'O4' Dodge fender flares and wake up!
From : neil miller
Q: i have owned my 04 reg cab long box 4x4 305hp cummins auto since november. it has been a flawless performer for the first 16000 kms. i ride it hard and put it to bed wet. i am in construction and use my truck in a wide range of conditions. recently i have added new 18 rims with 325 toyo tires. i ordered some bushwacker fender flares because the new tread extends past the wells an inch and a half. when the flares were to installed by a body shop we found that they would not fit without extensive alterations. when i sent them back the good folks at bushwacker claimed it was not their fault but dodges because they claimed there are variations of truck box bodies within the 2002 to 2004 models. i asked the local dealer about this and they have never been aware of any variations. there is only one part number for the side panels of my truck. i contacted a company that have done a number installs of bushwackers and they said that the bushwackers vary considerably from set to set the last set took six hours to install right. it looks like bushwacker makes an inferior product so i am going to try xenon next. they are considerably more money though. i recently installed a reprogramming module that gives me another 85 hp and 60 ft pds of torque. the overhead digital display use to read 15.3 liters per 100 km and now reads 12.2 liters. if i take a further 10% off because of the oversized tires it appears to be a significant reduced fuel consumption. for those who are metric challenged that translates to 21.3 mpg usgal or 25.68 mpg cdn gal either way that is good! but the real bonus is the wake up call for the engine. i have the early 04 305 hp and it was more than adequate before but since i added the chip it has come alive with way more zip at lower rpm. i dont tend to put my foot in it as much with the added quickness which probably accounts for some of the fuel savings as well as the k&n air filter. all in all i am very pleased with my dodge. .
Replies:
From : neil miller
i have put the first 800 km on since i installed the re-programmer. the mileage isnt quite as good as i first indicated using the overhead display data. i checked my speedometer against my wifes car. my trucks speedometer registers almost exactly 10% slower than her honda. when i am travelling at 100 kph according to the speedometer i am actually going 110 kph. also when i went through one of those radar displays showing how fast you are travelling through a school zone i was 10% faster than displayed. i had filled the tank to the top of the filler both before and after. i used 105 litres to travel 810 kms adjusted up 10% this equates to 21.7 mpg cdn or 18.1 mpg us. this was a combo of highway and city driving. previously completely stock i was getting on average about 15l/100km now i am getting 13l/100km. almost a 3 mpg increase! i had the new flares installed. the xenon flares are definitely a superior product to the bushwackers. .
From : cbhvac stephen
i have owned my 04 reg cab long box 4x4 305hp cummins auto since november. it has been a flawless performer for the first 16000 kms. i ride it hard and put it to bed wet. i am in construction and use my truck in a wide range of conditions. recently i have added new 18 rims with 325 toyo tires. i ordered some bushwacker fender flares because the new tread extends past the wells an inch and a half. when the flares were to installed by a body shop we found that they would not fit without extensive alterations. when i sent them back the good folks at bushwacker claimed it was not their fault but dodges because they claimed there are variations of truck box bodies within the 2002 to 2004 models. i asked the local dealer about this and they have never been aware of any variations. there is only one part number for the side panels of my truck. i contacted a company that have done a number installs of bushwackers and they said that the bushwackers vary considerably from set to set the last set took six hours to install right. it looks like bushwacker makes an inferior product so i am going to try xenon next. they are considerably more money though. i recently installed a reprogramming module that gives me another 85 hp and 60 ft pds of torque. the overhead digital display use to read 15.3 liters per 100 km and now reads 12.2 liters. if i take a further 10% off because of the oversized tires it appears to be a significant reduced fuel consumption. lol....and you had the pcm recalibrated for the new tire size.....riiiiight if not..you didnt gain any kpl.. for those who are metric challenged that translates to 21.3 mpg usgal or 25.68 mpg cdn gal either way that is good! see above.. but the real bonus is the wake up call for the engine. i have the early 04 305 hp and it was more than adequate before but since i added the chip it has come alive with way more zip at lower rpm. i dont tend to put my foot in it as much with the added quickness which probably accounts for some of the fuel savings as well as the k&n air filter. all in all i am very pleased with my dodge. sigh....i wont tell you what my 30 day old 2003 2500 van with now 4500 miles on it gets...loaded....without the bullshit k+n...... oh...yea...and its a gasser...not a sprinter... .
From : jerry
tom lawrence wrote i hope youve also installed an egt and boost gauge so you dont wind up running your engine too hot. i think most people dont realize how easy it is to run the egts high enough to do damage after adding a fueling box. instead of riding it hard and putting it to bed wet it would be just as easy to put it to bed dead one day if the temperatures arent monitored. jerry .
