01 Dodge 3500 4x4 dually challange!

[dem45133]

The Dodge/Cummins comes intercooled from the factory.

Yes it did... I stand corrected. I went out and looked and its tucked in there so pretty tight and neat, I hadn't spotted it before. Other than show off how clean it was (like new... really... when I brought it home from out west), I haven't been under it much. I ran it all last summer (1st 1 1/2 years it was shedded here as I was still working out west). Two years of Ohio's humidity is starting to effect bright alum. Humpt. And its never seen a spec of salt and if I have my way it never will. I will always have a winter beater for that.

[dem45133]

Oh.... just to explain.... two trucks we've been talking about... the one I want mod is the 01 Dodge Cummins 1 ton, My old 3/4 its replacing (at least in the summer months yet), is a 94 Gas v8 Auto 8800 lb 3/4. If I do continue to run it next winter...it could likely stand a tune (although she runs just fine)... 147k on the last tune (plugs, rotor cap wires) and FI clean up. I'd swear Chryslers spark box loves wide gaped plugs. But truthfully I'm leery of trying to change them out now... I have one in the 86 model with 200k on it but I cant get it out and now won't run on it... any more torque and it will either twist off or pull the alum threads out of the head. But its a woods hauler now so it doesn't matter. The 94 isn't quite there yet. But if I strip the plug threads I'd have to pull the heads... so I've left it alone.

The salt is still here, so I'm still commuting with the old 3/4. 1 ton is still in the shed for a few weeks yet while the rains clean the roads.

[dem45133]

You have more experience hauling than me, but I'd think a 3/4 single would easily handle the load, and provide a better ride the other 99% of the time you aren't hauling. With a low-range gearbox, pulling up ramps without burning the torque converter should be a piece of cake.

Thanks... but I have the 1 ton now... and will for a long time baring catastrophe. BTW, low range was one of the reasons for the 4x4. Actually, while yes the 4x system as a few hundred or a 1000 lbs of weight... its rolling resistance is not bad at all with Chrysler's front axle disconnect. But there is a little extra weight.

4x low range in granny with the Cummins... it'll walk that out at idle as most diesels will. You always start out a desiel on idle... even and especially with the semi at 80k. That's why it has gears.

[dem45133]

You have more experience hauling than me, but I'd think a 3/4 single would easily handle the load, and provide a better ride the other 99% of the time you aren't hauling. With a low-range gearbox, pulling up ramps without burning the torque converter should be a piece of cake.

Thanks, but the truck will always retain its max gross ratings... I'll not diminish that. If it'll pulls14 or 15k or so by design... it just pulls 9k that much easier. You have to remember, its still a small truck by hauling standards. I do not have any goose-neck or 5th wheel trailers yet... but I will.

Actually it rides well. so does the 3/4. with LR E tires you can tell if you ran over a dime or a if it was quarter, but compared to the buckboards just a few years back they've come a long ways on suspension.

[Diesel_Dave]

To start off with, I'll admit that I haven't thouroughly read though every post on this thred (but did skim through them).

Let me start by pointing out the magnitude of the goal that you're trying to accomplish (>=30 mpg). That's close to double what you're getting now. That being said, I know it's possible, because I do it on a fairly similar vehicle. But, with there's also a reason I'm the only person I'm aware of whose done it...it ain't easy. Keep this in mind.

My first piece of advice would be not to get too far ahead of yourself. Sure, you want to go from 18mpg to 30mpg, but the first step is going from 18mpg to 19mpg, then to 20mpg, etc. While the big "out of the box" ideas are flashy and fun (and soemtimes very good), most of the people on this site will attest to the fact that their journey has been mostly one of small, incremental changes that add up to something big.

It also seems to me that you're overlooking driving mods. IMO, these can easily give you a 30-40% boost from where you are now. It sounds like one thing that you've got going for you is a long, consistant commute. This is a major plus for improving driving. Start keeping a journal/log of each day, what you did differently, and what the FE impact was. I assume your '01 has an in-cab mpg display--it's not horribly accurate but it still makes and excellent guide (i.e. higher numbers are better). Here's what will happen, you'll do something (either intentionally or unintentionally) and one day you'll get really good mileage. It can be a different route, a different shifting pattern, a different cruise speed, etc., but after you learn what it is you can learn to do it over and over again--and beforehand you never would have guessed that it made such a difference. Records are also of extreme importance for this quest of yours. I can't emphasize this enough. It's the only way you'll learn what's working, what's not, and where to focus your attention.

What is this commute of yours like? Interstate? City? Rural highway? Mix? Flat? Hilly? Many other vehicles? This will affect what things will be the biggest gains.

