member12
| Favorite team: | Marquette  |
| Location: | Bob's Country Bunker |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 33084 |
| Registered on: | 5/2/2008 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Raining Ash in St George
Posted by member12 on 12/31/25 at 3:19 pm to duckblind56
Never seen it this bad before. This is my pool less than 2 hours after it was cleaned.
Have to leaf blow before the kids go outside. Why is it so much worse this year, and why is it larger leaves and stems?
Have to leaf blow before the kids go outside. Why is it so much worse this year, and why is it larger leaves and stems?
0
quote:
The GM 3.0L Duramax (LM2/LZ0) uses a unique wet, rubber oil pump drive belt located at the rear of the engine, requiring significant labor (transmission removal) for replacement, typically recommended around 150,000-200,000 miles
Yeah but at least it can be done without removing the crankshaft. I can’t figure out what Ford was thinking with that little motor.
quote:
don’t think I’ll ever have anything else as a daily unless they quit making the LX or GX.
The new full sized Toyotas have another engine that I wouldn’t touch.
Maybe a rebuilt engine is super cheap? They are tiny.
quote:
Because the ecoboost is a very complicated engine. Great for mid-size and below vehicles. Laughable for full-size trucks and SUVs.
The 3.5L Ecoboost doesn’t have this oil pump belt yet.
The 5.0L and 2.7L motors got them only within the last few years.
Like they are going through decent engines and finding ways to ruin them.
Why does Ford use wet belts for their engine oil pumps?
Posted by member12 on 12/31/25 at 11:25 am
More importantly…..why do they place them where it’s impossible to change without tearing down the engine?
This is the bottom end of a 1.5L engine from a Bronco Sport:
Notice the location of the belt that drives the sump-mounted oil pump. Crankshaft and possibly or the balance shaft has to come out to change the belt (pulleys are pressed on). That’s intense work to replace something that will break down and fail before the rest of the engine.
The 2.7L Ecoboost and 5.0L Coyote in the F-150 have these now to, but at least on those they are at the end of an engine and potentially serviceable. So they can be replaced as a service item when the timing needs to be changed/adjusted before 200k miles.
Or in the case of the GM light duty diesel, you can swap it out if the transmission needs heavy service before 200k miles or if you are already in that area to deal with a rear main seal. Frustrating but serviceable without tearing down the engine.
Feels like if nobody is looking, some of these manufacturers will make the whole engine a wear item though. Like this 1.5L Ford…..no way to service that belt without tearing down the entire bottom end. Which means an engine swap or total rebuild will happen at the oil change belt replacement interval.
Seems like we need to know very detailed engine specs before we buy. No idea how many other carmakers are doing stupid stuff like this without going through their engines or finding a cutaway of that engine.
Is this some kind of weight saving thing? Or is it just cheaper?
This is the bottom end of a 1.5L engine from a Bronco Sport:
Notice the location of the belt that drives the sump-mounted oil pump. Crankshaft and possibly or the balance shaft has to come out to change the belt (pulleys are pressed on). That’s intense work to replace something that will break down and fail before the rest of the engine.
The 2.7L Ecoboost and 5.0L Coyote in the F-150 have these now to, but at least on those they are at the end of an engine and potentially serviceable. So they can be replaced as a service item when the timing needs to be changed/adjusted before 200k miles.
Or in the case of the GM light duty diesel, you can swap it out if the transmission needs heavy service before 200k miles or if you are already in that area to deal with a rear main seal. Frustrating but serviceable without tearing down the engine.
Feels like if nobody is looking, some of these manufacturers will make the whole engine a wear item though. Like this 1.5L Ford…..no way to service that belt without tearing down the entire bottom end. Which means an engine swap or total rebuild will happen at the oil change belt replacement interval.
Seems like we need to know very detailed engine specs before we buy. No idea how many other carmakers are doing stupid stuff like this without going through their engines or finding a cutaway of that engine.
Is this some kind of weight saving thing? Or is it just cheaper?
re: If you had to buy a 2025 3/4 ton pickup
Posted by member12 on 12/28/25 at 4:33 pm to justokatgolf
quote:
2013 f250 diesel, high pressure fuel pump went out, $15,000 to replace fuel pump.
Dayum.
Some models of the Powerstroke uses a fuel injector system that releases shrapnel into the engine when it fails. I guess that might have contributed to that insane cost?
re: If you had to buy a 2025 3/4 ton pickup
Posted by member12 on 12/28/25 at 4:31 pm to BigNastyTiger417
After several minutes of intense googling, I think I may change my answer from GMC to Ram.
Not because the Ram is better. But because the crew cab standard box Ram is a shade under 20’ while the GMC is over 20’.
My workshop garage bay is 20’ and I like to use it for parking.
Not because the Ram is better. But because the crew cab standard box Ram is a shade under 20’ while the GMC is over 20’.
My workshop garage bay is 20’ and I like to use it for parking.
