Truckers, lets see your rigs!

On a 2000 500hp 6nz with 340b Jake's what would be the optimal lash setting? On the Jacobs PDF download I'm pretty sure it's .035" +/- .003" peterbilt says .033" +/- .003" and I'm pretty sure I saw it somewhere else listed at .037" +/- .003".

Last time a mechanic touched my truck he did it the lazy man way and set them at 30 just like the exhaust valves and I could coast up an off ramp loaded and flip the switch on and off and you couldn't feel it, just made noise. I opened them up to 36 and it seemed to be an improvement. I'm going to run through the overhead this weekend and am just curious where to set them. It'd be nice to have a little more jaking power. I did go through and rebuilt them a little over a year ago so mechanically they should be good
 
ktllc15 said:
On a 2000 500hp 6nz with 340b Jake's what would be the optimal lash setting? On the Jacobs PDF download I'm pretty sure it's .035" +/- .003" peterbilt says .033" +/- .003" and I'm pretty sure I saw it somewhere else listed at .037" +/- .003".

Last time a mechanic touched my truck he did it the lazy man way and set them at 30 just like the exhaust valves and I could coast up an off ramp loaded and flip the switch on and off and you couldn't feel it, just made noise. I opened them up to 36 and it seemed to be an improvement. I'm going to run through the overhead this weekend and am just curious where to set them. It'd be nice to have a little more jaking power. I did go through and rebuilt them a little over a year ago so mechanically they should be good
Click to expand...



I like .035 like an Acert. More lash means a stronger brake to a point because it can’t open the valve as far. I can almost double my trucks jake power by holding a hat out the window.
 
ktllc15 said:
On a 2000 500hp 6nz with 340b Jake's what would be the optimal lash setting? On the Jacobs PDF download I'm pretty sure it's .035" +/- .003" peterbilt says .033" +/- .003" and I'm pretty sure I saw it somewhere else listed at .037" +/- .003".

Last time a mechanic touched my truck he did it the lazy man way and set them at 30 just like the exhaust valves and I could coast up an off ramp loaded and flip the switch on and off and you couldn't feel it, just made noise. I opened them up to 36 and it seemed to be an improvement. I'm going to run through the overhead this weekend and am just curious where to set them. It'd be nice to have a little more jaking power. I did go through and rebuilt them a little over a year ago so mechanically they should be good
Click to expand...

I know a bridge engine with 340d jakes is .030 but if it has 340e jakesit calls for .040. If you set a 340e at .030 you may as well have no jake at all. But .040 makes it where it should be. The jake housings look identical, but there obviously is a difference
 
jfaulkner said:
He forgot a lot of things like power, performance and fuel economy. But she’s chocked full of mediocre.
Click to expand...

I think of my dad every time someone mentions a diesel truck with no power. He grew up with a 366 chevy hauling grain. He would think he was in a race car if he drove ricks truck. I wish I could be that content with horsepower.
 
Feed Bunk said:
I think of my dad every time someone mentions a diesel truck with no power. He grew up with a 366 chevy hauling grain. He would think he was in a race car if he drove ricks truck. I wish I could be that content with horsepower.
Click to expand...



Same here except at the time that was the best there was. My dad and uncle mention that a lot but at the same time he said a local hill they used to hit the bottom at 65 and top at 25 @80,000 they can now do at 65 and 75+ @ 120,000.

He had a 250 Cummins then a 238 and 318 Detroit and when they got the 350 Cummins they thought they had something. He said they didn’t think you could do worse than the 318 until they had a V903 Cummins.
 
Last edited:
jfaulkner said:
Same here except at the time that was the best there was. My dad and uncle mention that a lot but at the same time he said a local hill they used to hit the bottom at 65 and top at 25 @80,000 they can now do at 65 and 75+ @ 120,000.

He had a 250 Cummins then a 238 and 318 Detroit and when they got the 350 Cummins they thought they had something. He said they didn’t think you could do worse than the 318 until they had a V903 Cummins.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of my dad when he was towin back in the day. W925 with a 250 cummins. He shoehorned a turbo on it of somesort and and he figured that was as good as it got. I still remember bein a kid seein the cummins signature 600 and 600 cat "king of the hill" show engines at a couple of the shows he took me to back in the late 90s. I can remember him shakin his head sayin "whats anyone need that kinda power for" lol
 
Last edited:
Rig Wrench said:
Reminds me of my dad when he was towin back in the day. W925 with a 250 cummins. He shoehorned a turbo on it of somesort and and he figured that was as good as it got. I still remember bein a kid seein the cummins signature 600 and 600 cat "king of the hill" show engines at a couple of the shows he took me to back in the late 90s. I can remember him shakin his head sayin "whats anyone need that kinda power for" lol
Click to expand...



I like the guys now that think twin sticks are just the coolest thing. Even when they were popular it isn’t because they were awesome it’s because that’s all they had. I have a friend that should know better and swore a 5x4 would handle real HP and it took him pulling junk transmissions out 3-4 times before he realized that old chit is total chit. Tried like 2 5spds, 6spd 7spd and finally a 9spd in front of the aux before just putting an 18spd back in.
 
I took him for a ride in a mild 1lw I was workin on a while back. The biggest power he ever owned was a big cam 400. His reaction was quite comical
 
jfaulkner said:
I like the guys now that think twin sticks are just the coolest thing. Even when they were popular it isn’t because they were awesome it’s because that’s all they had. I have a friend that should know better and swore a 5x4 would handle real HP and it took him pulling junk transmissions out 3-4 times before he realized that old chit is total chit. Tried like 2 5spds, 6spd 7spd and finally a 9spd in front of the aux before just putting an 18spd back in.
Click to expand...

There are also guys who think square classic cabs are the coolest thing.
 
I do think square classic cabs and long hoods are the coolest thing. I must be the only one though, it seems euro cab overs are the only things I see at the sale barns and grain elevators I haul into anymore.
 
Last edited:
jfaulkner said:
You mean like the euro guys that think cabovers are new technology? The style trucks we had in the 40’s and were smart enough to get away from?
Click to expand...

Rest of the world are cabovers. Hoods were first, later came cabovers, because they are better, not because they are cool.
 
Leiffi said:
Rest of the world are cabovers. Hoods were first, later came cabovers, because they are better, not because they are cool.
Click to expand...



The same rest of the world that’s just put another robot on Mars? I keep forgetting how far behind we are here. Lmao
 
Your cabovers are better argument might fly with people that have never owned them. Back when the US had a length law they were standard. When the law was done away with so were the cabovers. If they were truly better people wouldn’t have dumped them and the US manufacturers would still make them. Simple supply and demand even you should be able to figure out.
 
wYJrWFl.jpg


Good friend of mines 1967 Kenworth, she still earns her keep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top