When is the aftermarket...

[SnoKing]

Well over the years people with 24V's learned the the OEM Carter Pump was pretty much a POS. And that is pushed fuel much better than it pulled it. I moved mine from the side of the engine to the frame rail ahead of the fuel tank years ago, getting the required fittings and wiring extension from Vulcan Performance via Geno's.

When I had to replace my VP-44 because of dead pedal (P0216 codes) I had to install a new lift pump as part of MW Injection's warranty requirement. This was at 52K on the clock. The original OEM pump was still working fine. The replacement one that I had been carrying for a number of years crapped out in a year or two while on my way to Arizona with the trailer. Saw it on the fuel pressure gauge in Bullhead City running around bobtail. So I reinstalled the OEM pump. Ten minute job under the truck.

When I got to Arizona, I ordered an Airtex pump from Vulcan. This pump has been running fine for about 5 years now. It delivers about 18-21 pounds of fuel pressure at idle (warm to cold), and never below 13 pounds pulling hard with the trailer. The OEM fuel filter, heater, WIF and drain are all still in place. I did have to replace the drain valve this winter as it started leaking. I carry that old OEM Carter as a spare, and it has the Vulcan barb fittings already in place, so it is a 10 minute swap if required.

With the Airtex pump changing the filter is a dream, as it fills the filter housing back up in one or two bump cycles.

This is my KISS fuel system and it works just fine. I think it was 60 bucks for Vulcan relocate kit and the Airtex pump was 180 if I remember correctly. I am at around 325/650-700 at the rear wheels and this feeds the beast just fine.

Chris

 

[JR]

OK then. Let me run this by you. As you can see in my profile, I have a 97. I am the original owner (have just crossed the 250,00 mile mark). As you may or may not know the fuel filter canister is a pain in the can. Mine has started to leak around the valve that you use drain the water out of the canister. (Yes I actually do routine maintenance). A replacement is next to impossible to find. The ones I have found are used and expensive (hundreds of dollars). My thought is if I have to spend lots-o-bucks I could use the genoe's 96 ram filter/separator change or do the Fass/Airdog route. I figured better fuel processing would be the way to go. Not worried about making drag horsepower. Just want to keep it running as long as I live. Figured no air is better than some air. What say you all? Getting ready for the summer tow camper season and want to make my decision soon.looking for input.

cph

Since you have a reliable lift pump I would skip the Air Dog / FASS idea. It would be a downgrade compared to the mechanical pump you've got in terms of reliability. The replacement fuel filter kit that Genos offers that replaces the OEM canister would be the way to go. Spin on fuel filter makes filter changes much easier and the kit still retains the wif sensor.

 

[CM_Guest]

That sounds like a good setup. I thought I read that some of those "high performance" lift pumps that just replace the factory unit are just Carters anyway. I could be wrong. It almost seems like it was the FASS one I read that about.

 

[SnoKing]

Here is a picture of my Airtex KISS installation inside the frame rail in front of the fuel tank. Chris

#ad

 

[p-Bar]

I know of a handful of 1st and 2nd gen Dodges with over 400k on original injectors. My former 00 had 380k on it when I sold it and it now has over 420k.
I have never seen an HPCR engine that the same can be said for. Dodge is probably the main culprit for that, they did not believe in adequate filtration up until the most recent MY trucks. Even with adequate filtration they are still prone to faster wear (multiple injections per cycle) and are much less tolerable to minute amounts of water/contaminants being passed through the fuel system

Gotta remember the pressure these HPCR are producing . You are honing the tips larger I.D. as the fuel passes through them . Look at airless paint sprayers the tips need to be replaced after pushing 100 gallons of paint through one. Yes filtration was an issue as Bosch recommended min 5 micron and Chrysler wouldn't listen . I think that cost Chrysler a lot of injectors.

 

[cerberusiam]

While diesel may not hold visisble air long it will retained small amounts of entrained air quite a while, all fuel will. Diesel aerates a lot easier becasue of its properties, shaking and agitation add air bubbles easily. The simple act of fueling adds entrained air plus the continuous return from most fuel cooled injection systems just keeps that going. That said, entrained air removal is one of those things that needs an economy of scale to see a benefit. If one drives a 1000 miles per month and the return for removal of the air is on the order of 1-2%, it doesn't make a large difference at the end. Change that 1000 miles per day and add the associated costs to equipment maintenance the entrained air genrates and the difference becomes more significant. You have to remember where the roots of the FASS\AD are and what they targeted as an audience. The air removal is just a side benefit in 99% of the uses in an LD truck unless one is a commercial hauler.

