truck-trans-dodge
truck-logo-dodge
Search Messages :  

B1500 Cooling problems

From : Annonymous

Q: try running it for a few minutes and feel the radiator for hot and cool spots. i did notice the upper hose gets very hot long before the bottom one does .

Replies:

From : Annonymous

a flat out lie. in my world a fence is a fence no matter its height. in your world the government determines its height or its not allowed to be a fence. you have yet to address the issue... why is a 5 fence allowed but a 7 fence is not what is a fence what is constructed of again not the issue. your failure to address the issue is disappointing. next question why is a fence agreed upon by the property owners on each side of said fence not agreed upon by the government the answers should be based upon logic and reason not because the government said so. last i checked that sort of logic works on 5 year olds but not so much on adult citizens of a free country. well the answer is that it is law and enforcable. what is the reason behind the law not because it says so. so the very reasons i say are bullshit are why you left yet youll stand by the laws as reasonable and enforceable. ok..... yes they are enforcable. do i think they are reasonable no in most cases yes in a few. nuisance laws are enforcable only if written properly and most are not. property codes are a violation of private individuals rights given that they have no basis in fact but in what is offensive such as the last foot of a 6 fence. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author .

From : Annonymous

on jul 3 506 am tbone tbonenos...@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman a...@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt the...@whatever.net wrote you cant even begin to make this go away snotroll. studs definately change the amount of friction available on the raod surface over a non studded tire. the tire manufacturers the stud man. and all of the safety information talk about that all of the time. make what go away you maybe you havent done very good with that either. i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking about rather than maybe reading a thing or two and calling yourself a expert. so.........you are saying that the coefficient of friction is the same for an all rubber tire and one with 15 or 16 studs size of them of course my brilliant friend if that is the case my instructors at the northwestern university school of accident reconstruction totally fucked up their class. either that or you are totally fucked up. and as for being an expert............what constitutes an expert if i could testify in court as an expert would that suffice if so then you are fucked snotard. but i am sure that you will once again run away and hide moron. not trying to cause trouble here but you really are starting to make yourself look foolish. he never said anything about the coefficient of friction or even that the studded tires had the same wet grip as standard ones. his exact words were number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads to me and i would think to just about anyone else would see this as him saying a good balance as meaning that even though there is a traction loss with studded tires this configuration minimizes the loss of traction on wet roads for gains they provide on ice. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving- hide quoted text - - show quoted text - wow tom youre doing great here. first you defend beryl and jump on my now you defend snotroll and jump on guy and roy all before you seemingly read the entire thread. now what was it that you were saying to me about a week ago .

From : roy

robert francis wrote exactly tbone. bob robert francis wrote actually the ballast should be centred over the rear axle not behind it. whys that placed behind the rear axle itll leverage a bit of weight off the front axle and add more than its own weight to the rear axle. because that leverage also acts as a lever to pull the rear end around the front of the vehicle in a turn and taking weight off of the front tires does not always help the situation especially when attempting to turn in slippery conditions. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving i could see it if a pickup truck was already pretty well balanced but it isnt. as roy said put the weight behind the axle like when you have a plow up front. how about like when you have a cummins ingot up front balance really isnt the issue in this case. if you could shift the existing weight from the front to the rear then it would make sense. to add weight behind the rear tires simply increases the mass and inertia of the vehicle which is always a bad thing in ice and snow. at the same time you are removing some of the down-force on the front axle while increasing the mass and inertia created by that mass which makes it even harder to turn the vehicle. roy suggested putting weight behind the rear axle in a plow situation to help unload the front suspension of some of the added mass of the plow hanging off of the front. since the plow is in front of the front tires it also has that lever effect and takes some of the weight off of the rear axle. putting weight behind the rear axle in that case counterbalances the plow and returns the weight back to the rear axle where it is needed. as for the cummins while it is heavy it is sitting over the front axle so there is no counter lever effect on the rear axle and most of its weight is being put to use holding the front tires down. -- i would think that with the 900 pounds of engine up front you have lightened the rear so a few hundred pounds in back might give a more favorable weight distribution in snow for traction purposes. thats without the plow. a scale would help answer the weight issue. that depends on how the load is situated. if the engine is sitting in front of the front axle then yes it is lightening the load on the rear axle. if it is directly over the front axle then it has no effect on the rear axle and if it is slightly behind the front axle then it is actually adding weight to the rear axle. since i dont own one i dont know exactly where the engine sits in relation to the front axle. i agree that some weight may need to be added to the rear to increase traction in snowy conditions but as others have said the weight should be directly over the rear axle in this situation. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .