Recent Topics
New R1250GS and R1250RT
by 02SE. 09/21/18 12:55 AM
Inside Break Booster & Master Cylinder
by StevieC. 09/20/18 11:22 PM
Inside an Alternator
by StevieC. 09/20/18 11:18 PM
What vehicles are you using Maxlife ATF in?
by BlakeB. 09/20/18 11:10 PM
How a Power Steering Rack Works (Electronic)
by StevieC. 09/20/18 11:00 PM
How a Power Steering Rack Works (Hydraulic)
by StevieC. 09/20/18 10:58 PM
silly wiper problem
by bowlofturtle. 09/20/18 10:33 PM
Canadian Tire Shell Rotella T-6 in Pails
by Snagglefoot. 09/20/18 10:04 PM
Best diesel fuel for cold weather?
by Dickm. 09/20/18 10:03 PM
Type 1 Diabetics - New Research
by StevieC. 09/20/18 10:00 PM
Tire Sizing and Options
by NewEnglander. 09/20/18 09:59 PM
2013 Scion FR-S | Transmission Fluid Questions
by nicknak. 09/20/18 09:47 PM
Meguiar's Liquid Cleaner Wax $5 WalMart, Amazon
by The_Cams. 09/20/18 08:42 PM
Winter oil recommendation
by Neptune. 09/20/18 08:27 PM
M1 0W-40
by CT8. 09/20/18 07:37 PM
What controls timing on my 08 Honda?
by Roland. 09/20/18 07:23 PM
The real culprit about 18k
by Ablebody. 09/20/18 06:04 PM
How not to drain a pool.
by StevieC. 09/20/18 05:50 PM
Newest Members
Direct_Rejection, donatom, Sylent_Snyper, Ajizzle, nicknak
66033 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
35 registered members (BlakeB, Ablebody, Bjornviken, BusyLittleShop, Blaze, 3 invisible), 879 guests, and 40 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics290,744
Posts4,849,439
Members66,033
Most Online3,590
Jan 24th, 2017
Donate to BITOG
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 #4550040
10/21/17 10:04 AM
10/21/17 10:04 AM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,002
Michigan
A_Harman Offline OP
A_Harman  Offline OP
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,002
Michigan
Mid-OCI oil sample of RT6 CK-4.

From Polaris:
Truck Odometer: 388000 mi
Miles on oil: 36000
10 quarts of makeup oil added. That is 9 quarts burned, and 1 quart fresh when the filter was changed mid-OCI.
Fram Ultra filter for first 18k, Purolator Boss for 18k.

Wear Metals:
(Element (ppm); 235k, 322k, 338k, 352k, 370k, 388k)
Iron; 42, 52, 30, 50, 38, 72
Chromium; 3, 3, 1, 2, 1, 2
Al; 4, 5, 3, 4, 3, 4
Cu; 3, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3
Lead; 9, 31, 4, 7, 2, 13

Contaminants:
Silicon; 6, 13, 7, 9, 7, 8
Sodium; 8, 6, 5, 4, 7, 9
Potassium; 62, 0, 1, 1, 4, 1

Multi-source metals:
Moly; 75, 76, 5, 4, 0, 2
Boron; 83, 38, 112, 69, 106, 62

Additive metals:
Mag; 1333, 1198, 179, 163, 94, 105
Calcium; 960, 1111, 2174, 2198, 2053, 2179
Phos; 1138, 1104, 1012, 1048, 924, 959
Zinc; 1439, 1471, 1277, 1271, 1143, 1211

Fuel Dilution; <1%, <1%, <1%, <1%, <1%, <1%
Soot; <0.1%, <0.1%, <0.1%, 0.4%, 0.3%, 0.7%
Water; <0.1%, <0.1%, <0.1%, <0.1%, <0.1%, <0.1%

KV100 (cSt); 15.1, 15.1, 15.3, 15.3, 15.4, 15.4
TBN; 6.54, 6.99, 5.69, 4.27, 4.96, 4.13
Oxidation; 15, 16, 14, 14, 13, 15
Nitration; 10, 10, 9, 9, 8, 9