All the diagrams show quite clearly where the aerated fuel goes when it is removed it is returned to the fuel tank. The tank is the settling pond, heat sink, etc, of the fuel system. The biggest sin is the hacking that is done on the draw side of the fuel system. Way more ways to screw things up there than a simple fuel pump installation. :-laf

There is a large difference in the fuel temps created between Ag equipment and typical puckup trucks. For one thing the fuel tanks on Ag equipment are usually in close proximity to a large heat source for hours at a time. A tractor will run at a larger percentage of load a lot longer than a pickup. Fuel heaters are much more viable in pickups becasue the fuel temp is mostly well below the optimal temp for diesel for most of the time. Rarely will a fuel cooler be need on a vehicle traveling at roads speeds. An Ag tractor traveling at 2-3 mph at a much higher load in predominatly warm ambient temps is radicallly different. By its desing an usage secenarios, fuel coolers would be much more common as they are on larger equipment.

The same thing really applies to the differences between fuel system design on tractors versus pickups, only now it is $$ that count. Ag equipment is niche market and considering the cost they had BETTER laste longer than a common pickup truck. If they don't the manufacturer is out of business. Pickup trucks are ubiquitous so they simply don't get all the attention to detail. Add to that parts and repair is a large chunk of income that people will spend, the result is market driven. Now that the manufacturer is having to up the ante by offering longer term waranties and cover this stuff that has been traditionally denied, it makes a difference. NOW you have the Cummins engines coming with adequate filtration from the factory for a very good reason, it is expensive to ignore for the seller under warranty.

Talking miles on injectors comparing jerk pumps to CR systems and Ag to road vehicles is useless, they is no common basis other than hours. Even then, that is not comparable becasue multipe injection events and fuel pressures play a large part. Even though the metallury is better in a higher pressure system the limiting factor is still in the physical world. Comparisons are simply not viable. CR injectors are quite capable of going 500k and still delivering adequate operation as are the 12V's. If adequate is good enough then allis fine. However, none of these injectors will perform at top capbility after a couple hundred thousand miles or associated hours.

 

[JJPage]

it just hurts one brain to try and read it all run into one paragraph! Chris

I am not singling out any individual. I have a super hard time reading any lengthy post that is all crammed together without the use of paragraphs, I believe about 1/2 of the problem can be attributed to my own failing eyesight, even though I wear corrective lenses.

When I come across a post/thread written in this manner, more often than not, I skip right over it, and quite possibly miss out on some very useful information. It just is not worth the aggravation and sometimes a headache that it causes me. Sorry in advance if anyone takes offense, but I agree with SNOKING about this. Jess

 

[CM_Guest]

Actually you CAN compare trucks and pickups. The fuel systems are virtually identical. Tractors may run at higher loads on average but tractor engines rum 2300 rpm max. The ones I'm talking about run 2100 rpm rated speed and the common practice these days is to "gear up and throttle back" when you don't need full engine power. A lot of field work is done at 1500 rpm. The main difference is that Deere uses Nippondenso systems on the HPRC engines I work on most of the time. But guess what? The Nippondenso 3-piston pump looks and WORKS a lot like a CP3. In fact, they're "identical" for all practical purposes.

The injectors don't care what's pressurizing them and they are also basically identical. Once again, Deere uses Nippondenso in the ones I work on most of the time, but one HPCR injector is pretty much like another. And I THINK Deere might even use Bosch HPCR on the 6068 engines. I'll have to check. I've worked on them but never paid attention. Hell, Deere used Nippondenso licencse-built Bosch P-pump and A-pump copies for years. It could be the same story on these HCPR fuel systems. As for price and quality, go price a new or factory reman Cummins injector and I'll price a Deere unit and we'll compare. For your sake. I already know they're basically the same price. So are you SURE that Cummins is wearing a set out in 200,000 miles? If it is there's something wrong. Rail pressures are essentially the same. Both engines are direct-injection 4-valve diesels and are equipped with EGR, VGTs and DPFs. The main difference is that your HPCR Cummins is a medium-duty engine. It doesn't have cylinder liners to replace at overhaul and return it to new performance and specs. Deeres do. As for loads, some tractors DO get pulled hard constantly. But not many. It's pretty common to pull engine load tables from a tractor and find that it spends more time at idle than full load.

As far as fuel temps, manufacturers go out of their way to keep the fuel as far from the engine as possible. On Deere tractors the main sections of the fuel tanks are outside the chassis hanging on either side. Well away from any high-temp components. Then there's the fact that your pickup carries 34 gallons of fuel. Tractors can carry 300+ gallons. I'm going to go out on an limb and guess it takes a LITTLE longer to heat 300 gallons than 30 gallons. Not to mention that those tractor tanks cool BETTER on a tractor than a truck tank will. Our tanks have square YARDS of surface exposed to ambient air and air can flow all around them. Your pickup with the tank tucked up in the frame rail 2 feet off the hot asphalt on a 100-degree day? With 1/8 the volume? I'll bet on the tractor being cooler if we're comparing tank temps.

Tractors really didn't HAVE fuel coolers until the electronic engines started coming out. So it's not like it's all about $$ and the working conditions. The first Deere tractors to have them were 8000-series tractors with electronic Bosch inline pumps and the 9000-series 4wds with EUIs running off the camshaft. The fuel passages are in the cylinder heads and those fuel systems run a lot hotter because of higher pressures. The 8000s have fuel temp sensors and the ECU watches fuel temp and will de-rate the engine if it gets too hot. Do you think that may be the MAIN reason they started using fuel coolers was to cool the fuel system better and the power increase is just a fring benefit? You get a power increase AND longer fuel system life if you cool your fuel. And it doesn't have to be a piece of farm equipmemt crawling through the field. They didn't test a tractor to arrive at their numbers.They tested an engine in a test cell on a dyno. Drop inlet fuel temp 18 degrees and you'll get the same 3-4% gain. And it's going to be EASIER to cool the fuel on a pickup. Tractors go down the road 25 mph or so wide open. Not 55+. There's a little more airflow potential with the cooler mounted behind a pickup grille.

If you don't think it's worth plumbing in a simple fuel cooler to cool your return fuel, and you don't want to pick up some cheap power AND keep your injection components a little cooler, I"m not going to argue with you. I posted that because I thought maybe SOMEONE would find it interesting and look into it. To me it's a no-brainer. And I don't have to compare mileage to hours. Later Dodge pickups have hour meters. 250,000 miles at 30 mph average is over 8000 hours. 8000 hours is 10-15 years on a tractor in most cases. Most farmers don't put more than 750 hours per year on bigger tractors and some far fewer than that. As for high-mileage injectors not performing, they'll go a million miles in an OTR truck. 500,000 miles on a set of injectors is pretty common.

They tend to be pretty pricey and you don't just toss a new set in for the fun of it. And there is VERY little deterioration in performance. We don't see "nozzle growth" in injectors like we do in nozzles and there is no nozzle valve spring to get weak. I saw a comment further up the page about how hard that high pressure is on an injector. FIrst, they're designed for it. Second, having 25,000 psi in the rail doesnt' necessarily mean 25,000 psi at the injector. I'll just leave it at that. You can research how they operate if you're curious. And the fuel filtration is so much finer on an HPCR engine that there's no comparison when it comes to wear. And of course the ECU can COMPENSATE for wear in an HPCR injector. Anyone who pulls HPCRs and replaced them at a given mileage or just for the heck of it is throwing a pile of money away. I could tell you about how we can take even a MALFUNTIONING HPCR and fix it IN THE ENGINE but that would just upset you. I'll give you a two-word hint, though - system flush. 90% of the time when a tractor or sprayer or combine comes in with a cylinder firing funny, we can fix it in an hour and never put hand on that injector.

