m16ty

When I asked the museum about my RD822sx they sent me a owners manual, truck build sheet, sales literature, engine service manual, and truck service manual. 

On September 6, 2016 at 6:32 AM, tjc transport said:

my bet is it is going to be a dealer only service item, like the exploder trans is. with no dipstick or fluid fill.

When we bought our Explorer, first thing I did was locate all the check points. I looked all over for a trans dipstick. I called the dealership and found out it didn't have one.

I've got a friend with a Dodge. He threw the belt and we couldn't find belt routing info anywhere in the manual or in the engine compartment. I guess that's a dealer service item also now. We did manage to finally figure it out after putting it on wrong once. 

I've been a diesel fan for years. When I bought a new truck last year (2015 Chevy 2500 6.0) I went with gas.

There's just too much crap on modern diesels and you've got to deal with the DEF. The engine base may run 100s of thousands of miles but all the electronics and such will have to be serviced much sooner, at great cost.

It used to be that if you bought a diesel and drove it long enough, you'd finally save money over a gas engine due to fuel economy and cheaper price of diesel. Now I don't think you'd ever get ahead cost wise. 

Call it what you want but the government is still dumping tons of money into biofuels. 

All I'm saying is that if biofuels are such a great idea and so efficient, let the market decide. We don't need the government pushing it down our throat and spending huge amounts of my tax dollars on it.

“Manufacture of a liter of 99.5% ethanol uses 46% more fossil energy than it produces and costs $1.05 per liter ($3.97 per gallon). The corn feedstock alone requires more than 33% of the total energy input.

The largest energy inputs in corn-ethanol production are for producing the corn feedstock plus the steam energy and electricity used in the fermentation/distillation process. The total energy input to produce a liter of ethanol is 7,474 kcal. However, a liter of ethanol has an energy value of only 5,130 kcal. Based on a net energy loss of 2,344 kcal of ethanol produced, 46% more fossil energy is expended than is produced as ethanol…

In 2006, nearly 19 billion liters of ethanol were produced on 20% of U.S. corn acreage. These 19 billion liters represents only 1% of total U.S. petroleum use. However, even if we completely ignore corn ethanol’s negative energy balance and high economic cost, we still find that it is absolutely not feasible to use ethanol as a replacement for U.S. oil consumption. If all 341 billion kg of corn produced in the U.S. were converted into ethanol at a rate of 2.69 kg per liters of ethanol, then 129 billion liters of ethanol could be produced. This would provide only 7% of total oil consumption in the U.S.”

Nice truck but that Maaco paint job is awful. Least they could have done is keep the overspray off the tires.

I live within a mile of the highest point in my county and probably just a few feet less in elevation. If I flood, you better have a ark ready.  

Heard from a guy the other day that accidentally put a little diesel into the DEF tank and ran the truck. That little screw up cost $6,000 to get fixed. 

That's what I say, if any of these products are economically viable, more power to them. Let the market decide, not the government. 

All I see is billions of taxpayer's dollars and billions charged to oil companies ( which gets passed on to consumers) and not a thing to show for it. Then add in all the other billions of dollars we spend on other worthless crap. This country is in a world of hurt.

On August 21, 2016 at 11:43 PM, kscarbel2 said:

The LDS427, LD465 and LDT465 were intended to run ordinarily on diesel. In an "emergency", they could run on AVGAS, gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel (JP7, JP8) and kerosene.

Those American Bosch rotary fuel pumps never got along with me.

The military uses JP-8 jet fuel in just about all it's diesel vehicles. It's pretty much just a better refined grade of diesel and they use it for everything to keep from having to have two separate fuels on hand. 

1998 Ford Explorer isn't any better. I sold mine with number six plug in it that was in it as long as I owned it. Wasn't any way to get to it without pulling the exhaust manifold or removing the fender that I could find.

Looks like a beer bellied trucker and a pimp crossed paths. Interesting concept but I can't get over the looks of it. 

It actually looks like the pickup survived the crash pretty well. I know it's totaled but look how the cab is still intact, not really much damage for a 35 mph crash. The truck did exactly what it was supposed to do, protect the occupants.   

The military multi fuel does have what they call a "fuel density compensator" that adjust for the viscosity of the fuel. It's not needed to still be a multi fuel though, the power will just be different with different fuels without it. The multi fuel capability has mainly to do with the injector and combustion chamber design. I think they run a 22:1 compression.

They will run on almost anything but still run best on straight diesel. I know I've run a diesel fuel/ used engine oil mix in mine and it didn't run very well. It ran but was harder starting, smoked a lot, and just ran rough. The military advises to only use straight gasoline in emergencies.

I've been wanting to paint my RD822sx like the red one. It's good to see an example to see how it looks, I like it.

About a year ago I saw what could be described as a paving train. I think it was six trucks pulling various equipment, all hooked together. Basically what it did was took up the old asphalt, heated it, mixed some new oil with it, and put it back down. It was a huge contraption with a big propane tank to supply the heat.

I stopped and talked to one of the flagmen about it. He said it was a experimental project they were working on. I don't know how well it turned out long term but it looked as good as any coming right out of the machine.  

He probably gets decent mileage but I doubt that 30mpg claim. Those old 2-strokes aren't known for being particularly economical on fuel.

It probably makes up on fuel savings with oil consumption and leaks. Just kidding but we all know those old Detroits like to leak. 

Yea I've been there. Complete rebuild on a Cummins is a big job.

I just got done doing the head gaskets on a N14 and even that's a pretty big job having to deal with jakes, rocker boxes, and heads on 3 heads.

It always puzzled me that when the stock market takes a dump, everybody sells out. When the market is high people buy. 

That seems completely backwards to me. When the stock market falls, that's the time to buy in my book. I prefer to buy low and sell high.

Around here everybody wants a narrow front super c with cultivators. They were a great 2 row cultivator tractor. Tobacco and truck farmers still use them quite a bit.

2 hours ago, 41chevy said:

I joined the Teamsters in 1973 working for Horan Sand and Gravel and still keep my dues up to date until I retired this May. I opened my own salvage hauling business and an other doing sea walls and break waters. I would not ever hire any union people in the 25 years I had the business. I wanted to chose my jobs ,workers and suppliers and actually make money and not be forced pay union "fees" and work on their schedules. My guys worked year round. . . no lay offs, slow downs or other crap. Almost 44 years in 282 and piss on them, all they had was a hand in my pocket all those years.   

I'm just curious, why did you keep paying union dues all those years when you weren't doing union work? You don't seem overly fond of unions, just trying to understand why you kept paying them. Was it to get some sort of pension when you retire?