From owner-diesel-benz-digest-at-digest.net Wed Feb 20 11:03:19 2008 From: diesel-benz-digest diesel-benz-digest Wednesday, February 20 2008 Volume 01 : Number 2670 Forum for Discussion of Diesel Mercedes Benz Automobiles Derick Amburgey Digest Coordinator Contents: [db] 640lbs vs. 675lbs [db] Re: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs RE: [db] more tab increases in WA state??? Re: [db] The Butcher's Bill Re: [db] The Butcher's Bill [db] Here's one. Re: [db] The Butcher's Bill Re: [db] The Butcher's Bill Re: [db] Here's one. Re: [db] The Butcher's Bill [db] RE: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs Diesel Benz Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/diesel-benz/ Send submissions to diesel-benz-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to diesel-benz-digest-request-at-digest.net To unsubscribe, include the word unsubscribe by itself in the body of the message, unless you are sending the request from a different address than the one that appears on the list. Include the word help in a message to stag-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: [db] 640lbs vs. 675lbs springs before, with 640lb AMC 360 5.9L V8: http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/91GW_950/P1060837.jpg springs after, with 675lb Detroit Diesel 379 cu in 6.2L Diesel: (no funny comments about the oil please) http://wagoneers.com/fotos/2008/02-Feb-17-Omega-oil-mountains/P1150559.jpg so, my springs aren't really sagging more than they were before... so a 2" lift that netted 3" for a friend should work for me... :) 35 lbs isn't that much... and one extra battery... and an extra tank... Will confirm the weight in comparison to my '89 as soon as I get the remote filter setup installed, and the exhaust manifold bolt fixed in the '89... maybe thursday, friday or saturday... :) found some interesting specs on line, 1982-93 GM NA 6.2L V8 The GM 6.2L V8 diesel of 1982 was the first major entry into what would become the light truck "Diesel Wars". Dimensionally, it was designed by Detroit Diesel Allison (then a subsidiary of GM) to be comparable with the GM big block V8. In fact, at about 675 pounds, it.s the lightest V8 diesel commonly available. It used the same mounting system, bellhousing and engine mounts as the other GM V8s, so it was easy to integrate into the existing truck lines. Because of its light weight and modest dimensions, it was used in half-ton trucks and SUVs (Blazer/Sub), as well as three quarter and one tons. The 6.2L was also used in the first generation military Humvee, which appeared just as this new engine debuted. Designed for a GVW of no more than 10,000 pounds, the first units had very modest power outputs; 135 hp and 240 lbs-ft. Towards the end of production in .93, the over 8,600 GVW non-emissions units cranked out a bit more (148 hp in certain applications). The 6.2L could deliver high 20s highway fuel economy in some of the lighter 4x4 applications, and 30 mpg is reported in some of the stripped down 4x2s. This wonderful fuel economy is one of the trademark characteristics of the 6.2L, and is reportedly due to its very efficient Ricardo V combustion chamber design. A rare dealer installed turbo option was available from '89-on in the form of a Banks Sidewinder kit. One thing to remember about the 6.2L is that it.s not a heavy-duty diesel. Because it.s built on a lighter foundation than the industrial engine based Ford and Cummins Dodge, the maximum power output is more limited. If you consider 250 hp and 450 lbs-ft the maximum safe power level, your 6.2L will be a trusty and efficient engine on a long-term basis. That's about all the reliable power available from the stock DB-2 injection pump anyway. Typical Specifications Displacement: 6.2L (379ci) Bore & Stroke: 3.98x3.80 inches HP -at- RPM: 135 -at- 3600 Torque -at- RPM: 240 -at- 2000 Compression Ratio: 21.3 Injection: Indirect, Mechanical, Stanadyne Rotary DB-2 Aspiration: Natural Max EGT: 1100max/900 sustained* from: http://www.oramagazine.com/archive/2004/08-august/0103-tech-finesse-2.asp john ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:45:37 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: [db] Re: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs actually, found another site that claims dry weight of the 6.2 as 650lbs, only 10lbs more than the AMC. http://www.tpub.com/content/automotiveenginemechanics/TM-9-2815-237-34/css/TM-9-2815-237-34_13.htm ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, john wrote: # springs before, with 640lb AMC 