Not to mention the fact that you don't have tiny particles of STEEL from injection pump wear going through an injector. You do with a nozzle. Nozzles have that edge filter in the inlet for a reason. To catch debris and pulverize it before it gets down into the nozzle body, valve and tip. Injectors are also precisely calibrated and manufactured to MUCH closer tolerances than a nozzle and the ECU uses that factory calibration data for flow and pressure to precisely control injection volume AND timing. An injector can do much more with less fuel because of that efficency. If anything a tractor should be wearing them out more quickly, right? That doesn't happen. We usually only replace one injector at a time and there are lots of 5000-7000 hour tractors running around with the factory injectors in them. Do we see a reduction in performance when we dyno that tractor and load that engine down to full load and way beyond? Absolutely not. If it makes at least rated hp at rated speed and the torque rise is also within spec, that engine is basically performing just like a brand-new one.

It might even do a little BETTER on power and fuel economy because everthing is broken in and loosened up a little compared to a brand-new one. It takes a good 200 hours or more working a tractor pretty hard to get the engine broken in. And that's with the Break-In oil the factory fills them with. Thinner oil with fewer anti-wear additives to actually INCREASE wear during break-in. Because Plus 50 II will NOT let the engine break in correctly. All in all I think my comparison are very "viable". Or I wouldn't have made them.

 

[CPH]

Very interesting stuff, but has anyone seen real world results running a FASS type system on a 12v second gen vs standard pump/filter system. Like I said the filtration isn't so much the thing with the system as I see it. You can add filtration as required on any system. Will I see a real benefit to running a system that takes the air out. I have heard (don't know any personally) that swear the truck runs smoother and they get 1-2 mpg increase. If I would get both I would be willing to spring for it. If not I'll go a different filter route, keep the stock pump and call it a day.

cph

 

[SnoKing]

Years ago we had a group of guys working on a fuel cooler. I can not find the thread, however it was based on the theory that VP-44 pumps failed because of heat. So they where cooling fuel before feeding it to the injection pump. Mine failed because it had the brass bore in the advance cylinder like many other later models.

Chris

 

[cerberusiam]

Yes, using stock filtration in a Dodge truck the average lifetime of the HPCR injector is right aorund 200k. AVERAGE, some go more, some go less, and there are the big outliers both ways. What is WRONG is the lack of filtration, period. By your own description the tractors have better filtration. In EVERY other application the ISB is used better filtration is used. See the pattern here?

Comparisons between trucks and equipment don't compute on miles. Hours is the only way to gauge and then you MUST account for the filtration differences. That in itself invalidates the comparisons. The fuel does care about fuel quality and it doesn't matter whether it is a jerk pump or common rail or mechanical over electrical system when you run fine metals thru them they fail. The only difference is the tolerances they are capable of performing at. Higher tolerances found in older systems will stand more solids. At some point injector holes will deform from the hydraulic action. Solids contained in the fuel play a large part in that time frame. No way around the simple physics of it. I don't care if it is a tractor or a truck, if the MTBF for 10 um filtration is 5000 hours it will happen in both. You will see efficiency degradation but not neccessarily power degradation. A dyno tells one side of the story, not the whole story.

After all that you need to factor in average engine loads to come up with fuel consumption. An engine running at 60% load WILL use more than one running at 20% load. That directly impacts the wear in the fuel system. The offroad engines are almost always going to run a higher load percentage than an on-road vehicle. That will translate to more fuel in the same number of hours thru the system. It does not matter if the work is done at 1500 rpms or 2300 rpms, the amount of work performed defines the energy (fuel quantity) needed. Again, every comparison that matters does not have adequate corrollaries across the platforms.

Do not throw comparisons to OTR trucks into the equation for the same reason. Most of them HAVE adequate filtration and run at almost constant rpms and load when they do. The injectors in the larger engines are frequently a lot different than the CR's found in light duty trucks. While the pressures may be consistent how they attain them are much different. That will directly effect the validity of comparisons. What you find on these large engines is multiple fltration points and even HP filters to keep them from eating themselves up. Injectors that cost $1900 in engines that cost as much or more than our trucks don't get short chnaged on the basics.

You are dead worng on the fuel tank and temp comparisons also. Tractors DO have their fuel tanks in close proximity to high heat sources, the hydraulic systems and drive train. No matter how good the cooling system of the engine there is massives amounts of heat coming from high pressure hydraulics and a drive traain under a constant load. At 2-3 mph for the bulk of its operational time there is almost no airflow to cool the tanks plus all the refelctive heat from the tractor itself and the ground heat soaks the fuel tanks no matter where they are. It does not matter if they can go 25 mh down the road, the bulk of the operation is not at those speeds.

