7L ISB was > developed mainly for DC so it is doubtful that DC will drop the MD Cummins > anytime soon. When I visited the Cummins MRD plant in Columbus in August, > they were already working on some new stuff for DC which is a good sign > that DC and Cummins will remain together. Excellent news. I'm hopeful that the newer versions of the B series solve the emissions problems without a triple shot of fuel. > Finally, Dieter Zietsche is anything but arrogant! Anyone who knows the > man will tell you the same. Methinks Nate is overreacting (again!) and is > just blowing smoke. What makes ya think that? SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. >> [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] >>> commercials of an elitist german answering consumer questions actually >>> appeals to joe six-pack. >> dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > running anywhere near the black ink, and isn't scurrying for solutions to > insolvancy. They must understand something about the American consumer. I gotta agree with ya Max. Roy dont get me wrong, im saying that dodge is dumping the cummins. im saying if they do (based on industry rumor), it will be their biggest f.ck up. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >>> dropping the cummins will be their biggest f.ck up to date. >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Roy >> cummins saved dodge from bankruptcy, and has kept them alive since. > > Rubbish. Chrysler was saved from bankruptcy by the K-car. Rubbish. Chrysler was saved from bankruptcy by a billion bucks in loan guarantees. The K-car helped but the minivan set the course for future success. > Rubbish. Chrysler was saved from bankruptcy by a billion bucks in loan > guarantees. The K-car helped but the minivan set the course for future > success. And if you read your history books, you'll find that Lee Iacocca sold the loan guarantees on the fact that he had a design in hand that was so versitile and efficient, it would sell well and save costs in manufacturing. IOW, in the question of which came first, the K-car or the billion dollars in loans, its clearly the K-car and the business plan built around it. Thus, no K-car, no loans. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> cummins saved dodge from bankruptcy, and has kept them alive since. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > guarantees. The K-car helped but the minivan set the course for future > success. >> That's what I was wondering, nate... >> I've heard a few folks say that they didn't buy a dodge, they bought a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dodge from bankruptcy, and has kept them alive since. this is typical > german arrogance.... If sales of Cummins pickups "could" have saved Chrysler from anything...it was a failed attempt. There certainly aren't enough Dodge diesels on the road to positively or negatively effect Chrysler either way. Take a deep cleansing breath. > If sales of Cummins pickups "could" have saved Chrysler from anything...it > was a failed attempt. There certainly aren't enough Dodge diesels on the > road to positively or negatively effect Chrysler either way. i disagree. got any sales numbers? we can argue OPINION all we want, but the sales numbers tell the tale. i think the redesign in '94 was a great boost in sales, but i do not believe it would have been as successful with any other diesel except perhaps a cat diesel. if any of the big three offered a caterpillar diesel (this entire conversation is afterall, hypothetical) they would take the lions share of the market over night. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> If sales of Cummins pickups "could" have saved Chrysler from anything...it >> was a failed attempt. There certainly aren't enough Dodge diesels on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >conversation is afterall, hypothetical) they would take the lions share of >the market over night. I'm just curious... Anyone know what percentage of pickups that Dodge sells have the Cummins? Maybe now compared to the mid-90's would be interesting... I remember the "new" Ram front end because everyone suddenly wanted a Dodge Ram, but didn't see many diesel pickups of any brand at that time.. Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm >> If sales of Cummins pickups "could" have saved Chrysler from >> anything...it was a failed attempt. There certainly aren't enough Dodge [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i disagree. got any sales numbers? we can argue OPINION all we want, but > the sales numbers tell the tale. OK, here's the facts.... in 1993, the last year of the D-Series, Dodge sold some 78,000 pickup trucks, gas AND diesel. In 1994, the first year for the BR, they sold some 140,000 pickups, gas and diesel.... almost twice the number! It had NOTHING to do with Cummins... as other's have attempted to tell you, it was the styling! Last year, MY 2006, the Cummins engine accounted for some 70% of the build in the DR2500/3500 series, but the DR1500 (all gassers, BTW) greatly outsold the heavies. Don't misunderstand... I think the Cummins is great... the best diesel engine out there... I own one! But to allocate to Cummins alone DC's salvation is a gross overstatement. Finally, do you really believe that DC will drop Cummins just because you hear "rumors"? You may dislike 'em, but the folks at DC ain't stupid. Why do you think they selected Cummins as the source of their new LD diesel when they could have just as easily adapted a MB or Moteri engine that was already in their stable? They did it for one reason... they recognize the goodwill and reputation of the Cummins brand. Just as they have capitalized on the HEMI brand of yesteryear. As I said in my ealier post, you are overreacting to scuttlebutt, sir! I may be an a.shole, but you have jumped ship on this one. Mike > i think the redesign in '94 was a great boost in sales, but i do not > believe it would have been as successful with any other diesel except > perhaps a cat diesel. if any of the big three offered a caterpillar > diesel (this entire conversation is afterall, hypothetical) they would > take the lions share of the market over night. > OK, here's the facts.... in 1993, the last year of the D-Series, Dodge > sold some 78,000 pickup trucks, gas AND diesel. In 1994, the first year > for the BR, they sold some 140,000 pickups, gas and diesel.... almost > twice the number! It had NOTHING to do with Cummins... as other's have > attempted to tell you, it was the styling! i AGREE that the styling sold trucks. HOWEVER, disregard the first couple of years because back then dodge was the only truck with the cool retro look. ford redesigned thier trucks in '99, so lets start around 2000. i believe that the cummins was a MAJOR boost for the dodge line. when i read the camping forums i dont hear ANYONE talking about the looks of todays dodge........only the cummins engine. > Last year, MY 2006, the Cummins engine accounted for some 70% of the build > in the DR2500/3500 series, but the DR1500 (all gassers, BTW) greatly > outsold the heavies. certainly.......BUT. marketing is built upon a flagship. the jeep rubicon for example is the flagship jeep. many cant afford a rubicon so they buy