As far as the hybrid idea goes, I'm not to keen on it. A hydrid has the potential to benefit you in two primary ways: regenerative braking & keeping your engine in "better place" on the BSFC map. You can reap most of the benefit of both of these with careful driving. If you do the "driving wothout brakes" technique, which you try to minimize the use of braking you don't need regenerative braking because there's no energy to recover--which is even better than regenerative braking. This is key for getting good in-town FE. With a big truck like ours, you can loose a lot of energy to heat and brake dust without realizing it. Learn how to time red lights by coasting in neutral, adjusting your speed, looking at the traffic ahead, etc. Not have to brake to a stop and then use lots of fuel to get back up to speed is huge. Also, when you have unavoidable stops like stop signs, learn how to coast in neutral down to a fairly slow speed before you ever have to apply the brakes. And with regard to the "better place" on the BSFC maps, you can take care of that with shifting patterns, keeping your rpms down. I'd encourage you to try running lower rpms when unloaded. These engine have somewhere near 400 lb-ft of clutch engagement torque (max torque at idle speed), so you can run pretty low rpms unloaded without lugging the engine.

I'll probably chime back in on some of your other proposed mods, but those are my thoughts for now. I look forward to seeing how you do, and helping where I can.

And start a fuel log so we can see how you're doing.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The argument that one needs to drive a bigger vehicle than anyone else for safety reasons, bothers me. Usually the person that feels they need extra safety is a bad driver (not implying you are) and they put others at greater risk by hurling extra mass down the freeway. Everyone trying to drive bigger cars than everyone else is a rat race that nobody wins.

Not only that, the argument that big vehicles - and particularly 3/4 and 1 ton pickups - are safer just doesn't stand up to real-world data. See the attached graph, from Wenzel & Ross, which shows that a 1 ton Dodge Ram is about 3 times more likely to kill its driver in a crash than a Toyota Camry, and about 10 times more likely to kill the driver of another vehicle.

You may feel safer in a big vehicle, but that safety is an illusion.

[dem45133]

Thanks Dave

Driving tech is of course a major contributor. By default I'm not real brake dependent and pretty much do as you were saying... just not to the same extreme. Back in the semi days, I once came all the way back from CA to WI on the south route with the trailer brakes out like 2-1/2 turns on a trailer I hadn't been pulling. Since I almost never put hardly any demand them I didn't notice. I was also a little light as our back hauls were generally only grossing 65 or 70k. Boss obviously spotted this condition when he proceeded to service the trailer when I got in, and then jumped my butt (as he should have)... but as I explained to him... If I'd had a hill or had done my initial check when I hooked up as I was supposed to.... it would have been me telling him about it, as whomever pulled it was never to let it get that far (means also he wasn't doing the mandatory brake checks at the top of the big grades... something I always do). Brakes and steering are my two biggest pet peeves. He knew he was preaching to the chior. Nope not brake dependent... but I've I'd had needed them they wouldn't have been there. 2400 miles and didn't notice.

Thinking ahead to 5 or 6 dollars a gallon... its pretty safe to say I'd have to give up commuting with it then. While the transformer idea has merit in some ways... it would cost a bunch and be hard to make up although I do expect to have this truck the rest of my life. But I'll try cleaning up some of the drag... to the point that's practical.

Commute... ~ 2 miles of two track 23-30 mpg township road, then 18 miles of good US two lane, but twisty and hilly. 60% of the 25 mpg (at 40) curves you have to slow down for are at the base of a hill on the other side of the curve...so now your trying to regain your speed while climbing to boot!. This part of the commute even works the cummins, but especially the v8 if your trying to regain back to 62 mph until the next curve/hill combo in a couple/three miles. The rest is 24 miles of good open country 4 lane but not limited access. Most run 65 to 70... speed limit is 60. Rolling gentle grades. It has one good size grade (for eastern standards) that's about 5% I think for about 2 miles on each side. The v8 can maintain 70 on it but I seldom do as its almost 100% throttle to so it. If I am not careful 100% will force it out of OD. The cummins barely knows its there. Just for smiles one time I floored the cummins at the bottom in 6th doing 70... was doing almost 90 by the time I reached the top (with a big smile!)... Gotta love that turbo! And this is a stock truck...wonder what do they do when they are boosted hard?

At 6 am, there is only marginal traffic... but lots of deer.

The e thing is intriguing and I may play with that... but not on this truck I think now. Work is considering offering plugins for e cars... so maybe i'll design and build up a David machine just for commute. From my previous comments... I can do that reasonably easy. There is probably some law that says I can do what I'm thinking... GM and Chrysler can, but somehow that's different. But I have to finish the remodeling first.

As you may have guessed by now... we gave up on TV several years ago... we have no TV service and cant receive digital air in this location... but we will locate and watch a good DVD sometimes. I'll go tinker with something, read, or I go to bed.

Thanks,

Dave

[dem45133]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Not only that, the argument that big vehicles - and particularly 3/4 and 1 ton pickups - are safer just doesn't stand up to real-world data. See the attached graph, from Wenzel & Ross, which shows that a 1 ton Dodge Ram is about 3 times more likely to kill its driver in a crash than a Toyota Camry, and about 10 times more likely to kill the driver of another vehicle.

You may feel safer in a big vehicle, but that safety is an illusion.

I'd like to see more what Wenzel and Ross says... do you have a web address or lead where I can get detail?