Compare that to a truck where it is at road speeds the bulk of the time with massive amounts of airflow around the fuel tank, the comparison is simply not valid. Then think about the fuel source itself. The bulk of fuel in tractors is from above ground tanks and transfer tanks subject to direct sunlight and ambinet temps where road fuelis gorund tanks at an average of 55 degrees. Hard to draw any valid comparisons there. If you are actually seeing 140 degree in tractor tanks you have the answer. A pickup under normal conditions will likely never see fuel get to 80 degrees. Since the optimum temp for fuel is 85 to 110 degrees you can see whya fuel heaters in trucks make sense where fuel coolers in tractors are more important. Again, comparisons do not make sense.

There are prescribed test for all injectors to detemrine their viability, whether you choose to use them or just dump a bunch of cleaner in does not really address the underlying issue. If they are bad no amount of cleaner will help, if the cleaner does then you also have an anser to alot of your questions. If you have engine swhere injector cleaner is helping they are suffering from the results of the high temperature fuel and the asphaltenes being forced out of the crappy ULSD fuel. High temps significantly increase the asphaltene generation and gumming in the fuel systems when fuel temp increases. Edge filters are designed to break up large chunks of FOD that would cause am immediate catastrophic failure. Think that those are protecting the fuel systems from fine particles is foolish. The solids that will pass the edge filters will destroy an HPCR system in short order, they are essentially rock filters to the clearances in a CR injector.

 

[SnoKing]

We just all need to get our power takeoffs installed and get some farm implements to hang off the back. Still not sure I understand his purpose posting here, but at least he now is using paragraphs!!!! Chris

 

[cerberusiam]

Very interesting stuff, but has anyone seen real world results running a FASS type system on a 12v second gen vs standard pump/filter system.

As a general rule, it will make more of a noticeable difference where there is a manual LP than an electrical one. As an absolute, the results will be so situational that there is no way to tell exactly, YMMV.

Years ago we had a group of guys working on a fuel cooler.

That was to increase the cooling effect on the VP-44 due to heat soak it suffered from rather than cooling the fuel. The fuel in the tnk makes an excellent heat sink in most cases.

 

[CM_Guest]

Well let's see. I own two Dodge Cummins trucks, my grandpa owns a couple, my uncle owns a couple, I've got several friends that own them, my dad owns one and has another for his company truck. I've worked on all but TWO of those trucks at one point or another and a handful of others. I used to work for a Cummins distributor that had a hot '95 3500 wd dually extended cab that I did all the work on, and that he used to haul Bush Hog equipment all over the country. It would hit 80 mph from a dead stop in a quarter-mile, while pulling a 5500-lb 30-foot tandem dual flatbed up a decent hill. With a 5-speed and 3.54s and WITHOUT the benefit of FASS or Airdog systems or any OTHER aftermarket parts. Because back in the late 90s you COULDN'T order a truckload of bolt-ons, slap them on and feel like a real DIESEL EXPERT. You had Banks and a couple of pump shops selling hot P-pumps and big nozzles and marine transfer pumps and that was about it. That engine was Cummins front to back and top to bottom and it didn't SMOKE LIKE A FREIGHT TRAIN. It didn't even have a cold-air intake. I spent COUNTLESS hours tweaking pump timing, experimenting with different HOLSET turbos, tweaking wastegates and in general going over it with a fine-toothed comb so it would it 55 psi on the boost gauge on that "dyno hill" and yet still be dependable enough to put 20,000 behind and run cross country. Why else am I here... Oh yeah - I helped some friends build a 1000-hp (on an ENGINE dyno) 6B Cummins they run in an IH 756 farm tractor. I was the FIRST one in that 8000-hour P-pump showing them how do adjust fuel delivery on an ag governor when they just put an old used paver engine in it for kicks. And it was all downhill from there. The FIRST diesel engine I ever had apart was a 6B Cummins, and in general I've been around Cummins Dodge pickups for going on 25 years now. Starting when Grandpa got the '90 W250 he still has. I've worked on 855s, N14s, L10s, M11s and C8.3s too. Those are more CUMMINS engines, by the way. I've got a couple of degrees in Diesel Technology for truck and construction equipment, I'm a lifelong gearhead and I've been working on diesels - stock AND modified - for 20+ years. And a LOT of that work has been done out in farm field or on construction sites where I didn't HAVE TDR a mouse click away to bail me out when I didn't know something. Of course I also subscribed to TDR right away instead of trolling around looking for free help. So with all that said - and I DON'T care if you like it - I'm pretty sure I'll post whatever I want. If you don't like it, you MIGHT want to just build a bridge and get over it. Because this is the SECOND reply you've put up today complaining about me being here. I'm here to talk diesels. What are YOU doing here? I'm sure you're eminently more qualified and entitled to post here than I. So let's hear why.

