2nd Gen Non-Engine/Transmission Passenger leg room on old diesel vs "new"

[navyjoe]

I have a 98 2500 12V that is VERY comfortable to ride in for long periods. My wife especially likes the full size floor in our truck. I am wanting to get a 3500 due to a new Lance camper we now have. I've noticed the new diesels have a hump on the passenger side which causes her to have to sit a little sideways with her legs to the right. What year did they increase the turbo/exhaust size that caused the loss on the cab on the passenger side?



(I also posted this in the 3rd generation forum. Hope its not bad manners to put in both places)

 

[Bart]

I too have a 98 12 valver. Your wife must have longer legs than mine. My 5'4" girl whines about the passenger seat after just a short time. To cure this noise :-laf I put in foam pads totalling 4" (just laying on the passenger side floor) this seems to help. She says the front seat edge cuts off the circulation in her legs. If Dodge really wants to please thier customers put power seats on the passenger side. To heck with the driver's side :-laf

 

[litespeed]

Uh... ... . You may want to stick with a 12 valve 3500 (if your hardcore and know what your doing).



Or consider a 24 valve 2nd gen. (with a good block). Preferably a 2001. 5 with 4 wheel disc's.



The fuel is going to kill you on a newer one. Compared to what you are used to.



Not sure if you considered that. But the costs add up quick.



I have lost of stories with slide ins..... Not enough room or time to talk about it. From Florida to Alaska (Artic Circle) and back.



Lance is a good one. You're on the right track!



Regards,





AJ

 

[navyjoe]

My wife is pretty tall. 5'6 I think (after 33 years I guess I should know that!!) And you are right, it would be nice to have the passenger side with power seats! I bet the new trucks have then. Shoot For just another $35K or so !!

 

[navyjoe]

Uh... ... . You may want to stick with a 12 valve 3500 (if your hardcore and know what your doing).



Or consider a 24 valve 2nd gen. (with a good block). Preferably a 2001. 5 with 4 wheel disc's.



The fuel is going to kill you on a newer one. Compared to what you are used to.



Not sure if you considered that. But the costs add up quick.



I have lost of stories with slide ins..... Not enough room or time to talk about it. From Florida to Alaska (Artic Circle) and back.



Lance is a good one. You're on the right track!



Regards,





AJ

Thanks for the reply. You answered another one of my questions whick was witch year did thay start with 4 wheel discs. Are they really that much better on breaking?



I have heard that a lot do like the 12V better. I like mine! Tweeked the rig up a bit. It realy moves on down the road.



Explain your comment "Or consider a 24 valve 2nd gen. (with a good block). " I waint all the info I can get before I move on this.

 

[Hendricks]

Good block means try and avoid the dreaded 53 block. do a search on it and you can read for about 2 days.

 

[litespeed]

Thanks for the reply. You answered another one of my questions whick was witch year did thay start with 4 wheel discs. Are they really that much better on breaking?



I have heard that a lot do like the 12V better. I like mine! Tweeked the rig up a bit. It realy moves on down the road.



Explain your comment "Or consider a 24 valve 2nd gen. (with a good block). " I waint all the info I can get before I move on this.

Sorry...



I should have been more specific.



First of all..... The newer brakes on the 2nd gens. are awesome. They are much better than the previous. I have owned and pulled with the previous version. No comparison. The newer brakes started sometime in 2001. Only problem is the parking brake requires regular adjustment. Not a problem, just more regular maintenance.



The 2nd gens. were plagued with the dreaded "53" block. It is easy to identify and not a problem if you are looking for a truck. Just be sure you KNOW what you are looking at. Do a search and you can read about it for days.



Here is some info. on it. :



http://www.stamey.info/Truck/Cummins53BlockFAQ.htm#NewInformation



As far as the new trucks go... ... I almost bought one (literally). Had the contract in hand. I backed out of it after riding and driving in a couple of them. I'm really glad I know people that drive these trucks. The mileage is not that great. The "corrected" mileage is what got my attention. Not so much pulling. But while un-loaded. Leaves a lot to be desired.



Our dually will get 20 MPG AVG. corrected until I hit the interstate. It is never worse than 17. 5 MPG on the hwy (haulin sass).







Regards,



AJ

 

[navyjoe]

Sorry...



I should have been more specific.



First of all..... The newer brakes on the 2nd gens. are awesome. They are much better than the previous. I have owned and pulled with the previous version. No comparison. The newer brakes started sometime in 2001. Only problem is the parking brake requires regular adjustment. Not a problem, just more regular maintenance.



The 2nd gens. were plagued with the dreaded "53" block. It is easy to identify and not a problem if you are looking for a truck. Just be sure you KNOW what you are looking at. Do a search and you can read about it for days.



Here is some info. on it. :



http://www.stamey.info/Truck/Cummins53BlockFAQ.htm#NewInformation



As far as the new trucks go... ... I almost bought one (literally). Had the contract in hand. I backed out of it after riding and driving in a couple of them. I'm really glad I know people that drive these trucks. The mileage is not that great. The "corrected" mileage is what got my attention. Not so much pulling. But while un-loaded. Leaves a lot to be desired.



Our dually will get 20 MPG AVG. corrected until I hit the interstate. It is never worse than 17. 5 MPG on the hwy (haulin sass).







Regards,



AJ

Thats great milage. Which rear end do you have?



2WD or 4WD?