the cheaper model wranglers. the rubicon also sells cheaper wranglers. now im not suggesting this is why so many 1500s are sold, but it does play a part. the cummins dodge has an AWESOME reputation.....just read the camper forums.....and this makes the entire dodge truck line more appealing to many. the magic of marketing. perhaps i overestimate the value of cummins to dodge, and perhaps you underestimate it.....but i dont think dodge would be where they are without it. > Finally, do you really believe that DC will drop Cummins just because you > hear "rumors"? not at all. i didnt say they would drop cummins. i said IF they do, it will be their biggest f.ck up. > You may dislike 'em, but the folks at DC ain't stupid. i dont buy vehicles based on personal feelings toward some, that much should be obvious since ive bought 5 new new vehicles from them since. > As I said in my ealier post, you are overreacting to scuttlebutt, sir! i dont understand how forming an OPINION is an overreaction. > I may be an a.shole, but you have jumped ship on this one. it seems i misread your intentions mike. im sorry about that. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > i AGREE that the styling sold trucks. HOWEVER, disregard the first couple > of years because back then dodge was the only truck with the cool retro > look. ford redesigned thier trucks in '99, so lets start around 2000. i > believe that the cummins was a MAJOR boost for the dodge line. when i > read the camping forums i dont hear ANYONE talking about the looks of > todays dodge........only the cummins engine. Ok, so rather than look at the facts, lets limit the exposure to those facts so the stuff directly inside the window is the only reference. Everything else doesn't count. Yup, no real change here, its the same Nate. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> OK, here's the facts.... in 1993, the last year of the D-Series, Dodge >> sold some 78,000 pickup trucks, gas AND diesel. In 1994, the first year [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > it seems i misread your intentions mike. im sorry about that. > Ok, so rather than look at the facts, lets limit the exposure to those > facts so the stuff directly inside the window is the only reference. > Everything else doesn't count. like the LP issue being limited to modified trucks? <rolling eyes> you get YOUR "facts" straight before you question mine. > Yup, no real change here, its the same Nate. and its DEFINATELY the same old max. .....i still love ya anyway. ;-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com <snip> >OK, here's the facts.... in 1993, the last year of the D-Series, Dodge sold >some 78,000 pickup trucks, gas AND diesel. In 1994, the first year for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >in the DR2500/3500 series, but the DR1500 (all gassers, BTW) greatly outsold >the heavies. <snip> Thanks, Mike... that's exactly the kind of figures that I was curious about... I was one of many that thought the 95 was bugly when it first came out and wondered why so many 1500's were popping up in the neighborhood.. That front end sure grew on ya, though.. i have 2 of 'em..lol Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm > > Last year, MY 2006, the Cummins engine accounted for some 70% of > > the build in the DR2500/3500 series, but the DR1500 (all gassers, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanks, Mike... that's exactly the kind of figures that I was curious > about... It will be interesting to see how those figures look in 10 years. With alternative fuels (biodiesel, ethanol) getting more attention than ever and diesel engines becoming an option in vehicles that have not offered it previously, I think the U.S. is headed towards a blend of vehicles similar to a European mix. Which means more diesels on the road. IMO, DC would be crazy to abandon Cummins as their diesel offering. The reputation alone virtually guarentees a larger chunk of the market in the future if they can offer the Cummins in other models. Craig C. SignatureFacts [fakts] -noun: The pesky things that get in the way of religious doctrine. > i disagree. got any sales numbers? we can argue OPINION all we want, but > the sales numbers tell the tale. Sales numbers were the very reason Dodge restyled the Ram. They had 7% of the market, with half of those being diesels. Figures for 1992 were 46,471 Cummins out of 74,558 produced. In 1993, 49,226 Cummins out of 75,166 total. In 1994, after a restyling of the body, Cummins equipped trucks sold 44,569 out of an astounding 195,372. Clearly, the Cummins option sold LESS after the restyling, while truck sales were 2.5 times as many. The restyle sold more trucks than the Cummins option. Source: http://dodgeram.org/tech/dsl/Facts/diesel_sales.htm > i think the redesign in '94 was a great boost in sales, but i do not > believe it would have been as successful with any other diesel except > perhaps a cat diesel. if any of the big three offered a caterpillar > diesel (this entire conversation is afterall, hypothetical) they would > take the lions share of the market over night. Who cares, this is a "red herring". SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> If sales of Cummins pickups "could" have saved Chrysler from >> anything...it was a failed attempt. There certainly aren't enough Dodge [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > diesel (this entire conversation is afterall, hypothetical) they would > take the lions share of the market over night. > Clearly, the Cummins option sold LESS after the restyling, while truck > sales were 2.5 times as many. The restyle sold more trucks than the > Cummins option. im NOT taking away from the restyle, i KNOW it sold trucks. it put the dodge truck on the map. the profit margin however, is much higher on a diesel. not to mention the number of 1500 trucks sold due to the reputation of the cummins powered dodge. yes im possibly overestimating the level of the contribution of the cummins, just as you are UNDERestimating it. > Who cares, this is a "red herring". a red herring implies that im trying to distract the conversation. HARDLY. im simply adding to it. the ENTIRE conversation (read the title) is HYPOTHETICAL. no red herring. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > im NOT taking away from the restyle, i KNOW it sold trucks. it put the > dodge truck on the map. the profit margin however, is much higher on a > diesel. not to mention the number of 1500 trucks sold due to the > reputation of the cummins powered dodge. yes im possibly overestimating > the level of the contribution of the cummins, just as you are > UNDERestimating it. No, you HAVE over estimated it. Plainly put, the sales of Cummins trucks did NOT increase with the restyle, while the sales of ALL Rams DID increase with the restyling. As such, Cummins did not sell more trucks in the way that a complete restyling did. The numbers speak for themselves, even if you would ignore them. > a red herring implies that im trying to distract the conversation. > HARDLY. im simply adding to it. the ENTIRE conversation (read the title) > is HYPOTHETICAL. no red herring. Incorrect. You made statements of "fact" that are easily proven incorrect. Bringing another variable into the discussion does exactly what you say it does... you are trying to distract attention from your failure to bring facts to bear in forming an opinion. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Clearly, the Cummins option sold LESS after the restyling, while truck >> sales were 2.5 times as many. The restyle sold more trucks than the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > HARDLY. im simply adding to it. the ENTIRE conversation (read the title) > is HYPOTHETICAL. no red herring. > No, you HAVE over estimated it. just as you have UNDERestimated it. > The numbers speak for themselves, even if you would ignore them. you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. > Incorrect. You made statements of "fact" that are easily proven incorrect. i stated my OPINION on the topic at hand, and the FACTS are irrefutable (such as the LP issue) > you are trying to distract attention from your failure to bring facts to > bear in forming an opinion. BULLSHIT. clue max, opinions are just that, OPINIONS. opinions are not formed of fact, else they would be FACTS. ......holy sh.t and you used to be a teacher? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to hard > for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. I don't know everything, but I know a bunch of bullshit when I see it..... >> Incorrect. You made statements of "fact" that are easily proven >> incorrect. > > i stated my OPINION on the topic at hand, and the FACTS are irrefutable > (such as the LP issue) But you haven't posted any facts on the LP issue. I've got two opinions, yours and Roy's. Neither of you has statistical evidence to prove your assumptions correct. In fact, you claim your LP was replaced at 99,990, hardly a "known problem" at that mileage. Then you claim it was replaced as preventitive maintenance, so it hadn't in fact failed. Either way, its not a design flaw to have a pump fail at nearly 100k, nor is it a design flaw to have it replaced at nearly 100k as preventitive maintenance. > BULLSHIT. clue max, opinions are just that, OPINIONS. opinions are not > formed of fact, else they would be FACTS. Opinions SHOULD be based on fact, otherwise they are bullshit. Since you have just shown a basic flaw in your understanding of how opinions and facts relate to one another, I feel confident in my assumption that you are once again throwing bullshit around. > ......holy sh.t and you used to be a teacher? No, but thats been a general assumption by many of you. But Teachers do require facts, not conjecture, evidence, not opinion. Just the same as lawyers, judges, and interestingly enough, cops and the accused. Apparently, Joe Sixpack only needs a reason to talk, and he'll say anything. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> No, you HAVE over estimated it. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > ......holy sh.t and you used to be a teacher? >> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to hard >> for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > not a design flaw to have a pump fail at nearly 100k, nor is it a design > flaw to have it replaced at nearly 100k as preventitive maintenance. Max, not trying to provide statistical evidence. Just a opinion based on my experience. This isn't a friggin'courtroom. Take a look at the tdr, 2nd gen. 24 valve engine and transmission(1998.5-2002) search, lift pump failure. There are close to 400 post's concerning failures, and no, I didn't read them all.. If you remember DC changed the lift pump or at least the part#. Could it have been because that a failed lift pump would cause the failure of a more expensive ip? I don't know, but they finally seem to have it fixed. Now I'm reading and hearing about the pump in the tank. That ain't a roadside r&r. Time will tell. You and Nate try to play nice.<G> Roy >>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to hard >>> for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Roy For the record, the lift pump failures have been more prevalent that DC or Cummins would like however when compared to the number of trucks sold with the Cummins, it is a statiscally small number. Keep in mind, that when the failure is YOURS, it IS a crisis since those puppies ain't cheap. Also, keep in mind that most of the posts in TDR (and elsewhere) are about problems. No one takes the time to post about bad stuff not happening so the info on those sites are skewed to the failures. The people who are happy and have no probs are the SILENT majority! Mike >>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Mike Well, now you've thrown down the gauntlet so to speak. I've also had one replaced on my '01.5. I bought it used in February, 2004 with 49,012 miles on it. The original owner claimed it to be all stock, never modified in any way. I had my local mechanic look at it shortly thereafter and he didn't find any evidence of mods either. What he did find was low fuel pressure indicative of a bad lift pump. He did change it and I submitted his invoice for reimbursement. I heard nothing for a very long time and then got a phone call from DC. They refused to reimburse for labor and only for their cost for the lift pump, $70.00. No amount of complaint or logic would sway them. Nothing DC does now would persuade me to buy another from them. I have three Dodge trucks and two Chrysler product cars, no more when these are gone. I saw a post on TDR about someone with a Bluebird bus with a 5.9 Cummins in it with lift pump problems. Cummins takes care of their customers. DC weasels out of their problems. Almost forgot, DC contacted my local mechanic and asked him to send them the failed lift pump AFTER REFUSING to pay for his labor. Had I known before he sent it to them, I would have delivered it personally, up their a.s. Bastards. Again, this is the biggest issue I've had with Chrysler, only at the dealer level. Customer service has been spotty or bad for years, depending on what level you are dealing. But Nate never listed it in DC's biggest fuckups. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > before he sent it to them, I would have delivered it personally, up their > a.s. Bastards. > But Nate never listed it in DC's biggest fuckups. becuase UNLIKE YOU, i dont speak in areas where i am ignorant. my customer service has been excellent......but i wont sit and tell you that poor customer service doesnt happen. that would be a stupid thing to do. oh wait, thats what youre doing because your lift pump hasnt failed. :-) yet. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > Again, this is the biggest issue I've had with Chrysler, only at the > dealer level. Customer service has been spotty or bad for years, depending > on what level you are dealing. I've only found one dealer in this area I had any (not a lot, but they at least tried) faith in. It was a Chrysler Plymouth dealer and they're long gone. Looking back to the sixties at how dealers and manufacturers have treated their customers I'm thinking there was a marked change in the late '70's and early '80's from we sure want you to be happy to "who cares." I can't document this because I heard it on a radio show, but the story goes Ford used to go out of their way to take care of customers including out of warranty claims to keep their customers satisfied. But a study showed they weren't rewarded with cusomer loyalty so they quit. If I remember right this would have been in the '80's or early '90's. >>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Cummins would like however when compared to the number of trucks sold with > the Cummins, it is a statiscally small number. Well I'm not sure what a small number is but at the time they were unable to get enough pumps to go around. > Keep in mind, that when the failure is YOURS, it IS a crisis since those > puppies ain't cheap. It was a problem that dc was aware of as they finally did something with the pump. Screw the cost of the pump. > Also, keep in mind that most of the posts in TDR (and elsewhere) are about > problems. No one takes the time to post about bad stuff not happening so > the info on those sites are skewed to the failures. No sh.t! Just like here. Don't you think that 400 post about lift pump failure is a lot? I'd bet it would go up a bunch if I searched just lift pump. > The people who are happy and have no probs are the SILENT majority! Gee, I think I've posted about how happy I've been with the 05. Roy > Mike >>>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > failure is a lot? I'd bet it would go up a bunch if I searched just lift > pump. Don't you think that this is a little subjective? Say 400 out of 500 is damn sure a lot, but out of 10's of thousands, etc.. :) >> The people who are happy and have no probs are the SILENT majority! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> Mike >>>>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Don't you think that this is a little subjective? Say 400 out of 500 is > damn sure a lot, but out of 10's of thousands, etc.. :) Not when you figure the membership of the tdr. The membership is not 10's of thousands. Roy >>>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >Well I'm not sure what a small number is but at the time they were unable to >get enough pumps to go around. my understanding of the situation was that dc simply with held the lp's for two reasons. first, they wanted to be sure that if they replaced a lp, the truck was checked for mods. the bombed engines had a whole lot more lp failures than the stock ones. as a result, the lp had to ordered when actually needed, dealers couldn't stock them. the other reason was that the lp's were being upgraded constantly and dc wanted to be sure that only the latest version was put on as a warranty repair rather than one that a dealer stocked that was an earlier version. also, they wanted the old ones back because the supplier was taking them apart trying to figure out what needed to be fixed on them. not saying that stock trucks didn't have problems with lp's, just that the bombed ones had a lot more issues. the bombed trucks put too much stress on a "weak" part. personally, i knew a lot of people with those engines. i had a '01. i didn't know anyone personally that ever had to replace a lift pump, but none the less, i know it was a weak part of the fuel system from other peoples postings. it was never bad enough for a recall and i think that mike is right when he says is has been over stated by many. i know the service guy at the dealership. he said it wasn't that bad out here, they replaced some bad lp's but not that many. dc told him that fuel quality played a part in it too. fuel out here is pretty good. i don't know how true that is, but that is what he was told. anyway, the latest versions of the lp supposedly were pretty solid. >> Keep in mind, that when the failure is YOURS, it IS a crisis since those >> puppies ain't cheap. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >> Mike >>>>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > that is, but that is what he was told. anyway, the latest versions of > the lp supposedly were pretty solid. Reading Tom's post 17% is not a small number. With regard to bombed trucks the l/p wasn't covered under warranty so I doubt it is part of the 17% Roy > Reading Tom's post 17% is not a small number. With regard to bombed trucks > the l/p wasn't covered under warranty so I doubt it is part of the 17% good catch, i missed that. i wonder what the actual total would be.......i want to show that it was at least enough to reasonably classify the issue as "rampant". SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Reading Tom's post 17% is not a small number. With regard to bombed trucks >> the l/p wasn't covered under warranty so I doubt it is part of the 17% > >good catch, i missed that. i wonder what the actual total would be.......i >want to show that it was at least enough to reasonably classify the issue as >"rampant". well............if the 17% figure is accurate.............and i have to assume at this point that it is............then that would qualify in my book as rampant. now, my book isn't very official but never the less, one out of five would be rampant to me. as i said before, it seems like that should have set off a recall. i remember some folks on tdr talking about a class action suit at one time several years ago, over the lp problems. they researched the failure rate there and never could come up with a figure, other than an unofficial poll on tdr. the poll's are probably still there if someone had a membership and the time to search several years of posts. it would be interesting now to see what their poll showed as a rate and compare it the 17% figure. a pretty "fair share" of the tdr trucks are bombed so it would be fun to see if there was a significant increase there. abyway, i digress. several of the members contacted their dealers and dc to get a failure rate and were pretty much just blown off as i recall. it really would be intersting to revisit those old threads now. > well............if the 17% figure is accurate.............and i have > to assume at this point that it is............then that would qualify > in my book as rampant. thank you. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >>> Reading Tom's post 17% is not a small number. With regard to bombed >>> trucks [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > recall. it really would be intersting to revisit those old threads > now. I actually find this funny. I just got a recall for my Chevy, due to a "safety issue" to have them replace the damn tailgate straps. DC however doesn't find it needed for a recall on this problem. Hmm! >>>>>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>>>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > >Roy you're right as i said in my post after the one you are referring to. that is a huge number. this is the first time that i have ever seen a definitive figure placed on the failure rate. i assume that the article is pretty accurate, there would be no reason for the people quoted in it to bend the truth. seems like that high a figure would (or certainly should) trigger a recall on the parts, or at least an extension of the warranty for that part. it never did though and all through the period that they were having lp problems i read several articles where dc said the problem was very small and isolated. one out of five isn't isolated. i don't know though, im not a mechanic and