 

[CM_Guest]

One of fhose pumps will definitely wake up a 12-valve with a P-Pump. P7100s like PLENTY of supply pressure and flow. And Dodge definitely didn't do all they could with the transfer pumps in those trucks. It's way better than the 1st gen lift pumps but that isn't saying much. I'm sure guys DO get better mileage and the engine runs better. I said I'd expect it to. The question is what is CAUSING the increase in economy and performance? Even if the factory lift pump is in GREAT shape the supply pressure can be low. There's an overflow valve on P7100s that maintains fuel pressure in the pump and keeps the fuel gallery clear full of fuel. It's basically just a spring-loaded relief valve and over time the spring gets weak and supply pressure drops off. At the same time the plungers and barrels that actualy pump the fuel are getting worn. You get more leakage past the plungers, lower fuel delivery at any given rack setting, decreased flow to the nozzles. That causes a pressure drop that means the nozzles don't "fire" as SOON or as HARD as they should. That basically retards the timing. SO when you put a big, powerful new transfer pump in the system and it can make up for all the leakage and get fuel delivery back up where it belongs, it's GOING to make a difference.

 

[JJPage]

CJMEYER1, Welcome to the TDR! (if you haven't been shown the courtesy yet).

I find the subject of heating vs cooling fuel very interesting, I also have been exposed (over the years) to many diesels in various sizes and applications, and I worked in the HVAC industry, commercial applications for years, which included large commercial oil fired boilers.

For this conversation lets stay with #2/furnace oil. What I have a hard time understanding...sorta...you want cooler(ambient temp 25*-90*) fuel entering your distribution system on a diesel motor, for various reasons, protection of equipment, increased power..maybe, I have never tested theory. Then on large oil fired boilers, you have fuel heaters, specifically engineered to heat the fuel for better atomization, to produce more btu's per gallon. I've worked on the heat exchangers (mixing valves mostly), hot water in 160*-205*, fuel in, in opposite direction to absorb the heat from the water. These two theories seem to fly into the face of common sense, as far as being opposite each other. One is attempting to cool fuel for better performance, the other is heating fuel try to achieve a similar result. That's the "sorta" part that is baffling me, what's your thought if any?

Jess

 

[CM_Guest]

We're talking about significantly different systems. Diesel fuel is not only the fuel for the engine, it's the lubricant for the fuel system components it comes in contact with. Fuel systems can have tolerances down the millionths of an inch. As I said, we didn't really see fuel coolers UNTIL the electronic injection pumps, electronic unit injectors that are the injection pump AND the nozzle combines, high volume fuel systems that use gear pumps or gerotor pumps to supply the system with fuel, etc. And EUI or HPCR engines put the injector right in the center of the cylinder head down in a whole. They usually sit in a cup that is swaged into the head and is surrounded by coolant for additional cooling. Because even WITH fuel coolers, but the time a tractor or OTR truck has operated several hours, the fuel in the tanks can be pretty warm. Before it gets pulled up to the engine, pumped through a filter base bolted right to the engine, through a transfer pump that's bolted directly to cylinder head, and THEN through the cylinder head itself. Which under full load conditions can be 200+ degrees. And those HPCR and EUI engines run a LOT of fuel through compared to a pump/nozzle engine. They HAVE to because they're huge fuel systems compared to a pump/nozzle system. Another use for fuel is as a coolant for the ECU. I know Cat used to use fuel to cool their ECUs and I think Cummins did too. That sounds crazy, but there's a LOT of heat involved with the kind of current flows it takes to operate those big EUIs. They run 90-100 volts in the EUI circuits just to keep the amperage down as far as it is. Of course running fuel through an ECU ALSO is a good deterrent in case Bubba get's the urge to start poking around in the ECU on his new 3406E the way he poked around in the governor on his 3406B. Those early Cat 3406Es had "personality module" installed in the ECU and if I remember correctly, there were 435s and 465s. Something like that. Anyway, when a customer that previously had an old 425-hp 3406C that had been "tweaked" came in complaining about low power on his new 435-hp 3406E, it was real easy to just slip a 465-hp personality module in for a quick fix. Of course once ONE trucker knew about that trick they ALL did and they were lining up at the Cat truck shops to get fixed up. I know that the truck shop at the Cat dealership I worked at had a WHOLE PILE of 465-hp modules sitting there. Until Cat figured out what was going on and made them take pictures of them before and after they'd smashed them with a hammer. And that was done a LOT. I suspect Cat was monitoring parts sales on their new engines. I think I mentioned earlier that they didn't start using fuel coolers for increased performance. They started using them because it's necessary to keep the fuel and fuel system components cool, lubricated and sealed. It's nothing new, by any means. Drag racers have ran cool cans on their drag cars for 40 years or longer. The power is there for the taking.