Polaris Comments:
Flagged data does not indicate an immediate need for maintenance action. Continue to observe the trend and monitor
equipment and fluid conditions. LEAD is at a MODERATE LEVEL and may be OVERLAY METAL from MAIN/ROD BEARINGS; Iron is
at a MINOR LEVEL. IRON SOURCES in engines can be cylinder liners, iron pistons, hardened steel camshafts, crankshafts, gears,
hardened rocker arms, valve bridges, alloyed steel cam follower rollers, etc. Lubricant and filter change acknowledged. Sample
information has been added or tests have been rerun or additional testing was added and the report has been regenerated.

Another Lead spike, and for no apparent reason, which Polaris has flagged at a moderate level. And the Iron of 72 ppm was flagged as minor. Soot continues to increase, although Polaris didn't flag it as a concern.

Corrected Iron concentration is 137 ppm due to the 10 quarts of makeup oil, yielding a wear rate of 3.6 ppm per kmile. This is significantly higher than the 3.1 of the last sample. Based on one data point, it seems that the wear rate increased by 18% over the 2nd 18k miles. I think I will shorten the interval of the new oil fill to 30k.


1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: A_Harman] #4550377
10/21/17 05:54 PM
10/21/17 05:54 PM
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 268
Alberta
carviewsonic Offline
carviewsonic  Offline
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 268
Alberta
That's a very long OCI, but with it running well at 388000 miles you can't argue with the results.


'18 Impala
'03 Park Avenue
'05 Park Avenue
'07 Honda Accord
'09 VStar 1300
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: A_Harman] #4550929
10/22/17 10:36 AM
10/22/17 10:36 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 321
Schafflund, Germany
Extreme-Duty Offline
Extreme-Duty  Offline
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 321
Schafflund, Germany
You've got enough data to see a trend towards higher soot levels. Could it be time for new injector nozzles?

Overall, everything looks more or less consistent and probably not too bad for a truck that actually does some work. To get an idea of how hard this engine is run, what is the rated HP, the average weight being hauled and your fuel consumption per mile/hour?

Comparing your data to the 4BT UOA I had done back in January, it seems that our chore tractor's life has been a piece of cake over the last 6 - 7K hours. I hope to post my report soon.


Been using EVER-SEEZ and Neverseal on all my stuff - I got it for free!
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: A_Harman] #4551010
10/22/17 12:34 PM
10/22/17 12:34 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,002
Michigan
A_Harman Offline OP
A_Harman  Offline OP
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,002
Michigan
I have begun thinking about doing something with the injectors, but I haven't detected any decrease in fuel economy or excessive smoke, so I'll just monitor the trend for now. These injectors were installed at 193k miles, and are +40HP "RV275" units, as they are called in the diesel performance aftermarket. But they are genuine Cummins injectors, so I have confidence in the quality.

This truck is in commercial service delivering travel trailers all over the US and Canada. So far, I have towed trailers in the range of 4000 to 11,000 pounds, but the truck is rated for up to 14,000 pounds. I tow either frame hitch or 5th wheels. The frame hitch trailers are 8' wide x 11' high, and the 5th wheels are 8.5' x 12'. The "average" trailer for me is 27 ft long, weighing 7000 pounds. I typically run at 65 mph, 2100 rpm when I am towing, and 75 mph, 1900 rpm when I am running unloaded. Par fuel economy is 11 mpg loaded, and I have seen a range of 7.5 to 12.5 mpg, depending on wind, terrain, and cruise setting. I have enough power to run 70+ mph loaded, but fuel economy takes a big hit. They don't pay for fast delivery in this business, so the goal is to minimize operating costs, therefore I run slow. Unloaded, I am getting 21 mpg consistently, and that has never been better in the 14 years and 340k miles in which I have owned the truck.


1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: A_Harman] #4551081
10/22/17 02:23 PM
10/22/17 02:23 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 321
Schafflund, Germany
Extreme-Duty Offline
Extreme-Duty  Offline
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 321
Schafflund, Germany
Thanks, it is very interesting for me to hear about that type of business. Your 6B definitely does some work if you are burning like 6 gal./hour. Please keep us updated.


