Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / June 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

pulling the load

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Nathan W. Collier - 21 Jun 2007 07:23 GMT
i just got back from vacation, hauling the camper down to los angeles
(disney land) and san diego (zoo) from billings montana.  the scales at
flyin' j says we were just a couple hundred pounds shy of 23,000 pounds
total.  i was a bit disappointed when pulling my camper back from texas, but
this time i have no complaints.  since i had my family with me i didnt use
as much accelerator and the truck just did fine.  the looooooooong grade
into baker california took some time but i was still passing the big trucks
pulling the same hill.  see
http://inlinediesel.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=654 for trip pictures and
details.

Signature

Nathan In Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://GlockCarry.com
http://HiPowerTalk.com

GeekBoy - 21 Jun 2007 09:52 GMT
>i just got back from vacation, hauling the camper down to los angeles
>(disney land) and san diego (zoo) from billings montana.  the scales at
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>http://inlinediesel.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=654 for trip pictures and
>details.

What was disapointing about pulling from Texas?
What is your configeration? 6 speed? 4.11 rear end?
With that much weight I would think so.
Your rig and 5th wheel are a nice setup.

And the reasons you were passing trucks on the way to Bakersfield:
The part of I-5 is very restrictive on speed limits on trucks and ....
The trucks may only have about 2-3 times the torque of the 6.7L or 5.9
Cummins in the Dodge, and may outweigh you by up to 55,000 lbs, figuring
full tons and full load capacity in a box.
SnoMan - 21 Jun 2007 12:20 GMT
>>i just got back from vacation, hauling the camper down to los angeles
>>(disney land) and san diego (zoo) from billings montana.  the scales at
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>Cummins in the Dodge, and may outweigh you by up to 55,000 lbs, figuring
>full tons and full load capacity in a box.

If you want to get a better idea on how you should be able to climb a
grade or what to expect, check out the link below as it is based on
physics involved.

http://forum.snoman.com/viewtopic.php?t=45
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
GeekBoy - 21 Jun 2007 14:08 GMT
>>>i just got back from vacation, hauling the camper down to los angeles
>>>(disney land) and san diego (zoo) from billings montana.  the scales at
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

Wow.
Hundreds of posts on a forum and only one person posting and replying.
Nathan W. Collier - 21 Jun 2007 17:06 GMT
> http://forum.snoman.com/viewtopic.php?t=45

thanks for the link.  how does that factor in gear ratios?  im guessing that
is actuall RWHP?

Signature

Nathan In Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://HiPowerTalk.com
http://GlockCarry.com
http://InlineDiesel.com

SnoMan - 21 Jun 2007 19:17 GMT
>thanks for the link.  how does that factor in gear ratios?  im guessing that
>is actuall RWHP?

No it is based on projected flywheel HP needs. Where gear ratio comes
in is that with a deeper axle ratio, the engine runs at a higher RPM
in any given gear and therefore has more HP avaible since HP equals
torque times RPM divided by 5252. Or do do it in reverse to find out
how much torque is needed at what RPM to make required HP simply take
required HP times 5252 and then divid it by RPM and you will see how
much engine torque is needed to make the desire HP needed for the
climb in question. Below are two more link, the first should the
relation ship between torque and RPM to make required HP and the
second shows drive shaft torque required with variuos gear ratios.

http://forum.snoman.com/viewtopic.php?t=72

http://forum.snoman.com/viewtopic.php?t=48

One more link if you are curious is the amount of chassis counter
twist that is place on motor mounts when climbing a grade.

http://forum.snoman.com/viewtopic.php?t=49
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Nathan W. Collier - 21 Jun 2007 17:04 GMT
> What was disapointing about pulling from Texas?
> What is your configeration? 6 speed? 4.11 rear end?

4 speed automatic, 3.73 gears.  when i hit some of the grades in colorado
the truck would slow and downshift and slow and downshift.  it was
disappointing because i was trying to maintain highway speeds and it wasnt
happening.  unrealistic expectations on my part i guess.

> With that much weight I would think so.

.......i wish.  :-)  im still looking into adding an underdrive setup.

> Your rig and 5th wheel are a nice setup.

many thanks.

> The part of I-5 is very restrictive on speed limits on trucks and ....

most of the big trucks were down to 20 mph or so by the time they topped the
grade.  i was running about 40 when i topped it and i wasnt beating my truck
up to do it so i was happy with it.

Signature

Nathan In Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://HiPowerTalk.com
http://GlockCarry.com
http://InlineDiesel.com

GeekBoy - 21 Jun 2007 19:19 GMT
>> What was disapointing about pulling from Texas?
>> What is your configeration? 6 speed? 4.11 rear end?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> disappointing because i was trying to maintain highway speeds and it wasnt
> happening.  unrealistic expectations on my part i guess.

That there is your problem. If I had a 3500, I would have the 4.11 rear end
and 6 speed transmission.
4.11 does not increase load capability, but it does make it easier to tow
heaver loads.
Also a 6 speed would increase the load capability by, I think, by 4-5000
lbs.

