And killing un-needed cylinders under light load cruise
My wife's Honda has that feature and it's seamless. If it weren't for the "ECO" light on the instrument panel I wouldn't know or feel it's happening.
Bill
And killing un-needed cylinders under light load cruise
I'm with you Nick. . I just want a double OD 7 speed manual.
Bill,
When I got my Dodge 5. 9L I bought it just for the powertrain combination, and now I'm darn glad I have one of the simpler 2005's with a strong less complicated engine and the handshaker was not optional for me, it had to have it. If I ever need another truck, I'm not putting A/T's down, I'm just stating my prefference and I'll do everything possible to make sure it has a clutch pedal. Or maybe just run this one to dust.
When I got my Dodge 5. 9L I bought it just for the powertrain combination, and now I'm darn glad I have one of the simpler 2005's with a strong less complicated engine and the handshaker was not optional for me, it had to have it. If I ever need another truck, I'm not putting A/T's down, I'm just stating my prefference and I'll do everything possible to make sure it has a clutch pedal. Or maybe just run this one to dust.
Thus, the 6-speed automatic in my signature.
Having had it for over 2 years now, I have to say that I'm getting spoiled by it, even after the pinched nerve in my back was corrected. I always wished for a 7th gear in the 2002 which had 4. 10 gears to tow our 16,000 lb 5th wheel, and the 6-speed automatic fits the bill there (1612 RPM @ 60 MPH versus 2000 RPM @ 60 MPH), and my wife drives probably 50% or more of the time now. So, in my case, a good 6-speed automatic like the 68RFE does have its place. Horses for courses, I guess... ...
Rusty
Why double over, just wondering?
One over with about a 7. 00 to 1 first and 3. 50 rear would be good or since it is Christmas time a 7 spd direct, 8. 00 to 1 first and 2. 75 rear:-laf
Nick
Mine does have the optional power steering and AM radio..... :-laf
My restored 67 short stepside (in the family since new) has a 4spd w/ compound low and 4:11 axle and 6cyl 250. No addl options. Cost 2100 new.
Would not fit in today's world of 5vrs but for many years it ran between WA and MN pulling a popup to visit grndprnts.
That trans is likely the NP 435 'ol reliable... .
Or the SM420
Nick
I like the double OD vs taller diff ratios because you split the gearing reduction up, and thus the heat generation. The truck with the 2. 75 rear would make more trans heat than the one with the 4. 10's, given the same rear wheel power.
That trans is likely the NP 435 'ol reliable... . About your signature; what does one do with a CAT D2 and a D6????
Hi Wayne,
Well the Cats don't fit exactly into Ram Diesel discussion other than I am as excited about tractors as I am about these pickups.
We used Cats for farming on the hills here in the West. There were 100's and probably 1000's of them around here since they replaced horses and mules starting in the early 30's. In the early 80's rubber tires and tracks started to make steel tracks obsolete.
I drove these things from 12yrs old and have always loved the clatter and roar of steel rollers on rails.
My Cats are mostly just to have and keep them from the scrap yard, but they do get some use. The D2 has a dozer blade and it has recently cleared a lot of brush from one of our neglected pastures.
Well anyway I ramble,, thank you for asking Wayne. .
Oh,, and BTW I am sure you are right re the trans, I remember seeing that in the doc. It is the same trans we had in our 37GMC pickup except for syncro in 2nd,3rd, and 4th. Oh,, and also the little lever to protect reverse.
Hydraulic or Cable blades???
Starting motors on both?????
Mike.
The days of super lean combustion are over. Starting in 1973, everything ran (or attempted to run) super lean. Chrysler used it on some of their engines to negate the use of a catalyst. Honda had their CVCC system which also did not need a cat. With the advent of the three-way catalyst for NOX control, engines run at stoichiometric mixtures and I think that's the way it's going to stay.
Future FE improvements can be accomplished by removing the 500-1000# of useless junk that newer vehicles are saddled with.
I did not realize we ever got serious about lean burn. . How come it was not feasable( ie why did we drop it?)
Hi Mike,
The D2 (1940) has a starting motor and although I have the necessary parts to convert the starting motor to electric start I have not gotten a rountit yet. So it is still rope. One D6(1959) has the starting motor with electric start. The second D6 (1959) has been converted to direct electric start.
I would just as soon that 2nd D6 still had the gasoline starting motor. Just this fall I had to install 420$ of batteries on it, also you cant beat the sound of the starting motor rattling up and down the valley early in the
morning!!!
Oh,, and the D2 (the only one with a dozer is hydraulic.
I think Chrysler was really on the right track- and years ahead in thinking/ engineering BUT the computer technology simply wasn't there. The Lean Burn system was an analog computer. YIKES! The TPS was a slide wire wrapped on an eccentric...Chrysler never got it to work well. I doubt the others did either