Been using EVER-SEEZ and Neverseal on all my stuff - I got it for free!
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: A_Harman] #4551624
10/23/17 05:32 AM
10/23/17 05:32 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,507
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline
dnewton3  Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,507
Indianapolis, IN
Regarding the UOA; good results overall. The soot, while possibly elevated over other samples, is no where near any concern level (typically 3.0 or 3.5% for most major diesel manufacturers).

Regarding the fuel economy and service factor, that's also pretty typical. My stock Dmax gets about the same mpg pulling my RV, and the best I've got unloaded is around 20mpg. Pulling heavy loads with large frontal areas is VERY speed sensitive.

RV trailer length really has little to do with the fuel consumption, except in an indirect manner. Longer rigs do weigh more, so that part certainly figures into the equation in terms of rolling resistance. But the length itself does not matter a whole lot. IOW, if one trailer weighed 8000 pounds and was 25' long, and another also weighed 8000 pounds but was 29' long, as long as the frontal area were similar, the wind load will be similar, all other attributes held the same. Once the high-pressure area is produced at the front, and then the low pressure area collapses along the body of the trailer, the length past that point does not affect the air resistance load much ( i.e. fuel economy). Admittedly there's a slight differential in surface drag for a longer rig, but that is so small it would be impossible to detect in daily operation. Wind resistance increases as a square of the speed. Double your speed; quadruple your drag. And the "power" needed to overcome that is factored in too, because work (real physics definition here, not layman concept), = work/time. Double your speed not only squares the wind load, but also cuts the "time" in half! Power requirements are GREATLY affected by vehicle speed. The pulling force required to move the RV down the road = rolling resistance (based on weight) + air resistance (based on frontal area, Cd and speed) + headwind (if present). "Power" consumes fuel, so the faster you go, the more it hurts!


Last edited by dnewton3; 10/23/17 05:41 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: A_Harman] #4551689
10/23/17 07:21 AM
10/23/17 07:21 AM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,002
Michigan
A_Harman Offline OP
A_Harman  Offline OP
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,002
Michigan
All good observations, dnewton3. I have found that I can get 8.5 mpg towing an 18-foot, and 12 mpg towing a 31-foot. I had the 18-footer going to Billings, MT this summer. West of the Mississippi, the speed limits go up. The speed limit in South Dakota is 80 mph, and I felt like an idiot running 65, with all of the big rigs blowing by me at 75. So I kicked it up to 72 and ran double overdrive. Yep, 8.5 MPG with an 18-foot trailer. When I was running 65 through Illinois and Wisconsin, I was getting 11.5 MPG.

The thing that really surprised me was fuel economy with 5th-wheels. Despite the larger frontal area, I get better fuel economy with a 5th-wheel compared to a ball-hitch of comparable length and weight. And the 5th-wheels are much less work to tow. They are much less susceptible to crosswinds and the bow wave effects of big rigs than are ball-hitches. I think this may be due to lower overall coefficient of drag when mated to the tow vehicle, and perhaps secondarily due to lower tire rolling resistance.


1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: A_Harman] #4551946
10/23/17 12:35 PM
10/23/17 12:35 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,507
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline
dnewton3  Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,507
Indianapolis, IN
5vers actually do well because of the frontal area not falling way so much as with a traditional trailer.

Pick-up trucks have a staggered frontal area (first the grill, then the windshield). The first large low pressure area develops behind the cab over the bed. That increases the effect of a second high-pressure bubble developed by the front the RV, then another low pressure area along the sides, top, bottom of the RV, and yet again at the tail of the RV. When pulling a 5ver, that low above the truck bed is partially filled, and eases the transition of the pressure drop up to the roof of the RV and along the sides. But the 5vers ease the disparity of high/low transitions. I've not pulled 5vers, so I cannot directly make a contrast of "feel". But I take your word for it.