From : tom lawrence
i think most people dont realize how easy it is to run the egts high enough to do damage after adding a fueling box. instead of riding it hard and putting it to bed wet it would be just as easy to put it to bed dead one day if the temperatures arent monitored. this is more food for thought for the original poster - i know you know all this absolutely. not only is it possible to get the egts high enough where they do engine damage embrittled exhaust valves scored cylinder walls from over-heated pistons etc. its also possible to damage the turbo by not allowing it enough time to cool down before shutting the truck off. if the turbo it hot enough the oil that settles around the bearings will coke up black charred crusty-looking stuff. this will then begin to score the bearings and races on the next startup. before you know it you have a turbo with a wobbling turbine shaft which isnt a good thing at 120000rpms. bottom line - get gauges and follow the cool-down recommendations in the owners manual. 300-325f pre-turbo is a safe shutdown temp. assuming youre using a good-quality oil in the engine. .
From : tom lawrence
i recently installed a reprogramming module that gives me another 85 hp and 60 ft pds of torque. the overhead digital display use to read 15.3 liters per 100 km and now reads 12.2 liters. do not believe the overhead display. the box you put on fools the computer - the computer says to inject x amount of fuel. the box causes 1.1x or something similar to actually be injected. the net result is that it takes less throttle for the same performance. therefore the computer thinks its more fuel-efficient when it really isnt. your over-sized tires dont help either because your speedometer/odometer is now off it was calibrated for the original tire size. the computer think youve travelled 1km when youve actually travelled 1.1km or so - dont feel like figuring it out for real. in short your overhead display is worthless. reset your trip odometer between fill-ups and do the math to calculate fuel economy. youll find that its less than what the overhead display is reporting. is good! but the real bonus is the wake up call for the engine. i have the early 04 305 hp and it was more than adequate before but since i added the chip it has come alive with way more zip at lower rpm. yep. this part of the experience is real. these engines really wake up with some more fuel added into the mix. i hope youve also installed an egt and boost gauge so you dont wind up running your engine too hot. the stock fuel system is also known to be marginal - even with a mild hp box 70hp or so people have been able to draw their fuel pressure down to 0psi. if your engine starts to stumble or miss at high rpms with your foot in it youre probably starving the pump for fuel. probably accounts for some of the fuel savings as well as the k&n air filter. all in all i am very pleased with my dodge. go check with cummins and get their opinion on running that prticular filter on their engines. hint - they wont be happy about it. the cummins requires a filter rated at 99% first-pass efficiency. your k&n doesnt meet that spec. .
From : neil miller
yeah !! you guys are right. i had the full meal deal with egt and boost gauges installed along with some serious tongue clucking by the mechanic who did the work. i am cognizance of the fact that one can really screw things up if you arent careful. not just the motor but the tranny torque converter and possibly the rear end. i did not know it was possible to recalbrate the pcm i will look into it. i do know the larger tires do not help mileage they just have to be taken into account when calculating distance travelled. k&n filters are a bit of a hot topic! i ran a 96 4x4 cummins for 300000 kms at 200000 kms i installed a fuel plate flow-thru exhaust re-timed the fuel pump and added a k&n filter. that made a huge difference in performance! it is still running good for my son who owns it now. i have heard conflicting reports about k&ns though my experience is the dodge boys would never say anything nice about a non-mopar part. i am checking the mileage by actual fuel consumed over actual distanced travelled. i will let you know what the outcome is. .
From : mac davis
on mon 10 may 2004 001815 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote snip in short your overhead display is worthless. reset your trip odometer between fill-ups and do the math to calculate fuel economy. youll find that its less than what the overhead display is reporting. snip one flaw in that reasoning tom... checking miles traveled and fuel used will help some but when i went to 265 x 75s on my 99 ram gps showed that i was going 3mph faster at 60 than the speedo indicated... found out here that the tires made a 4% speedo difference... the overhead trip computer basically useless imho miles and the odometer are an exact match both are effected by the tires.. mac .
From : jerry
mac davis wrote the overhead trip computer basically useless imho miles and the odometer are an exact match both are effected by the tires.. mac i think you are wrong on that. you wont be applying as much throttle pressure/pedal which in turn tricks the computer into thinking you are using less fuel when in fact what you are doing is using less throttle to achieve the same speed but usually the same amount of fuel. probable wrong but i assumed or thought the overhead trip computer took its reading from the tps signal to the computer. jerry .
From : tom lawrence
one flaw in that reasoning tom... ... the overhead trip computer basically useless imho miles and the odometer are an exact match both are effected by the tires.. heh... oh yeah okay - get the speedo corrected for the tires then calculate your mileage based on the odometer because the overhead will still read several mpgs higher than actual .
From : tom lawrence
probable wrong but i assumed or thought the overhead trip computer took its reading from the tps signal to the computer. nope youre right. but what macs saying is that without correcting the speedo for the larger tire sizes he cant even accurately calculage mpg by hand because the odometer wont be accurate. .