probably for cost reasons or they may use the restriction to give more low
end torque which is what most people consider to be more power but I'm
pretty sure it's the cost factor
Joe W.
87 Shelby Charger 13.9
98 Dakota 13.1
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernd D. Ratsch <bernd@texas.net>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: DML: Catalytic Converters
>
> Hmmmm....
>
> So why do they use them only on the "Special Production" vehicles...and
not
> on a regular basis? One would think that if they (DC) want the highest HP
> engines around, they'd use the parts designed just for that purpose. Then
> again, engineers don't seem to think along the logical lines. ;)
>
> Works for me either way. So what would the techs recommend? (Brand
> Name/Part #)
>
> - Bernd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: Re: DML: Catalytic Converters
>
> Bernd,
> I have no clue what GM or Ford uses. I work for DC at the Tech center
> so DC exhaust guys are the ones I talked to. I work in the Jeep studio
> and the only high flow exhaust system that we use is on the 5.9 limited
> and thats not in production any more. As far as trucks go, R/T's have a
> higher flowing cat, but I've been told again by exhaust techs that its
> not considered a "highflow" cat.
> Eric
>
>
Received: from buffnet4.buffnet.net (buffnet4.buffnet.net [205.246.19.13]) by csclub0.cs.fredonia.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA13672 for <dakarch@csclub0.cs.fredonia.edu>; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:28:08 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by buffnet4.buffnet.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA23583
for dakota-truck-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:13:31 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from owner-dakota-truck@buffnet4.buffnet.net)
Received: from mail1.buffnet.net (mail1.buffnet.net [205.246.19.62])
by buffnet4.buffnet.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA23577
for <dakota-truck@buffnet4.buffnet.net>; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:13:29 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from nosdakota@email.msn.com)
Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu02.email.msn.com [207.46.181.18])
by mail1.buffnet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA42252
for <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from nosdakota@email.msn.com)
Received: from joe - 63.25.174.126 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:12:52 -0700
Message-ID: <00ac01bf1c33$82183e80$7eae193f@joe>
From: "nosdakota" <nosdakota@email.msn.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
References: <19991021.212821.-3984617.1.turlington@juno.com>
Subject: DML: Re: Re: Ping and Rattle problems
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:16:52 -0400
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Sender: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Reply-To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
X-Mailing-List: The Dakota Mailing List
X-Mailing-List-Owner: stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu
X-URL: http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/WWW/DAKOTA/dakota.html
X-Unsubscribe-Info: Send "unsubscribe dakota-truck" to majordomo@buffnet.net.
X-Unsubscribe-URL: http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/WWW/CGI-BIN/dml.html
I would be more concerned with what pinging is doing to the motor than
resale value. I've seen detonation kill more motors than I would care to
remember.. just out of curiosity did the new wires cure the problem at least
temporarily?
Joe W.
87 Shelby Charger 13.9
98 Dakota 13.1
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom T <turlington@juno.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 9:28 PM
Subject: DML: Re: Ping and Rattle problems
> Mine's also in MD. Two TSB's were performed on mine (reset distributor
> sync and reroute wiring). They told me there's no more TSB's and nothing
> else that can be done. High Octane all but eliminated the problem, but
> I'm not convinced (based on what I've read in the past) that's a good
> idea (reduced mileage and carbon buildup, not to mention extra expense).
>
> If I take mine back one more time and it still can't be fixed, I can
> invoke the lemon law. But I wonder if it's worth it for a pinging
> problem. Wouldn't bad pinging hurt resale value?
>
> >From: mastres@id.ucsb.edu (Tony Mastres)
> >Reply-To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> >To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> >Subject: Re: DML: Ping and Rattle problems
> >Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:53:25 -0700
> >
> > >I have a '99 4x4 with a 3.9 V6 and 13,600 miles.
> > >
> > >Some time ago, it started "pinging" around 1600 RPM. Eventually, it
> also
> > >pinged around
> > >3000, then spread almost any RPM. It starts after about 20 minutes of
> > >driving and only
> > >pings while moving, never in neutral. The loudness has increased to
> > >unbearable levels
> > >(sounds like it's all gonna fall apart). I call it knocking or
> rattling
> > >now.
> > >
> >I've had the exact same problem for about 6 months with no resolution.
> I
> >have found that higher octane gas will reduce but not eliminate the
> >problem. The oddest diagnosis was that something in the California
> >emissions packacge was causing it. I really dont know enough about it to
> >believe or discount this theory but I was wondering if this is a
> California
> >problem moreso than other parts of the country?
> >
> >
> >Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:12:24 PDT
> From: "Erika Ipes" <msbavior@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: DML: Ping and Rattle problems
>
> Nope. I don't have any california emmisions on my truck ( I'm in MD) and
> my
> truck pings too. I'll post the TSB #'s just as soon as I get them so
> everyone can check out there problem.
>
> Erika
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
> Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:18:12 EDT