Ash storm in St. George/Baton Rouge caused by burning cane fields in West Baton Rouge
Posted by member12 on 12/28/25 at 3:22 pm
Shouldn't be a fire hazard. No major structural fire or anything.
It's just going to be filthy and disgusting for a couple of weeks.....and some of it probably is laced with whatever herbicides that have been put in those fields since the last burn.
InB4 "these fires are historically important" and "you shouldn't live within 20 miles of a cane field and expect to enjoy your property" from the idiots simping for sugar cane corporations.
It's just going to be filthy and disgusting for a couple of weeks.....and some of it probably is laced with whatever herbicides that have been put in those fields since the last burn.
InB4 "these fires are historically important" and "you shouldn't live within 20 miles of a cane field and expect to enjoy your property" from the idiots simping for sugar cane corporations.
re: What is your longest running, most stubborn business boycott?
Posted by member12 on 12/27/25 at 11:03 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Quizno's
Is this because of their corporate shenanigans or did they REALLY mess up a sandwich?
quote:
AT&T, charged me $45 bucks for a collect call to home that was under 3 minutes in 1997. I never paid the bill and will never do business with them again.
shite that's nearly 30 years. Impressive.
re: If you had to buy a 2025 3/4 ton pickup
Posted by member12 on 12/27/25 at 11:01 pm to JackieSonnier
GM probably. But under protest.
They all suck right now. But the GM models have the best diesel and the most efficient gas motor. Ford has the most powerful gas motor though.
They all suck right now. But the GM models have the best diesel and the most efficient gas motor. Ford has the most powerful gas motor though.
quote:
They readily admitted that if protectism against imports were eliminated they would simply shift to other crops, saying: 'The soil here is very fertile and will grow almost anything.'
Yep. The land would relatively quickly be repurposed for production that doesn't require so much protection and government intervention to support.
quote:
subMOA
Keep sucking on that government tit.
Just a few more price controls here and there doesn't make you a socialist, right?
quote:
Key word: historically. Having a few companies employ hundreds of illegals doesn’t help our economies.
Yep...
re: Has the sugar industry become exploitative in south Louisiana?
Posted by member12 on 12/27/25 at 1:40 pm to frequent flyer
quote:
From a macro-economic perspective - is it economically safer for the state's agricultural output be more diverse (maybe increasing production and processing of cattle, poultry, beans, etc. and reducing the amount of acreage devoted to sugar exclusively)?
Should the recent immigrant labor reform efforts slowly target agriculture to rebuild the local labor agricultural labor pool?
From an environmental perspective - should regulators end the practice of selectively enforcing the laws for some industries but exempting agriculture? Or should they relax standards for all industries?
Should price floors and price controls for the output from any industry be set to protect producers that rely so heavily on lax environmental controls and migrant labor?
My thoughts are that if the oil and gas industry was this reliant on exemptions from emissions laws or migrant labor.....a lot of locals in Louisiana would be furious. Why do we look the other way for sugar?
Agricultural protections in general need to be scaled back and eliminated - especially for sugar and corn.
Our protections are why we are losing smaller scale producers in this country. And the protections wouldn't be needed if our trade polices weren't so flat footed historically.
re: Greatest Trucks ever produced?
Posted by member12 on 12/26/25 at 2:17 pm to Don Quixote
What blows my mind is that I saw a 2025 GMC Canyon parked next to a mid 1990s half ton Silverado fairly recently. That Canyon looked taller and wider. And I’m sure the 4 cylinder turbo in the new truck is vastly more powerful too. Probably tows more.
Today’s midsized trucks should be more popular. They are very large. Most share a chassis with the full sized trucks too - usually with a half ton truck’s motor and transmission. The 2.7L turbos from Ford and GM are actually solid, reliable engines. In terms of reliability…. I also think the new 2.4L Turbo from Toyota is miles ahead of the twin turbo V6 that Toyota puts in their full sized trucks now too.
Check out a modern Tacoma and compare to the original T100 or first gen Tundra. I bet the new Tacoma is bigger.
I got by with a half ton 25 years ago. A mid sized today is more than adequate.
Today’s midsized trucks should be more popular. They are very large. Most share a chassis with the full sized trucks too - usually with a half ton truck’s motor and transmission. The 2.7L turbos from Ford and GM are actually solid, reliable engines. In terms of reliability…. I also think the new 2.4L Turbo from Toyota is miles ahead of the twin turbo V6 that Toyota puts in their full sized trucks now too.
Check out a modern Tacoma and compare to the original T100 or first gen Tundra. I bet the new Tacoma is bigger.
I got by with a half ton 25 years ago. A mid sized today is more than adequate.
re: Greatest Trucks ever produced?