If you had both of those on the truck I would say you would have no problem
doing 65+ up the hill.

>> With that much weight I would think so.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> the grade.  i was running about 40 when i topped it and i wasnt beating my
> truck up to do it so i was happy with it.

I towed up that hill in a 1500 with the V6. That engine is way too small for
the truck, but I had a 5 speed manual and I was still able to hit 35.
So yes better trans makes a difference.
Nathan W. Collier - 21 Jun 2007 21:30 GMT
> If you had both of those on the truck I would say you would have no
> problem doing 65+ up the hill.

....i think youre underestimating that hill.  :-)

Signature

Nathan In Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://HiPowerTalk.com
http://GlockCarry.com
http://InlineDiesel.com

GeekBoy - 22 Jun 2007 02:42 GMT
>> If you had both of those on the truck I would say you would have no
>> problem doing 65+ up the hill.
>
> ....i think youre underestimating that hill.  :-)

Nope. I've been up and down it MANY times.
Craig C. - 21 Jun 2007 17:25 GMT
> i just got back from vacation, hauling the camper down to los angeles
> (disney land) and san diego (zoo) from billings montana.

Nice setup.  I had no idea that Billings (the first couple of pictures)
was that scenic.

How was your mpg pulling your trailer?

On a separate subject, (perhaps we should talk via email), I noticed
that you are quite the 1911 fan?  I was at the gun show in Dallas a
couple of weeks ago and Kimber has a new (new to me anyway) model
(Eclipse Pro Carry II).  Wanted to know what you thought of it before I
spend a bunch of money.

Craig C.
Nathan W. Collier - 21 Jun 2007 17:54 GMT
> Nice setup.  I had no idea that Billings (the first couple of pictures)
> was that scenic.

in the right spots, even billings is beautiful.

> How was your mpg pulling your trailer?

it varied, but overall i averaged about 12.1 mpg.  not bad at all
considering the load and the grades i was pulling.

> I noticed that you are quite the 1911 fan?

....you could say that.  :-)

> Kimber has a new (new to me anyway) model (Eclipse Pro Carry II).  Wanted
> to know what you thought of it before I spend a bunch of money.

my recent experience with kimber
http://1911talk.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=164 left a bad taste in my
mouth.  im sure ill own kimbers again eventually, but im a little gun shy
with them right now.  im sure they build a fine weapon and im sure i just
got a bad one.....but i would steer you towards the springfield "loaded"
champion.  mine http://1911talk.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=324 has been
absolutely flawless and seems to function no matter what ammo i run through
it.

Signature

Nathan In Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://HiPowerTalk.com
http://GlockCarry.com
http://InlineDiesel.com

Craig C. - 21 Jun 2007 18:14 GMT
> it varied, but overall i averaged about 12.1 mpg.  not bad at all
> considering the load and the grades i was pulling.

That's great.  That w/o OD the entire time?

> champion.  mine http://1911talk.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=324 has been
> absolutely flawless and seems to function no matter what ammo i run through
> it.

I've heard similar grumblings about Kimber.  I have a Kimber Ultra Carry
II stainless.  Flawless weapon (so far).  Although, I have only put
about 150 rounds through it.

I've not checked into the Springfields.  Do they have a carry model .45?
 i.e. compact frame and short barrel like the Kimber Ultra Carry II or
Eclipse Pro Carry II?

I gotta say, the *best* gun I have (and have ever fired) is the S&W
model 910.  (9mm).  Never jammed (approximately 1200 rounds put through
it), nice tight patterns, affordable, simple design, very easy to
breakdown/clean and reassemble.  Definitely one of S&W's better guns.

Craig C.
Nathan W. Collier - 21 Jun 2007 21:29 GMT
> That's great.  That w/o OD the entire time?

in '05 there is no od lock out.  it still shifts into od, only it changes
the shifting supposedly to where it will only go into od when its safe to do
so.  the majority of the trip was in od.

> I've heard similar grumblings about Kimber.  I have a Kimber Ultra Carry
> II stainless.  Flawless weapon (so far).  Although, I have only put about
> 150 rounds through it.

their qc has been up and down.  when you have a good one, you have a GOOD
one.  when you have a bad one....

regardless, with the negative experience im just hesitant to buy another.

> I've not checked into the Springfields.  Do they have a carry model .45?
> i.e. compact frame and short barrel like the Kimber Ultra Carry II or
> Eclipse Pro Carry II?

absolutely.  the springfield ultra.  i did a review on mine at
http://1911talk.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=224

> Definitely one of S&W's better guns.

have you played with the s&w m&p yet?  its quickly becoming one of my
favorites.  see my review at
http://concealedcarryforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=493

Signature

Nathan In Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://HiPowerTalk.com
http://GlockCarry.com
http://InlineDiesel.com

Craig C. - 21 Jun 2007 21:49 GMT
> regardless, with the negative experience im just hesitant to buy another.

Well, me too after hearing of more people than just you having problems
with them.  That's why I asked you in the first place.  So, thanks for
the confirmation.

> absolutely.  the springfield ultra.  i did a review on mine at
> http://1911talk.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=224

Now that is a nice looking gun.  I'm a big fan of the Hogue grips.  I
have a set on my S&W 910.

> have you played with the s&w m&p yet?  its quickly becoming one of my
> favorites.  see my review at
> http://concealedcarryforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=493

I have not fired one, but I have held one.  It reminds me of a Glock.
This may be opening me up for ridicule, but I wasn't blessed with the
biggest hands (I have long a.s fingers, however  :-) ).  A Glock doesn't
sit well in the palm of my hand.  Feels like it's going to fly out when
I shoot.

Thanks for the information.  I'll check out the Springfield.

Craig C.
Nathan W. Collier - 21 Jun 2007 22:42 GMT
>> absolutely.  the springfield ultra.  i did a review on mine at
>> http://1911talk.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=224
>
> Now that is a nice looking gun.  I'm a big fan of the Hogue grips.  I have
> a set on my S&W 910.

i really like them too.  i put them on all of my 1911s that come with smooth
front straps.

> It reminds me of a Glock.

this to me is its greatest asset.  glock action/reliability with a proper
grip angle.

> This may be opening me up for ridicule, but I wasn't blessed with the
> biggest hands (I have long a.s fingers, however  :-) ).  A Glock doesn't
> sit well in the palm of my hand.  Feels like it's going to fly out when I
> shoot.

have you held a glock 20 (.45) or glock 21 (10mm)?  i would love to own
either of them but cannot because my hands arent big enough for them.  when
i hold one it feels like im a little boy playing with daddys gun.  if you
have big hands this might be perfect for you.  the mid-size glocks
(g17/g22/g31) fit my hand perfect.....i just dont much like the grip angles.

Signature

Nathan In Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://HiPowerTalk.com
http://GlockCarry.com
http://InlineDiesel.com

Midlant - 21 Jun 2007 21:04 GMT
Nathan it doesn't sound like the Kimber was at fault, but that they
decided to make it more ammo friendly.
Keep in mind 1911's were designed for ball ammo. Were you using hollow
points?
John

>> Nice setup.  I had no idea that Billings (the first couple of
>> pictures) was that scenic.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> http://1911talk.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=324 has been absolutely
> flawless and seems to function no matter what ammo i run through it.
Nathan W. Collier - 21 Jun 2007 21:36 GMT
> Nathan it doesn't sound like the Kimber was at fault, but that they
> decided to make it more ammo friendly.

i disagree COMPLETELY.  kimber was completely at fault.  the weapon would
not function period, and since its stamped "custom shop" on the slide its
supposed to mean that the weapon was handled by a custom gun smith.  that it
wouldnt cycle at all says they did a very poor job.

> Keep in mind 1911's were designed for ball ammo. Were you using hollow
> points?

while what you say is true, i wasnt shooting an actual 1911 i was shooting a
modernized clone that in fact doesnt even use the original bushing barrel
setup.  modern 1911 clones are indeed designed to function hollow
points......if they werent they would have a dang hard time selling them.
to answer your question however, the weapon wouldnt feed _anything_
reliably.  the only round that would function even half way was the corbon
powr'ball and even that was hit and miss.  i tried blazer brass, i tried
WWB, i tried american eagle (all ball) and it woudlnt cycle it.  nor would
it cycle hydrashoks or any other hollow point.  i have literally dozens of
1911s and only 2 have been problematic.  the kimber that went back, and my
colt combat commander xse which functions everything reliably except corbon
jhp's (which happens to be my trusted carry round).

Signature

Nathan In Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://HiPowerTalk.com
http://GlockCarry.com
http://InlineDiesel.com

Midlant - 22 Jun 2007 02:53 GMT
Sounds like a S&W M41 I have. Had to send it back twice. Once to get it
to feed and NOT drop the magazine after each shot. Second time was to
get it to shoot under 3".
The m41 is a custom shop gun as well. In modern fabrication that doesn't
always mean what you think it does.
What they mean and what you/we expect can be totally different.
Blessings,
John

>> Nathan it doesn't sound like the Kimber was at fault, but that they
>> decided to make it more ammo friendly.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> xse which functions everything reliably except corbon jhp's (which
> happens to be my trusted carry round).
Nathan W. Collier - 22 Jun 2007 05:24 GMT
> The m41 is a custom shop gun as well. In modern fabrication that doesn't
> always mean what you think it does.
> What they mean and what you/we expect can be totally different.

i agree, at least in that many mass production companies are stamping
"custom" on their guns as a marketing ploy only.  it unfairly waters down
the term.

Signature

Nathan In Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://GlockCarry.com
http://HiPowerTalk.com


Rate this thread:






 
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



©2008 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.