Kevin Rutherfrauds $200000 Signature glider truck has complete engine failure!!!

One thing that even I have never really heard KR or anyone else address regarding long OCI's is the TAN (Total Acid Number) as well as the TBN. Most folks look at TBN and say, "well, the TBN number is still good, so I will continue to run my oil". Many do not even test for TAN. It is common knowledge in oil circles, that once TAN and TBN number meet, it is time to get the oil out of there. Out of dozens of samples I have seen folks post on various forums, I have never seen them test for TAN. And no bypass unit is going to do anything about acid buildup in a motor oil, doesn't matter if it is a OPS, Gulf Coast, or any other brand. And those acids can be as much of a detriment to engine longevity as wear metals or soot. If folks want to start playing with long term oil drains, they would be strongly advised to have sample testing done that also tests for TAN. Once TAN meets or exceeds the TBN number, the additive package in the oil can no longer protect the engine from those acids. Your wear metals may not be at any threshold, your TBN number might look fine, but your TAN level if going into the stratosphere. Those that want to play with the serious extended drain intervals (2x or more OEM drain interval) might want to take this into consideration.

This one thing alone would support staying at OEM recommended drains or only a little more, up to 25% longer, maybe, and that is a conditional maybe. This is why I don't try and stretch things out longer than I do. The OEM drain interval of 25,000 mile / 500hr on my Detroit 60 is fine for me. Bypass, yes. Extend drain to 100,000 miles, no.

For those that only do testing that shows TBN, the common idea that once TBN is depleted 50%, it is time to change the oil. You have to know what your oil starts out with. Many CJ-4's start out at 9-10. So once the TBN reaches 5, it is time to get it out of there, because at that point, the acid numbers are off to the races.

http://machinerylubrication.com/Read/2170/oil-drain-interval-tan-tbn

 

WOW, I had no idea about TAN. Thanks for that!!! Kinda ticked that no one ever mentioned it before. I mean the bypass guys.

930 est and learning has occurred. Check off learning for today

 

Because it is an additional and unnecessary test when using modern oil changed before TBN reaches 50%

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/2170/oil-drain-interval-tan-tbn

 

When I bought my truck from my uncle, who has been in trucking since the late '50s, I told him about extended oil drains using a bypass filter. He told me that the acid builds up, and even though the lubricity may still be there, you can't go as far as OPS and the like are telling without changing the oil. Although he has been in trucking since it was considered a mortal sin to shut off a diesel engine, he is up to date with trying not to idle an engine, so I did not dismiss what he said. He also had questions about KR's going after rolling resistance at all costs. That was when i started being a critical thinker when it came to what KR and Bruce say. This link to the TBN and TAN relationship is the final nail in the coffin!

 

Them were the days. Every truck had all their chicken lights on, and a slight haze overhead at the truckstop.

 

PP goes under the bus! (And rightfully so...)

 

Can anyone summarize this for someone who cannot fathom shifting through 150+ pages of thread?..

I know who Kevin is. Not really a big fan. But what is the general consensus on the glider failure?

 

PP screwed the pooch when they tore the motor down. And proceeded to point fingers everywhere else instead of acknowledging anything. Dirty and out of spec assembly, no microblue bearing that were paid for, etc. etc. etc.

 

Wow.

One little comment; they address the projected financial difference between the truck they built (~$190,000) vs. an anticipated $50,000 savings had they bought a Fitzgerald glider. However, later on they also comment that their truck has actually cost them in excess of $250,000. The figure of $110,000 difference would therefore be more accurate in their financial projection. This would make the six-year value of savings nearly $158,000, not $71,000. A whole 'nother truck.

To be more correct it is hard to say exactly what the savings would be vs. what they have spent. Would the Fitzgerald glider be without some of the same, or similar, costs incurred by the KR/PP glider? Unlikely. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, but suffice to say the savings to be had by NOT buying a KR/PP glider would be substantial.

Another issue would be future re-sale. Given that they expect to average 140,000 miles per year, do you think that there will be any substantial difference in value of a six-year-old, 840,000 mile KR/PP glider vs. an equivalent Fitzgerald glider? I think the answer will be exactly $0.

 

Who refuses to warranty a failed turbo clamp on a 2-week old, $200,000 truck?!