Want low drag? Get a pop-up. grin

Last edited by dnewton3; 10/23/17 12:36 PM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: dnewton3] #4552107
10/23/17 03:31 PM
10/23/17 03:31 PM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,087
upstate NY
dustyroads Offline
dustyroads  Offline
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,087
upstate NY
Originally Posted By: dnewton3


But the length itself does not matter a whole lot.



It does if there's a crosswind frown As anyone can imagine, it can make going down the road in a straight line difficult (depends on wind speed of course). I get far better fuel mileage if the wind is punching my truck square in the nose rather than pushing it sideways. Crosswinds make for a long, bad day when the truck is 13'+ high and 72 ft long. mad

I would expect that the shorter trailers would be a benefit to you guys pulling trailers with a pickup truck. Maybe not when there's a few feet difference, but several feet or more (shorter) should be a considerable help in reducing the engine's load. Again, talking specifically about driving in crosswinds.


2013 F150 XLT 5.0 4X4 101k miles
Edge 5W-30 / Fram 10575
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: A_Harman] #4552143
10/23/17 04:13 PM
10/23/17 04:13 PM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,087
upstate NY
dustyroads Offline
dustyroads  Offline
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,087
upstate NY
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
The speed limit in South Dakota is 80 mph, and I felt like an idiot running 65, with all of the big rigs blowing by me at 75.


Don't worry about it, I don't. I only feel like an idiot when I'm keeping up with the "four wheelers" (cars/pickups, etc). I do occasionally haul production loads where a product is ordered and then shipped as "just in time" (JIT), and being late to the delivery could mean a plant/factory shut down (to some extent, anyway). When hauling those loads, I sometimes go with the flow to make good time but I don't like it. The vast majority of the time is spent cruising at an efficient speed (62-67 mph works very well for my Freightliner) and I don't care what others think. Last summer, I briefly got up to 80 mph in west Texas. I only wanted to see the instantaneous fuel economy at that speed. Besides the fact that heavy truck tires are only rated for 75 mph (sustained), I was not comfortable at 80 mph. After just a minute or so, I dropped back to my usual speed. The mpg was reading in the 4's at 80 mph, which is not good for my business. Besides fuel cost, speed decreases tire life and tires are not cheap.

About the oil...you are really piling up the miles. Has oil consumption gotten worse now compared to when you started working the truck? Thanks for the continuing UOA posts.




Last edited by dustyroads; 10/23/17 04:24 PM.

2013 F150 XLT 5.0 4X4 101k miles
Edge 5W-30 / Fram 10575
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: dustyroads] #4552583
10/24/17 05:35 AM
10/24/17 05:35 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,507
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline
dnewton3  Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,507
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: dustyroads
Originally Posted By: dnewton3


But the length itself does not matter a whole lot.



It does if there's a crosswind frown As anyone can imagine, it can make going down the road in a straight line difficult (depends on wind speed of course). I get far better fuel mileage if the wind is punching my truck square in the nose rather than pushing it sideways. Crosswinds make for a long, bad day when the truck is 13'+ high and 72 ft long. mad

I would expect that the shorter trailers would be a benefit to you guys pulling trailers with a pickup truck. Maybe not when there's a few feet difference, but several feet or more (shorter) should be a considerable help in reducing the engine's load. Again, talking specifically about driving in crosswinds.



I do agree that crosswinds will alter the response of the trailer/rig combo, and that will affect the resulting force requirement as well because it adds a component of frictional drag of tire resistance in a vector not aligned with the desire direction of travel.

But the topic I was addressing in that post was headwinds; length does not matter much in that regard.