360 5.9L V8: # http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/91GW_950/P1060837.jpg # # springs after, with 675lb Detroit Diesel 379 cu in 6.2L Diesel: # (no funny comments about the oil please) # http://wagoneers.com/fotos/2008/02-Feb-17-Omega-oil-mountains/P1150559.jpg # # so, my springs aren't really sagging more than they were before... so # a 2" lift that netted 3" for a friend should work for me... :) # # 35 lbs isn't that much... and one extra battery... and an extra tank... # # Will confirm the weight in comparison to my '89 as soon as I get the remote # filter setup installed, and the exhaust manifold bolt fixed in the '89... # maybe thursday, friday or saturday... :) # # # found some interesting specs on line, # # 1982-93 GM NA 6.2L V8 # The GM 6.2L V8 diesel of 1982 was the first major entry into what would become the light # truck "Diesel Wars". Dimensionally, it was designed by Detroit Diesel Allison # (then a subsidiary of GM) to be comparable with the GM big block V8. In fact, at # about 675 pounds, it.s the lightest V8 diesel commonly available. It used the same # mounting system, bellhousing and engine mounts as the other GM V8s, so it was easy # to integrate into the existing truck lines. Because of its light weight and modest # dimensions, it was used in half-ton trucks and SUVs (Blazer/Sub), as well as three # quarter and one tons. The 6.2L was also used in the first generation military Humvee, # which appeared just as this new engine debuted. # # Designed for a GVW of no more than 10,000 pounds, the first units had very modest # power outputs; 135 hp and 240 lbs-ft. Towards the end of production in .93, the # over 8,600 GVW non-emissions units cranked out a bit more (148 hp in certain applications). # The 6.2L could deliver high 20s highway fuel economy in some of the lighter 4x4 # applications, and 30 mpg is reported in some of the stripped down 4x2s. This wonderful # fuel economy is one of the trademark characteristics of the 6.2L, and is reportedly due # to its very efficient Ricardo V combustion chamber design. A rare dealer installed turbo # option was available from '89-on in the form of a Banks Sidewinder kit. One thing to # remember about the 6.2L is that it.s not a heavy-duty diesel. Because it.s built on # a lighter foundation than the industrial engine based Ford and Cummins Dodge, the # maximum power output is more limited. If you consider 250 hp and 450 lbs-ft the # maximum safe power level, your 6.2L will be a trusty and efficient engine on a # long-term basis. That's about all the reliable power available from the stock DB-2 # injection pump anyway. # # Typical Specifications # Displacement: 6.2L (379ci) # Bore & Stroke: 3.98x3.80 inches # HP -at- RPM: 135 -at- 3600 # Torque -at- RPM: 240 -at- 2000 # Compression Ratio: 21.3 # Injection: Indirect, Mechanical, Stanadyne Rotary DB-2 # Aspiration: Natural # Max EGT: 1100max/900 sustained* # # from: http://www.oramagazine.com/archive/2004/08-august/0103-tech-finesse-2.asp # # john # ----- # ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold # http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** # ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:12:40 -0600 From: Allen Zylstra Subject: RE: [db] more tab increases in WA state??? It would cost me $500. The motorcycle doesn't count I guess. Allen in Atlanta.> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:47:11 -0800> From: john-at-wagoneers.com> To: > Subject: [db] more tab increases in WA state???> > got this from a friend, haven't verified it. europe uses licensing like this,> but they have exemptions for fuel efficient engines like Diesels and those that> make use of alternate fuels like LPG, etc.> > I purposely converted my gas engine to a Diesel for economy... could have cost> me an extra $75/yr! (5.9 gas to 6.2 Diesel).> > Where's Tim Eyeman when you need him anyway? ;)> > john> > > Subject: Car Tabs Increase> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> > Vehicle License Fee Bill SB6900 Hello, There is a bill that the Washington State > Legislature is trying to pass in Olympia that, if successful, will directly add > huge costs to our vehicle license fees. Everyone needs to know about so this > situation so that you can contact your representatives and voice your objection. > The bill is SB 6900 and it adds an "engine displacement" fee to the vehicle license > tabs upon renewal. The fee has a varied amount depending on the size of the vehicle's > engine: Engine Size (liters) Rate Schedule Up to 1.9 $0 2.0 - 2.9 $70 3.0 - 3.9 $225 > 4.0 - 4.9 $275 5.0 - 5.9 $325 6.0 - 7.9 $400 8.0 or over $600 For each car & truck that > you own, calculate the rate by matching the engine size in liters to the dollar amount. > Add the amounts for each vehicle and you'll see that the average two car family will be > paying $500+ every year in "displacement fees" on top of the normal license fees. If > you have three vehicles, you'll be paying even more. The average family is already > struggling with the high cost of gasoline, electricity, food and everything else, and > our lawmakers want us to pay more, thinking we have unlimited deep pockets. This will > do great damage to the budgets of retirees on fixed incomes as well. Now is the time > to be very vocal against this bill. I have contacted all of our representatives, and I > would encourage everyone reading this to do the same. Here's the web page for the bill > where you can read the text: > > http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6900&year=2007 > > Here's the link for contacting your representatives: > http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx > > If we don't threaten mass rebellion over this, they'll pass this bill and we'll be > paying huge fees every year on top of their increase in the gas tax. They have to > know that we won't stand for any more taxes or increase in licensing fees. I've > told my representatives that I will actively work to see that any lawmaker that > supports this bill is replaced at election time. Please contact your legislators, > then copy the text of this e mail, and forward it to as many people as possible that > you know in Washington State, and encourage them to contact their representatives and > strongly voice their objection to this bill.> > -----> - ----------------------------------------------------------------------> Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold> http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com **> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! http://biggestloser.msn.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:35:31 -0800 From: Kevin Subject: Re: [db] The Butcher's Bill Actually, the 4x4 setup is almost identical to an XJ, just a lot bigger. Since you're working on an american vehicle, there is no finesse involved in getting the hub/bearing assembly out of the knuckle. An air hammer on the bolts for the bearing/hub assembly makes short work of this, but it took me a day and a half to figure that out. I don't recall having to remove the hub/bearing assembly to remove the rotor, though. The rotor slid over the hub and was rustwelded to the hub, but don't recall it being worse than that. The mercedes setup is far superior. On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:28:07PM -0800, Jim Hoffman wrote: > I hear ya, my '99 Cummins has been sitting for three > months now because of the stupid engineers that > thought > it a good idea to require removal of the hub/bearing > assembly to remove the front rotors! A simple brake > job came to a screeching halt when the hub was rusted > solid to the control arm and refused to come loose. > I've finally got it off after splitting the hub in > two and using a slide hammer to remove the last > stubborn part! It's 7 degrees w/wind chill of about > 15 below. Tomorrow even colder. Hopefully by the > weekend it will get warm enough out there to put it > all back together. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:38:13 -0800 From: Kevin Subject: Re: [db] The Butcher's Bill Being a 2005, it's still worth a fair amount. Shoot, the engine itself goes for over $3500 in a yard. Good luck getting anything in a stock wagoneer to hold up to the power it has for very long though. If you want a cummins, you're better off with a 12v. Much simpler, doesn't have the achilles heels of the 24v, and not as thirsty as the "600". On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:35:49PM -0800, john wrote: > that's why kevin should give me the cummins engine from > his so I can put it into another Full Size Jeep... I think > it'll need a bit more than 2" of lift to fit however. :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:56:14 -0600 From: Allen Zylstra Subject: [db] Here's one. 91 SDL $665. Good engine needs trans. http://atlanta.craigslist.org/car/568261057.html _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:04:22 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Hoffman Subject: Re: [db] The Butcher's Bill They changed the design in 2000 or 2001! ;) Jim - --- Kevin wrote: > Actually, the 4x4 setup is almost identical to an > XJ, just a lot bigger. > Since you're working on an american vehicle, there > is no finesse involved > in getting the hub/bearing assembly out of the > knuckle. An air hammer > on the bolts for the bearing/hub assembly makes > short work of this, but > it took me a day and a half to figure that out. > > I don't recall having to remove the hub/bearing > assembly to remove the > rotor, though. The rotor slid over the hub and was > rustwelded to the > hub, but don't recall it being worse than that. > > The mercedes setup is far superior. > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:28:07PM -0800, Jim > Hoffman wrote: > > I hear ya, my '99 Cummins has been sitting for > three > > months now because of the stupid engineers that > > thought > > it a good idea to require removal of the > hub/bearing > > assembly to remove the front rotors! A simple > brake > > job came to a screeching halt when the hub was > rusted > > solid to the control arm and refused to come > loose. > > I've finally got it off after splitting the hub in > > two and using a slide hammer to remove the last > > stubborn part! It's 7 degrees w/wind chill of > about > > 15 below. Tomorrow even colder. Hopefully by the > > weekend it will get warm enough out there to put > it > > all back together. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:23:16 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: Re: [db] The Butcher's Bill the 24v has issues? the biggest thing on the cummins is the weight and the height... ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Kevin wrote: # Being a 2005, it's still worth a fair amount. Shoot, the engine itself goes # for over $3500 in a yard. # # Good luck getting anything in a stock wagoneer to hold up to the power it # has for very long though. # # If you want a cummins, you're better off with a 12v. Much simpler, doesn't # have the achilles heels of the 24v, and not as thirsty as the "600". # # On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:35:49PM -0800, john wrote: # > that's why kevin should give me the cummins engine from # > his so I can put it into another Full Size Jeep... I think # > it'll need a bit more than 2" of lift to fit however. :) # ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:41:58 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: Re: [db] Here's one. wow, that's a screaming deal... ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Allen Zylstra wrote: # 91 SDL $665. Good engine needs trans. # # http://atlanta.craigslist.org/car/568261057.html # # _________________________________________________________________ # Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. # http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008 # ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:54:03 -0800 From: Kevin Subject: Re: [db] The Butcher's Bill Under the guise of monster garage and diesel, here's a quick summary: - "53" block is prone to cracking. There was a bad casting (think 603 head but worse), which unfortunately composed a healthy chunk of the 24v blocks made through 01. - electronic injector pump WILL fail quickly when the lift pump dies, as it is fuel lubricated. The lift pump does not need to fail completely, just going low pressure for several miles is enough to require IP repair. Common rail trucks don't have this issue (lift pump failure requires.... a new lift pump) - unless you find a 45 state six speed, you have a standard output engine, which a 96-97 12v will run circles around, even an automatic trannied one. A new one popped up on a friend's 01 24v, in that the kill solenoid in the IP croaked and shut the engine off. Looks like IP replacement is the repair for this one too. On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:23:16AM -0800, john wrote: > the 24v has issues? the biggest thing on the cummins is the weight and > the height... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:03:06 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: [db] RE: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs yeah, that extra 2 quarts of oil will really tax those springs. ;) ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Jim Blair wrote: # dry weight of the block doesn't account for the added weight of the liquids needed to operate it. # # Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 # # # > Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:45:37 -0800 # > From: john-at-wagoneers.com # > To: fsj-at-digest.net; diesel-benz-at-digest.net; DZAshby-at-verizon.net; timothy.fisher7-at-us.army.mil # > Subject: Re: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs # > # > actually, found another site that claims dry weight of the 6.2 as 650lbs, # > only 10lbs more than the AMC. # > # > http://www.tpub.com/content/automotiveenginemechanics/TM-9-2815-237-34/css/TM - -9-2815-237-34_13.htm # > # > ----- # > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # > Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold # > http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** # > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # > # > # > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, john wrote: # > # > # springs before, with 640lb AMC 360 5.9L V8: # > # http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/91GW_950/P1060837.jpg # > # # > # springs after, with 675lb Detroit Diesel 379 cu in 6.2L Diesel: # > # (no funny comments about the oil please) # > # http://wagoneers.com/fotos/2008/02-Feb-17-Omega-oil-mountains/P1150559.jpg # > # # > # so, my springs aren't really sagging more than they were before... so # > # a 2" lift that netted 3" for a friend should work for me... :) # > # # > # 35 lbs isn't that much... and one extra battery... and an extra tank... # > # # > # Will confirm the weight in comparison to my '89 as soon as I get the remote # > # filter setup installed, and the exhaust manifold bolt fixed in the '89... # > # maybe thursday, friday or saturday... :) # > # # > # # > # found some interesting specs on line, # > # # > # 1982-93 GM NA 6.2L V8 # > # The GM 6.2L V8 diesel of 1982 was the first major entry into what would become the light # > # truck "Diesel Wars". Dimensionally, it was designed by Detroit Diesel Allison # > # (then a subsidiary of GM) to be comparable with the GM big block V8. In fact, at # > # about 675 pounds, it.s the lightest V8 diesel commonly available. It used the same # > # mounting system, bellhousing and engine mounts as the other GM V8s, so it was easy # > # to integrate into the existing truck lines. Because of its light weight and modest # > # dimensions, it was used in half-ton trucks and SUVs (Blazer/Sub), as well as three # > # quarter and one tons. The 6.2L was also used in the first generation military Humvee, # > # which appeared just as this new engine debuted. # > # # > # Designed for a GVW of no more than 10,000 pounds, the first units had very modest # > # power outputs; 135 hp and 240 lbs-ft. Towards the end of production in .93, the # > # over 8,600 GVW non-emissions units cranked out a bit more (148 hp in certain applications). # > # The 6.2L could deliver high 20s highway fuel economy in some of the lighter 4x4 # > # applications, and 30 mpg is reported in some of the stripped down 4x2s. This wonderful # > # fuel economy is one of the trademark characteristics of the 6.2L, and is reportedly due # > # to its very efficient Ricardo V combustion chamber design. A rare dealer installed turbo # > # option was available from '89-on in the form of a Banks Sidewinder kit. One thing to # > # remember about the 6.2L is that it.s not a heavy-duty diesel. Because it.s built on # > # a lighter foundation than the industrial engine based Ford and Cummins Dodge, the # > # maximum power output is more limited. If you consider 250 hp and 450 lbs-ft the # > # maximum safe power level, your 6.2L will be a trusty and efficient engine on a # > # long-term basis. That's about all the reliable power available from the stock DB-2 # > # injection pump anyway. # > # # > # Typical Specifications # > # Displacement: 6.2L (379ci) # > # Bore & Stroke: 3.98x3.80 inches # > # HP -at- RPM: 135 -at- 3600 # > # Torque -at- RPM: 240 -at- 2000 # > # Compression Ratio: 21.3 # > # Injection: Indirect, Mechanical, Stanadyne Rotary DB-2 # > # Aspiration: Natural # > # Max EGT: 1100max/900 sustained* # > # # > # from: http://www.oramagazine.com/archive/2004/08-august/0103-tech-finesse-2.asp # > # # > # john # > # ----- # > # - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # > # Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold # > # http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** # > # - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # > # # # _________________________________________________________________ # Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail.-get your "fix". # http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx ------------------------------ End of diesel-benz-digest V1 #2670 **********************************