Yes this graph relates the laws of physics quite well... but there are factors its NOT identifying... ie. that very few Camerys are towing or hauling... and how much of the 3x and 10x are due to the fact that the 1 tons and 3/4s are often pulling or hauling something in the bed that exacerbates its particular issues. Sure if a 7500 lb 1 ton is pulling 13000 for a total of 20500... that's about 10 times the Camery weight or so... not only does the driver have to recover from the Camery's influx of forces... but now has to regain...if possible, the rig. If that's not possible and that 13k comes through the cab your likely dead... or pulls you over as it goes over and your also in more trouble. But if your empty... its a totally different story.

Roll overs are also a factor since the truck sits higher. Its one of the reasons I like the duals... its wide stance will slide much longer before rolling over. Raw numbers don't mean anything until the basis is presented with them... typical research or data dump trying to say what they want it to say by not presenting basis or incorporating all the factors. I see it all the time in my industry. I need to see the basis. I was pleased to see them state the "significant difference" though. Most don't and all data is meaningless with out its quantifiers.

Same with the semi, but instead of 20k its 80k. I typically do not wear a seat belt...unless I am in a high risk scenario... like I95 east coast corridor or I10 in LA or similar and not in the semi.

I had a state trooper try to cite me once for no seat belt in the semi... I told him that he could write tickets until he ran out of paper... but I will not wear it in that scenario. Here's why (he actually said he couldn't argue with that...although it wasn't law then) He was standing on a 150 gallon fuel tank... with a mate to it on the other side. 300 gallons of fuel, cross over line is at the bottom of the tanks, 6" off the ground. Its one of the first things that gets ripped off the truck if it some how gets off road. On that truck the windshield was designed to pop out from the inside (Mack MH613 cab over). I once watched as two drivers burnt up when that 300 gallons of fuel caught fire and he was being pinned due to the seat belt as the cab was partially crushed from 50,000 lbs of freight trying to come through it. I've heard of others cut in half as the 50,000 lbs of freight came trough the cab above the seat belt anchors. Nope... I'll take my chances of being thrown clear... which happens a lot with big trucks. NO freight is 100% secure in an accident... whether its a pickup or a semi. It'll snap those chains and binders like they were shoe strings... your talking mega forces! There is no headache rack on the planet that will hold back a full load of steel... its going through the cab... period.

Even way back with the 1/4 ton D50 and every truck since... If I had long steel or 2x lumber in it... it was purposely stacked in the middle if I had a passenger... or the passenger side and NO passenger. If some one hits your from the rear... its will drive these through the front of the bed and the back bulkhead of the cab in a heartbeat... even on a frontal collision... their coming through just from kinetic E exacerbating your problems as is any of the freight or objects in your pickup. The heavier they are, the bigger your problems. The Camery hauling soft strapped in passengers that can't snap the straps doesn't have this issue very often.

No, the data is inconclusive if it doesn't take freight and towing into consideration. Its what they were designed for and why most of us own them. So what was the basis of the study and how were unique factors incorporated?

Dave

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by dem45133

I'd like to see more what Wenzel and Ross says... do you have a web address or lead where I can get detail?

Try here: Is Bigger Safer? It Ain't Necessarily So It's a discussion, with a link to the actual paper. You can also find many other links by searching on something like "Wenzel Ross vehicle model risk"

Yes this graph relates the laws of physics quite well... but there are factors its NOT identifying... ie. that very few Camerys are towing or hauling... and how much of the 3x and 10x are due to the fact that the 1 tons and 3/4s are pulling or hauling something in the bed that exacerbates its particular issues.

Yes, that's true, but really, what percentage of the time is the typical 3/4 or 1 ton pickup actually hauling or towing? May be different in your part of the country, but around here (northern Nevada) they're mostly used to commute to office jobs, or maybe hauling a few tools to construction sites. (FWIW, I worked construction for years, driving a Mazda RX3 wagon for long trips, or a tiny by today's standards Datsun pickup for local hauling.) I doubt if time spent hauling/towing is enough to affect the statistics.

I had a state trooper try to cite me once for no seat belt in the semi...

Now how on earth could he tell, given the height difference?

No, the data is inconclusive if it doesn't take freight and towing into consideration. Its what they were designed for. So what was the basis of the study and how were unique factors incorporated?

Sure, but you need to go with the best data you have (or can get) until you can get better, and I doubt if accident statistics record things like pickup loads. Though as above, we could make a fair guess by noting that most pickups on the road are empty or lightly loaded, and not towing.

We could also compare the rates of pickups and the truck-based SUVs they're derived from, since the SUV won't be hauling nearly as much load, and can't pull heavy 5th-wheel trailers. W&R do this, as shown it the attached, and it seems the SUV risk is less, but still much higher than for the Camry. However, the SUVs are usually based on the 1/2 ton pickup (e.g. F150 vs F350), which have lower risk than the 3/4 and 1 ton versions. There's also a driver behavior factor, which W&R address, that might reduce the SUV accident rate.

And finally, given the description of your commute in the other post, I think the best choice for your daily driver would be an older Mazda Miata.

[dem45133]

Now how on earth could he tell, given the height difference?

It was a portable DOT (porta-scale) stop just off Donner coming into Reno on 80.