maybe there was more to it. on the bombed truck, that wasn't my point. my point was simply that the lp's weren't backlogged, they were just held at the main parts distribution center because for a while at least, dc felt that bombing was a major reason behind this taking place and they wanted to be sure that the dealers checked for mods before sending out a new lp. whether or not those denied warranty claims are included in the 17% figure, i have no idea......... but i imagine you are probably right. at the start of the problem though, the bombed trucks were being covered on warranty, so some of them undoubtedly are included in the figure. the lp fiasco, if you will, is what really fired dc up about mods and bombing because they were convinced, as i said at first, that that was the root of the lp problem. or at least that is what i have heard from my dealer service guy. >>>>>>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>>>>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >>> supplier was taking them apart trying to figure out what needed to be >>> fixed on them. In the mean time I'm standing there with my truck on it's a.s waiting for DC to release a lp after they determined my truck wasn't bombed. WTF!!! Glad you can follow that logic. <G> There was a time that the regional warehouse couldn't get them. Hopefully the in the tank one will hold together, cause these will suck to change. The old one's were 15 minutes and you were done. Listen to me, I'm talking about repairing a new 40+K truck like it is a okay deal. It is friggin' crazy what dc has us trained to put up with. I must be loseing it. Roy >>>>>>>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>>>>>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > >Roy roy.........i am not arguing dc's case and i don't disagree with your outlook as a consumer. i was just trying to pass on the info as to why dc made the decision to do it that way. not defending it, just telling why they did made the decision to do it. if mine had gone out and i had to wait i would have been just as pissed as you or the others, especially when i don't bomb my truck and im not willing to wait because dc wants to penalize me for what some other people have done. >>>>>>>>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be >>>>>>>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >>>>> supplier was taking them apart trying to figure out what needed to be >>>>> fixed on them. I understand your position. Roy >>In the mean time I'm standing there with my truck on it's a.s waiting for >>DC [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > wait because dc wants to penalize me for what some other people have > done. > seems like that high a figure would > (or certainly should) trigger a recall on the parts, or at least an > extension of the warranty for that part. .....so would you think nearly 1 in 5 is enough to justify my "rampant" label? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > my understanding of the situation was that dc simply with held the > lp's for two reasons. first, they wanted to be sure that if they [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that is, but that is what he was told. anyway, the latest versions of > the lp supposedly were pretty solid. Again, pretty much what I've been saying...... SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] >> >>> Mike > Again, pretty much what I've been saying...... you REALLY think people are stupid enough to believe this? or is it that you believe your own spin? what about the 1 in 5 of valid warranty claims from unmodified trucks? even if you do discredit all modified trucks, 1 in 5 is a rampant issue. ....but you cannot acknowledge it. that would require something else you dont have. integrity. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > my understanding of the situation was that dc simply with held the > lp's for two reasons. first, they wanted to be sure that if they > replaced a lp, the truck was checked for mods. the bombed engines had > a whole lot more lp failures than the stock ones. I don't think "bombs" had much to do with lift pumps, VP-44's for sure. As long as the engine is running, the lift runs at it's perdetermined rate, it's not responsive to fuel demands so it's not overworked. Remember the VP-44 is fuel lubricated, lots of fuel is returned to the tank. This is the way I understand it and could be wrong. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am. > I don't think "bombs" had much to do with lift pumps, VP-44's for sure. > As long as the engine is running, the lift runs at it's perdetermined > rate, it's not responsive to fuel demands so it's not overworked. good point. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > For the record, the lift pump failures have been more prevalent that DC or > Cummins would like however when compared to the number of trucks sold with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Mike Pretty much what I've been saying....... SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to >>>> hard for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Mike > The people who are happy and have no probs are the SILENT majority! > > Mike No offense intended, but wasn't that term Richard Nixon's to imply widespread support for the Vietnam war? I don't think I would've gone there...I mean with that particular term. > Max, not trying to provide statistical evidence. Just a opinion based on > my experience. Which is exactly my point, Roy. My experience (and Nate's, though he'll dispute it) indicate that lift pump failure isn't all that common and happens in a random manner just as any part fails. Since we are all basing this on personal experience, its hard to claim its either "unknown", or "known", since all parts fail, and thats also "known". So..... we're left with the same phenomena that follows any part failure.... transmissions, lift pumps etc. It looks bigger than it really is because of the concentration in one place of those who are affected. All the automakers have had problems with the OD transmissions, but to say all the transmission designs were terribly flawed is erroneous. Same goes for the lift pump, especially in light of evidence that mounting the same pump elsewhere "cured" the problem. Thats why I asked for a failure rate, instead of personal experience. If you ask me, the steering box is a piece of sh.t, but thats because I've had three of them in the truck, and am now on my fourth. Does that mean its a "known problem"? Or does it mean I'm a bit harder on my steering, like hopping curbs, flying over snow mounds, etc? Who knows, but I'm not going to claim the steering box is a flawed design just because its been bad on my truck.... the same box has been fitted to millions of Dodge and GM pickups. Whats the failure rate? SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> you have to provide the profit margin from each. it shouldnt be to hard >>> for you since you know every goddamn thing in the world max. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Roy > Whats the failure rate? if youll stop spinning fast enough to read, youll see that it has already been established as 1 in 5 of those with valid warranties. add to that those with modified trucks and its much higher. its hard to believe you are STILL trying to dispute this. it goes to show exactly what ive said about you. you will not see beyond your own agenda, facts be damned. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Whats the failure rate? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exactly what ive said about you. you will not see beyond your own agenda, > facts be damned. Nate, this is not meant as an offense to anyone here, or too you but that statement applies to ALL of us at sometime. > Nate, this is not meant as an offense to anyone here, or too you but that > statement applies to ALL of us at sometime. probably so, but since im arguing with max....... :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Nate, this is not meant as an offense to anyone here, or too you but that >> statement applies to ALL of us at sometime. > > probably so, but since im arguing with max....... :-) LOL Main Entry: ram·pant Pronunciation: 'ram-p&nt also -"pant Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, present participle of ramper 1 a : rearing upon the hind legs with forelegs extended b : standing on one hind foot with one foreleg raised above the other and the head in profile -- used of a heraldic animal 2 a : marked by a menacing wildness, extravagance, or absence of restraint <rampant rumors> b : profusely widespread <rampant weeds> - ram·pant·ly adverb [rampant illustration] http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rampant Nope, even at 17%, its not a "rampant" problem. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > Main Entry: ram·pant > Pronunciation: 'ram-p&nt also -"pant [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Nope, even at 17%, its not a "rampant" problem. LOL! they say that figures dont lie but liars can figure. :-) leave it to you to once again try to squirm off the hook. doesnt matter max, your lack of integrity in this thread will stand to serve any future reference. and in YOUR clinton-esque usage of a definition to wiggle your way from the hook on a technicality (obvious to ANYONE what youre doing), i see "profusely widespread". this issue at 1 in 5.88 (and probably much higher) would indeed meet that definition. in the synonyms listed at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rampant is the word "widespread". would you not consider 1 in 5.88 (are you still DENYING that figure now that tom has said it comes straight from cummins, or are you simply trying to snip your way out of directly responding?) to be "widespread"? to any reasonable person, this issue is indeed widespread. but, that would require owning your f.ck up which you will simply NEVER do and anyone reading this newsgroup for any length of time knows it. <smooches> :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > LOL! they say that figures dont lie but liars can figure. :-) As exhibited by your pontification over the past day. > leave it to > you to once again try to squirm off the hook. doesnt matter max, your > lack > of integrity in this thread will stand to serve any future reference. Lack of integrity? You've decided to argue over the definition of "rampant", while failing to address your gross misstatments regarding Deiter Zeitsche, CCA history from bankruptcy, restyling of the trucks vs Cummins availability, and deliberately taking things out of context in order to save face after calling someone an a.shole for no apparent reason. > and in YOUR clinton-esque usage of a definition to wiggle your way from > the > hook on a technicality (obvious to ANYONE what youre doing), i see > "profusely widespread". this issue at 1 in 5.88 (and probably much > higher) > would indeed meet that definition. It does not meet that definition, particularly over the warranty period of 100,000 miles. THAT is why DC never did a recall, since the available statistics don't support your claim. This is supported by Mike Simmons statements on the issue. > in the synonyms listed at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rampant > is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are you simply trying to snip your way out of directly responding?) to be > "widespread"? Main Entry: wide·spread Pronunciation: 'wId-'spred Function: adjective 1 : widely diffused or prevalent <widespread public interest> 2 : widely extended or spread out <low, widespread hood and fenders -- Time> <a widespread erosion surface -- C. B. Hitchcock> At 17%, its clear that the lift pumps that worked are still prevalent, at 83%. What you seem to forget is the 100,000 mile warranty period. At present rate, I'll have run through five or six steering boxes in 100,000 miles, and still have the factory lift pump. "Rampant" steering box failure.... LOL > to any reasonable person, this issue is indeed widespread. but, that > would > require owning your f.ck up which you will simply NEVER do and anyone > reading this newsgroup for any length of time knows it. When its not widespread, there is no reason for me to call it as such. Find actual stats, and I'll consider changing my opinion. Until then, I feel confident that since my opinion mirrors that of Mike Simmons, I'm on solid ground. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Main Entry: ram·pant >> Pronunciation: 'ram-p&nt also -"pant [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > <smooches> :-) > Find actual stats, and I'll consider changing my opinion. no you wont....but thats cool. i still love ya buddy. :-) ......er, id buy you a beer and shoot a game or two of pool with you anyway. its been fun, till next time. :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >Main Entry: ram·pant >Pronunciation: 'ram-p&nt also -"pant [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Nope, even at 17%, its not a "rampant" problem. max, i realize that you enjoy the bantering with nate and i don't want to spoil that but from a consumers perspective, i would thnk that 17% could be called rampant. i mean, if 17% of firestones tires blew out, that would be rampant. i would also think that would cause a recall. i am frankly taken by surprise by this failure rate. i never would have guessed that it would be that high. if that number holds up to be accurate......and we may find that it isn't-someone may come up with a figure that is more accurate..............but if it does then i am very dissapointed in dc for not doing more for their customers. and i think that is all that nate is saying. they should have stepped up and taken care of the problem and it dissapoints me that they didn't. that doesn't mean i hate dc. i still think the dodge ram is a great truck and the cummins engine is the best of the bunch. dc is a decent company. i have been treated well by dc and my trucks have been very trouble free. never the less, if the failure rate of the lp's was 17%, that is bad. very bad. can't hide that or talk around it. nate, roy and the others with lp problems have a legitimate complaint. honesty is a big thing with me. dc needs to step up and admit they screwed this up, even if it is three years too late. that would mean a lot to me. but........if i was going to buy a new truck today, it would be a dodge ram with a cummins diesel. Dguy, I'm not arguing that the problem doesn't exist, or that Nate and Roy et al don't have a reasonable complaint. But the "opinion" is that the lp is a "f.ck up" of DC. Simply put, its not. Is it a problem? yup. Is it "rampant"? No. But 17% failure over 100,000 miles? Sure, 17% sounds like a lot, and if it was on a 30,000 mile period, it would be. But its not. Its on a mileage that most vehicles don't see on the first owner, let alone under warranty. In my opinion, the failure here isn't the lp itself, but the way DC handled the warranty on that lift pump. Yet the big list of DC's failures didn't mention its warranty claim problems or five star farce in some dealerships. But Nate wants to argue semantics to cover his lack of facts, stats and logic. But even the semantics and definitions don't prove him right. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>Main Entry: ram·pant >>Pronunciation: 'ram-p&nt also -"pant [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > a lot to me. but........if i was going to buy a new truck today, it > would be a dodge ram with a cummins diesel. >Dguy, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >In my opinion, the failure here isn't the lp itself, but the way DC handled >the warranty on that lift pump. that may be right on the mark max. >Yet the big list of DC's failures didn't >mention its warranty claim problems or five star farce in some dealerships. > >But Nate wants to argue semantics to cover his lack of facts, stats and >logic. But even the semantics and definitions don't prove him right. >>Dguy, >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > that may be right on the mark max. I agree as well. Everybody has problems, it's how you handle them that sets you apart. As I noted somewhere else in this thread, Cummins is taking care of their customers, Dodge is weaseling. That's what bothers me about the whole thing. > its hard to believe you are STILL trying to dispute this. it goes to show > exactly what ive said about you. you will not see beyond your own agenda, > facts be damned. LOL, same old Nate..... ask for proven fact, and get a bunch of spin. I have no agenda, and I've looked at all the facts you've presented in support of your statements. I'll take Mike Simmon's word over yours (he sees more than 7 trucks a week, let alone the 7 you've owned in a year or more) on the lift pump issue. As such, while it is an issue (as I said), its not a "rampant" problem. Now, call me an a.shole, and get it over with. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Whats the failure rate? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exactly what ive said about you. you will not see beyond your own agenda, > facts be damned. > LOL, same old Nate..... ask for proven fact, and get a bunch of spin. yup....because when you are provide with fact, all you can do is spin (and squirm). :-) TOM provided you with a valid industry publication from a company working for cummins. do you think they would lie to make cummins look bad? sheesh, talk about pathetic. > I have no agenda lol.......riiiiiiight. and im gonna go test drive an ISB powered F450. :-) > I've looked at all the facts you've presented in support of your > statements TOM provided the facts. now that youve questioned them i suspect tom will dig up more but if he doesnt, im sure someone will. what will it take max? mr. cummins speaking from the grave to validate the rampant issue? > I'll take Mike Simmon's word over yours you arent taking his word over mine. youre clinging to it because its all youve got after toms link SANK YOUR BOAT COMPLETELY :-) > Now, call me an a.shole, and get it over with. that my friend, would be a disservice to a.sholes everywhere. :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > squirm). :-) TOM provided you with a valid industry publication from a > company working for cummins. do you think they would lie to make cummins > look bad? sheesh, talk about pathetic. Actually, that info. came right from Cummins. Megan Henry, who quoted the 17% number, is one of those Six Sigma "black belt" certified people working in the midrange products division of Cummins (midrange builds the ISB's). > Actually, that info. came right from Cummins. even better, but i have NO doubt that max will continue to squirm off the hook because he hasnt the integrity to own his mistake. i know you dont like getting involved in the petty sh.t and i wont ask you to, but i would like to know.....in your opinion was the issue "rampant" in the reasonable usage of the word rampant? SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Actually, that info. came right from Cummins. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to, but i would like to know.....in your opinion was the issue "rampant" > in the reasonable usage of the word rampant? How about a compromise and say a whole friggin' bunch? Roy >>> Actually, that info. came right from Cummins. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Roy that works, lol. > i know you dont like getting involved in the petty sh.t Not when it's between two people I have respect for, no... :) > and i wont ask you to, B U T . . . > but i would like to know.....in your opinion was the issue "rampant" in > the reasonable usage of the word rampant? I would have to say... that would depend on what your definition of the word "was".... was. > I don't know everything, but I know a bunch of bullshit when I see it..... hmm......yet you think you can get an ISB in the f450/f550.....and that the cummins dodge is aviailable at 650 ft. lbs......and that the LP isnt an issue. LOL. :-) > But you haven't posted any facts on the LP issue. http://tinyurl.com/ybwqz8 > hardly a "known problem" at that mileage. youre right max, the issue isnt known, and does not exist. <roll eyes> ......that you would continue to argue ignorance is funny. :-) > Then you claim it was replaced as preventitive maintenance, so it hadn't > in fact failed. WRONG. i stated that the INJECTION PUMP was replaced "just in case". the lift pump was a failure. please do some research and learn the difference in the two. > Opinions SHOULD be based on fact, otherwise they are bullshit. WRONG! otherwise they are opinions! im sure somewhere out there is a woman that thinks you are the best looking man she has ever seen. that isnt factual, it is her OPINION. same goes for me, and everyone else. > Since you have just shown a basic flaw in your understanding of how > opinions and facts relate to one another, I feel confident in my > assumption that you are once again throwing bullshit around. lol......right max......the lift pump issue never existed. :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com >>> That's what I was wondering, nate... >>> I've heard a few folks say that they didn't buy a dodge, they bought a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Take a deep cleansing breath. Actually, it would seem that if Cryco was "saved", it wouldn't have needed the merger.... hmmm... Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm I bought the best truck and the best engine on the market. I'm not so hot on the newer Dodges, and Ford engineering has been sh.t for years. The more I see, the more I'd be inclined to buy a used 2000 Ram Cummins if I won the lottery. If Dodge goes to a Mercedes Diesel, I might be tempted to take the weight advantage of the Cummins for the power/weight ratio of the Mercedes equalling great MPG for the power. The only thing that matches a good American diesel is a German engineered diesel. But the Dodge/Mercedes diesel would be a second truck, not a replacement for the '00 in the driveway. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm > Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? It would be a tough call, but I'd probably go with the Ford. I like the Ford chassis and cab better than Dodge, so it's not that. It's Ford's proven track record of taking things that are perfectly good and f***ing them all up. (Reference them insisting on dicking around with the injection system/software from Navistar on the 6.0L). From a maintenance point of view, they seem to engineer the convenience out of everything. I wouldn't put it past them to require to to remove an axle to change a tire (exaggeration, but you get the idea). The powertrain would be the deciding factor, and would tip the odds in Ford's favor, IMO. Ugh.... me driving a Ford.... what's the world coming to? :) > Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? Mopar or no car! Mike > Mac > > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm >> Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? > > Mopar or no car! That's a little much.<G> Roy > Mike > >> Mac >> >> https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis >> https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm > Mopar or no car! > > Mike for the most part I'm there with you mike...I've always been a mopar fan....but to be honest the Cummins was the deciding factor when it was time for the 8.0L to say goodbye. I looked at the competitions, didn't go with the Dmax because of things I heard and it having not been out that long. looked at ford but they had been changing their stuff up too much, I questioned the longevity of what they had done. so the Cummins in the dodge wound up being a no brainer... with that said if the Cummins was in a Ford....I don't know what way I would have went...what dodge would be using would have to be DAMN good, as I said the Cummins was the BIGGEST deciding factor. Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. >> Mopar or no car! >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > would have went...what dodge would be using would have to be DAMN good, as > I said the Cummins was the BIGGEST deciding factor. I guess it would depend on what Dodge offered for a diesel. Between Cummins and Cat, I'd follow the Cummins and if ford had a Cummins I'd be in one. Having said that, the Magnum we bought last month with the v-6 is a nice car. We looked at all the others, and liked the magnum best, time will tell. Roy > ---------------------------- > -Chris > 05 CTD > 06 Liberty CRD > > Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. >> Mopar or no car! >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >have went...what dodge would be using would have to be DAMN good, as I said >the Cummins was the BIGGEST deciding factor. Good point, Chris... what I SHOULD have said was "what if Ford and Dodge both had Cummins?" Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:34:13 -0400, "Chris Thompson" > <kf4drr-nospam@alltel.net> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > both > had Cummins?" the short answer.....the Dodge Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > Mac > > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm > the Cummins was the BIGGEST deciding factor. ive always been a dodge man, but i do feel that dodge has fallen behind in other areas. not a lot certainly, but i do notice differences when i drive my buddys '05 king ranch. i wouldnt trade my cummins for anything but another cummins, being able to get one in an f350 king ranch would certainly sweeten a good deal even more. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Tech.com http://GlockCarry.com > ive always been a dodge man, but i do feel that dodge has fallen behind in > other areas. not a lot certainly, but i do notice differences when i > drive my buddys '05 king ranch. i wouldnt trade my cummins for anything > but another cummins, being able to get one in an f350 king ranch would > certainly sweeten a good deal even more. I'm with ya... more comfortable seats, larger rear passenger room, crew cab/long bed availability... if I could just get one without that UGLY AS HELL blue oval on the grill :) >> Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? > >Mopar or no car! > >Mike Even if ferd had heated seats? Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm >>> Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Even if ferd had heated seats? > Mac Damn, Mac... yer makin' it tough... ;^) Mike > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm >>>> Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Mike Well, you have to consider all the options, Mike.. lol Personally, I'd have a tough choice between the Dodge and Ford 3/4 ton four doors.... When I was shopping in 2004, what I decided that I wanted was an F250 super duty 4 door with a Cummins and an Allison tranny... *lol* Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm No I didn't read the last 56 post of it.............. Mine. 98.5 QC 2500 24valve 5spd. stock except for a mechanical fuel pressure guage. I bought the truck with 143,000kms on it, Changed the lift pump at about 150,000. FP went from a soild 15psi at lide to 5psi when I swapped it out. Now 160,000kms.........I'm getting a P0216 code...............nice. > No I didn't read the last 56 post of it.............. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > when I swapped it out. Now 160,000kms.........I'm getting a P0216 > code...............nice. Do I understand correctly? You changed out a LP that was at the time showing 15psi. at idle ? If so why? > Do I understand correctly? You changed out a LP that was at the time > showing 15psi. at idle ? If so why? I read it as it was 15psi when new, but slowly dropped to 5psi, which is when/why he changed it. yup you got it. >> Do I understand correctly? You changed out a LP that was at the time >> showing 15psi. at idle ? If so why? > > I read it as it was 15psi when new, but slowly dropped to 5psi, which is > when/why he changed it. Interesting: http://www.whnet.com/4x4/diesel.html Is this the possible replacement for the Cummins? Or something similar? Signature------------------------------------------ Laszlo Almasi ----Cool Toys (formerly Carolina Watercraft Works) ----Mack Daddy Trailers ----Ice Angels > Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? > > Mac > > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm I will stay with the Dodge and MB engine, have fun with the ford Andy > Would you oil burners stick with mopar or look at both? > > Mac > > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis > https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm I have not had great luck with parts from Cummins for off highway applications. Lack of support of old engines (Onan) and exorbitant prices. Ripoff. My experience was with my old Onan DJE diesel generator. i |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.