Posted by member12 on 12/26/25 at 1:59 pm to Don Quixote
quote:
I had a 1Gen Tundra with the 4.7L for many years and loved it. It was stone cold reliable and aside from routine maintenance never had to do anything to it in all the years I drove it. Bought a '16 Tundra with the 5.7L and checked with a local shop that works on nothing but Toyota first. They said the 4.7 is a very slightly better engine than the 5.7 by a gnats arse but the difference isn't enough that most people would notice. I was certain that I would miss my 1Gen and felt bad for selling it, but I really love my 5.7 better than any truck I've ever owned.
I think the 4.7 was smoother and quieter. But it also had a timing belt when the 5.7 had a timing chain. So that belt in the 4.7L was a wear item that needed replacement periodically.
The first gen Tundra was IMO the perfect size truck. The 4.7 was a great pairing for it. I miss that truck. That was my favorite Tundra body style. It went downhill from there and really fell off a cliff in 2022.
5.7L had some teething issues early on but that is still a great engine. Was needed because the second gen Tundra got comically massive.
The 5.7 was not Toyota’s best V8. But it was powerfully and mostly reliable. Vastly better than their new twin turbo V6 garbage in their new Tundras in every way except output. I think the whole package may actually be smaller too since those turbos and multiple radiators and inter coolers seem to fill the entire engine bay of the new Tundras.
I wish Toyota would bring the V8 back. They could charge a lot for what is probably a cheaper motor to build than their new V35T V6 turbo.
quote:
The 90s silverados were the best. 350 vortec, reliable electronics. They were the perfect combo of the well built trucks of the 70s-80s with modern comforts and modern ability to drive 2-300k miles with no issues.
IMO 95-96 were the sweet spot. Old body style, decent electrical system, powerful enough engine if you got the Vortec 4.3L, 5.0L or 5.7L….but with airbags and a nicer dash than the early 1990s models. In those years each of those engines had a 30-50 horsepower boost from the 1994 models - enough where you could feel it.
The early 1990s weren’t bad. But the interiors were very cheap and it had the early TBI systems. Better than the carb models in the square bodies but not super powerful. They really went next level in 1995-1996 IMO. And that was a fairly small (for a full sized) body style before they got progressively larger since then.
I also love the early Gen 3 small blocks too in the initial T800 trucks. Those things ripped. Probably 1999-2003 or so. Then GM started with the aggressive electronic shift controls and ECM’s to preserve transmission longevity with those higher output motors (around 2005ish). It got annoying until they figured that out in 2007 or so with the T900 trucks That factory tuning is the real reason the late T800s (cat eye) Chevy’s annoy me. That and the styling.
The early T900s weren’t bad. But that was an era when GM was trying to safe costs. They needed to move to a 6 speed in those heavier trucks but that didn’t happen until 2012 or so. Either that or they should have found ways to make those trucks lighter.
Still leaps and bounds better than the overweight Ford trucks at the time with those horrific 3v 5.4L motors. The Ford 4.6 was sturdy but just couldn’t move those heavy 2005+ trucks very well. Ford also stuck with a 4 speed for too long.
In those days Dodge had a solid HEMI V8 slowly phasing out the anemic 4.7L V8, 5.2L and 5.9L V8. All of them were gas guzzlers. The 5.9L and 5.2L were reliable but just weak sauce. The 4.7L Dodge was a mistake. They needed that 5.7L HEMI pretty badly.
The 1990s was when you could get a V10 or big block V8 in a fairly light truck - 3/4 ton domestic truck from the big 3. The big block 454 Chevy was actually available in the half tons too along with the painfully slow 6.5L (non turbo) diesel. But the 350 and 305 were way more popular.
At some point the V10 Dodge was in a performance half ton truck called the SRT. A buddy of mine had one. That thing was insane.
re: Greatest Trucks ever produced?
Posted by member12 on 12/26/25 at 1:48 pm to CaptainsWafer
quote:
My personal favorites are the OBS F250s and F350s. Indestructible 7.3 diesel
I love that truck too but that setup was slow AF by modern diesel standards. Maybe 215 horsepower and 420 lb ft, although you could at least get them hooked to a decent manual.
Reliable. Efficient. But slow.
The big block 454ci Chevy Suburbans and K2500 trucks in those days were bulletproof and pretty quick. But they’d get about 10mpg.
Although I am sure performance and efficiency would improve with a decent 6 or 8 speed transmission. They usually had 4 speeds. Some of the I-6 Fords had 3 speeds.
For their size, the little S-10 with the 4.3L engine was powerful enough to be dangerous off the line. Kind of got wheezy past 4,000 rpm. Those little trucks with that big V6 were sketchy AF if they were on wet pavement. Good times.
re: Greatest Trucks ever produced?
Posted by member12 on 12/26/25 at 1:43 pm to Cleathecat
quote:
would like to see a modern midsize Dakota.
They are coming out with a new one in 2027. Will probably have the 3.6L V6 and ZF 8 speeds. So starting off with a solid powertrain.
Hopefully they can keep the price reasonable.
Popular
27