 

[CM_Guest]

I should have added that fuel heaters are used in the diesel industry too. Not so much today because the engines "turn over" the fuel in the tank more quickly, but 20-30 years ago you'd see in-tank fuel heaters on a lot of trucks. And I image they are still used a lot up north. They're basicallly just like a heater core - a coil with engine coolant flowing through it that sits in the fuel tank. And there are fuel heaters on some injection pumps, too. Dodge Cummins VE pumps in the 1st gens have them. Or at least my '92 did. I'm not sure if VP44s do or not. Of course those fuel heaters aren't there so much to heat the fuel so it flows easier or burns easier. They're there to keep an injection pump that might be "warm" even several hours after being shut off from getting a big shot of 0-degree fuel coming into the pump. Which COULD cause thermal shock and damage the pump. Rotary injection pumps with alumium housings are touchy about that. Its happened more than once. Those pumps have aluminum housings and steel rotor assemblies and hydraulic heads that get REAL HOT after several hours in the field or during the drive to town for repairs or running on the dyno. And if you go to wash off the engine a little before you send it home or start working on it and hit that hot injection pump with cold water they can sieze up.

 

[CM_Guest]

I find it pretty funny that you have NO IDEA what we use for a flush OR how we use it OR who makes it OR why they make it, but yet you're still willing to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Let me just say this. I'm reasonably sure a company that has been building diesel engines for 67 years and GAS engines for 40 years before that just MIGHT have a bit of an idea what they're doing. Because even though I don't know fancy words like "asphaltines", I DO know fuel systems pretty well backward and forward. If you like, we can talk Cummins PT or Stanadyne or Detroit 2-cycle or Caterpillar sleeve metering or Caterpillar scroll metering or Caterpillar HEUI or whatever you want to talk about when it comes to fuel systems. And I also have made a point of expanding my knowledge BACKWARD from when I started turning wrenches. Which is why I'm lauging seeing your claim that comparing a pickup engine to tractor engine is useless. Because B-series Cummins engines were BUILT TO BE TRACTOR ENGINES by Cummins and a TRACTOR MANUFACTURER. Ever heard of J.I. Case? B-series and C-series Cummins engines were a JOINT VENTURE between Cummiins and Tenneco, which owned Case. And Cummins ISBs are STILL off-highway engines today. Which means that at SOME POINT your attempts to separate on-highway engines from off-highway engines is going to implode. We can go forward and have a great debate and maybe I'll even tell you about that flush that doesn't work and you can't get. But I'll tell you up front that I already see enough holes in your comments so far to send you to the bottom. Starting with the "all kinds of airflow" around a pickup fuel tank comment. I might as well take the low-hanging fruit first. So let me know and we can get this done. I'll give you a hint on the fuel system flush. You don't mix it with the fuel.

 

[SnoKing]

Tell us more about your 48RH transmission in you 94. Did you marry 48RE parts into the stock 46RH transmission. Or marry the 46RH shift stuff into a 48RE? Chris