The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: dnewton3] #4553597
10/24/17 09:21 PM
10/24/17 09:21 PM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,087
upstate NY
dustyroads Offline
dustyroads  Offline
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,087
upstate NY
No argument, Dave. It's just that wind is a sore subject for me. I can moan and groan endlessly about wind and the money it steals from me. I couldn't help myself yapping as I did. smile


2013 F150 XLT 5.0 4X4 101k miles
Edge 5W-30 / Fram 10575
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: dustyroads] #4553810
10/25/17 06:12 AM
10/25/17 06:12 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,507
Indianapolis, IN
dnewton3 Offline
dnewton3  Offline
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,507
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: dustyroads
No argument, Dave. It's just that wind is a sore subject for me. I can moan and groan endlessly about wind and the money it steals from me. I couldn't help myself yapping as I did. smile


No argument from me; sorry if it came off that way! Just trying to delineate for the purpose of the conversation. I was greatly bummed from my last RV trip; fought the wind the whole way. Ran high EGTs from the loading (not unsafe, just higher than normal). Relentless hours of headwind/sidewind. Sure eats into the fuel! ARGGGGGHHHHHH !!!!!


The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: dustyroads] #4558814
10/29/17 09:18 PM
10/29/17 09:18 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,002
Michigan
A_Harman Offline OP
A_Harman  Offline OP
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,002
Michigan
Originally Posted By: dustyroads
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
The speed limit in South Dakota is 80 mph, and I felt like an idiot running 65, with all of the big rigs blowing by me at 75.


Don't worry about it, I don't. I only feel like an idiot when I'm keeping up with the "four wheelers" (cars/pickups, etc). I do occasionally haul production loads where a product is ordered and then shipped as "just in time" (JIT), and being late to the delivery could mean a plant/factory shut down (to some extent, anyway). When hauling those loads, I sometimes go with the flow to make good time but I don't like it. The vast majority of the time is spent cruising at an efficient speed (62-67 mph works very well for my Freightliner) and I don't care what others think. Last summer, I briefly got up to 80 mph in west Texas. I only wanted to see the instantaneous fuel economy at that speed. Besides the fact that heavy truck tires are only rated for 75 mph (sustained), I was not comfortable at 80 mph. After just a minute or so, I dropped back to my usual speed. The mpg was reading in the 4's at 80 mph, which is not good for my business. Besides fuel cost, speed decreases tire life and tires are not cheap.

About the oil...you are really piling up the miles. Has oil consumption gotten worse now compared to when you started working the truck? Thanks for the continuing UOA posts.





Oil consumption has been steady at 1 quart per 4000 miles since I started last December. I've put 100k miles on the truck in 10 months, even though I had 3 slow months in April, May, and June due to transmission problems. I'll very likely turn over 400k this week on the odometer. I have talked to other RV haulers, and they put on a lot of miles. I talked to one guy with an 8-year-old Cummins Dodge that had 930k miles on it. The truck looked like a reasonably used 8-year-old truck should look. I'm hoping I can get to 600k before having to rebuild the engine. Even though I am towing a lot, I believe I am working the truck pretty easy. I won't hook to a trailer that exceeds the rated towing capacity or tongue loads. And since I rarely get a backhaul, I'm always running deadhead back to the home terminal. (If I could get more backhauls, then I wouldn't have to run 10,000 miles a month, and my back and behind wouldn't be so sore all the time!)

Funny that you mention wind. I just ran to Colorado, and encountered a 2-day windstorm in Nebraska. What a drag. Sustained northerly winds of 30+ mph with gusts over 50. My company says to stop if sustained winds are above 25-30 mph. So I stopped on Thursday and waited 8 hours, and the wind never did slow down, even though my weather app said it would. Friday morning, the wind was still 27 mph, but I got out there and ran 60-62 mph until I got out of the heavy winds, then I kicked up the speed. Once I got into Colorado, things were back to normal, and the run was as nice as I had been expecting.


1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck
Re: 2001 Dodge 2500, 388k miles, 36k OCI on RT6 [Re: A_Harman] #4559535
10/30/17 06:48 PM
10/30/17 06:48 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,877
The Canyons
02SE Offline
02SE  Offline
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,877
The Canyons
Completely off topic, but hauling RV's, do you notice better build quality from one brand to another? I ask as I have a 5th wheel toy hauler which I am happy with so far, but there are some pretty depressing stories on RV forums about poor build quality of certain brands.

Of course if you can't answer due to job security, I understand.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™