Cummins 5.9 with Allison transmission avail. now!!

[DWitcher]

the combo is also an available option in the new ford F-650's.

And the MD Kenworth.

 

[NIsaacs]

And the MD Kenworth.

The medium duty Kenworth & Peterbilt's are at the high end of medium dutys, almost the size of the "baby 8's class"... ... who would spec the 5. 9 in a truck this big I would think at least a C series and a ten speed





"NICK"

 

[Tomeygun]

the combo is also an available option in the new ford F-650's.

Speaking of F650's with cummins and an allison:



http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ford...iewItemQQcategoryZ6221QQitemZ4597337376QQrdZ1

 

[Spooled-up]

I like the look of that ford, but in my opinion, what good does having all that load capacity if you can't really use it? It's way too high for a 5th wheel or a gooseneck, and getting stuff up into that bed would require ladders or a loading dock.



I've been dreaming of one of these lately:



http://www.sportchassis.com/index.php



Only problem with these is that you can't get 4 wheel drive or a manual trans or a Cummins. I guess a Cat will have to do. With 330 hp and 870 tq, I won't complain too much.

 

[Greenleaf]

School Bus Applications

I have a fleet of 12 valved 5. 9's AND a mechanical Allison (545) transmission. The new Allisons are very troublesome both mechanically and electronically. Trust me I know. I have a large number of them behind the ISB engine.





SCott

 

[DHorstman]

5. I REALLY REALLY REALLY dislike working on RVs, as a matter of fact, I pretty much hate it. Ask any cummins tech what they dislike most about their job, it'll probably be the same answer. Most RV engineers must be on drugs the DEA doesn't even know about yet



-Will

allison warranty cert. / cummins tech

I can agree with that!

Had to put an injection pump in my motorhome. It is a front engine/rear drive oshkosh chassis. Plus side is the trans is wide open however. I would love to replace the '542 with a 1000 series or so for a OD and lock-up T/C. Found a couple of buses with MT643s but that's alot of work just for a lockup T/C and no OD. (at least I think the '643 has a t/c )

 

[MontyDyer]

5. I REALLY REALLY REALLY dislike working on RVs, as a matter of fact, I pretty much hate it. Ask any cummins tech what they dislike most about their job, it'll probably be the same answer. Most RV engineers must be on drugs the DEA doesn't even know about yet



-Will

allison warranty cert. / cummins tech

:-laf Man I hear ya. I work on them each and every day. Its a bad deal when your the only one in the shop Freightliner Custom chassis certified. I will give Cummins credit though, they are alot easier to work on with a pusher than a pusher with a CAT. The accessability on the pushers with front mounted radiators are just plain ridiculous. Especially when pulling a head or an engine. The worst by far is Tiffin and Winnebago.

 

[Will24]

I hear ya on the front mounted RADs, nothin like doin a head gasket from inside a $500k coach... argghhhh. Not to mention how much fun pullin a CAC is from the side mounted ones...



We see mostly freightliner and spartan chassis, we are also a workhorse dealer, but they are all front engine gas burners.



-Will

 

[HoleshotHolset]

ISBs (pre common rail) have J1939 backbones and it would be pretty easy to hook a WT up to one (look at pretty much every school bus ever made with an ISB in it), the chrysler only can-bus common rails are a different story though...

Will,



Isn't J1939 an SAE specification/flavor of can-bus?

What I'm getting at is that DC's version and J1939 are both can-bus... I think the only major difference is that they use different protocols (communications headers). Of course, this is a big hurdle to overcome since the systems can't communicate without some sort of translation, but I saw can-bus and got all giddy. :-laf



Matt

 

[MontyDyer]

Will,



Isn't J1939 an SAE specification/flavor of can-bus?

What I'm getting at is that DC's version and J1939 are both can-bus... I think the only major difference is that they use different protocols (communications headers). Of course, this is a big hurdle to overcome since the systems can't communicate without some sort of translation, but I saw can-bus and got all giddy. :-laf



Matt

You are correct, the first datalink protocol in medium duty and heavy duty on road applications was the J1587 datalink which got the job done but was very slow if you compare the baud rate at which J1939 flows. Due to faster ECM's there was a need for a faster datalink, the J1939 system is a 2 wire twisted pair datalink with 2 120 ohm terminating resistors at each end of the backbone which engine, ABS, trans, ICU and many other components talk back and forth on. Some trucks still utilize both 1587 and 1939 together.