Search results

how about dirty/plugged fuel filters? weak or non-funtioning lift pump?

wow, that's pretty tall. um, i know you'll be able to find a slew of at545s, but i'm sure later model buses will have lockup trannies and some may have OD; impossible to say without knowing the year of bus you're getting. again, that will totally depend on the year - it won't have a...

edit: double post. :rolleyes:

a governor spring kit fixes the 3-4 jump for $100.

likely an A727 TorqFlite - 3 speed auto, non-OD, non-lockup. fairly rugged, can be extremely rugged if you want it to be, but not the greatest choice behind a cummins because of the direct drive and no lockup on the converter.

there is a lash requirement in the excerpt i posted which is non-discriminent about commercial or non. a hydraulic system will pass this test.

:ditto:

it's getting ready to start sleeting - so i lied. but, souces say it is 52.9". so, again, loaded it's probably going to be just under 26" radius.

well, this'd be the first i've ever heard of a 16.00 being 56"+. if that were the case, all the 'emasculated' mud trucks running these tires between their trailer and wal-mart would be yankin' their willy at the fact that the tire is 56" and not the claimed '53"'. i think the acual loaded D is...

so, from the summary, it looks like if its going to be under anything, it will be under part 570. couldn't find it on that site, but google found this, and i excerpt from Part 570: Vehicle-In-Use Inspection Standards, Subpart B—Vehicles With GVWR of More Than 10,000 Pounds: ------ § 570.60...

ok, so now you've confirmed the rpms w/ a second tach and the mph was confirmed with gps. well, math says this: OD ratio = [(rpm x tire D) / (mph x axle x 336)] = [(1900 x 52")/(60x6.72x336)] = 0.73. sooooo....... that means......... that......, um..... ? **fyi: 0.71=1850rpm...

Jake, you're right about the rear discs: 450 and up are larger in the rear (14.5" f, 15.5" r) and 350 and down are smaller. and to think i was just researching those parts... yeah, i see what you're saying: the axles w/ the large amount of weight are recieving more braking capacity. i got lost...

there are several threads on this forum that speak to having all 3 models available in the deuce; this being one of them.

this was my understanding and the basis of my statement when i said "this discussion needs to move from 'volume' to 'pressure'." i believe the front brakes have the ability to [and should!] play more of a role in the braking effort. therefore, if the front brake components are identical...

yeah, that's what i was thinking, too, but wasn't sure if this member was in peril or not. it's hard to determine how much force will be exerted on this [now thinner] cross member. i think i would be more concerned about a load in the bed more than articulation or, worse, both at the same...

it's just a crossmember that keeps the trailer frame rails square - why would this member see enough torsional force to bend/break? additional material could be added to the top of this piece...

looks great. i also predict that the rear will be much more stable with the springs outboard like they are. good work.

that's gonna be cutting it pretty close. length i measured was over 27" and my spicer is just under 25" (engine adapter face to yoke CL). that 2"+ is going to be hard to take out of a 7" long jack shaft. it doesn't sound like much, but... point is i'm not sure it's 'plug-and-play'. 3.45 1st...

because the tag on my trans says 3053. :grin:

so you believe there is no proportioning in a modern brake system? then could you illuminate me as to why the front rotors on F350/450/550 are larger than the respective rear rotors (because this is mechanical proportioning)?