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

Exactly ! I can understand why Rutherford will spend thousands of dollars on anything that gains 1/10 mpg. But for the rest of us, well let's do the hard work. Get out your calculator !

I run about 90,000 miles/year and get 7 mpg. Let's say, hypothetically, there was something I could get to improve to 7.1. What's it worth ?

At 7.0 I will use 12,857 gallons per year at $3.00 / gallon, it's $38,571. Y'all with me ? Let's do the hard work !

Now, at 7.1 it comes to $38,028. So you save about $550/yr. Even if a device could up your mileage 0.5, it's $2500/yr.

Usually, when I try to explain this to Rutherford-heads their eyes are glazed over by now.

Consider this glider $60,000 more than a typical glider. If it even got a full 1 mpg better (which it didn't), and didn't fall apart at 100,000 miles (which it did) it would take 12 years to return that 60k. 12 years ! Just to break even. People do the math, for most people the money on unproven attempts at fuel savings such as super singles or lift axles you will never save enough fuel to get your money back. And if they put all the time they spend thinking about saving fuel towards getting better loads they could make that on one or two better paying loads. rant over.

 

Amen, but could you let me know what truck setup you are running and the size of loads, getting another truck and doing it right this time.

 

I'm not so certain they had proper protrusion, tho after hearing of a 'dispute' over post-teardown measuring manner, hard to say.
I can easily see the sleeves being toast & all distorted, but still think heat has little effect on the protrusion measurement,
due to the 'short and solid' nature of the affected area of thermal expansion/contraction.

I wouldn't think a solid steel (regardless of material/alloy used) 'boss' measuring only the thickness between counter-bore base to top of sleeve's boss (roughly ~1/4") could contract that much, between installed measurement and final measurement. That is, provided the measurements themselves are accurate/reliable.

How would one explain the liner reading .001 BELOW deck?

 

Last time we got a brand new truck, we were told that we were to expect 5mpg until after the break in period. This was 2005 Peterbilt 379 with Cat engine. After 2 years, it did improve to 6mpg. I know this is comparing apples /oranges, but shouldn't there be a break in period.

inb4 drive it like it was stole

 

I call all this so called heat BS IMO. I had a turbo issue on my 12.7. Neely Coble Freightliner couldn't figure it out, so after dropping a couple grand there, I rolled. Pyro was above 1100-1200 climbing hills. This truck got hot! Just imagine a turbo trying to spool with a shattered hot side impeller. That was 6-7 years ago. I did a head gasket last year, and all was well. Motor has 1.4 million with a rebuild at 550 before I bought it.

 

I honestly have no clue, only because of the questionable(to me) effect of the microblue treatment on the cylinder walls.
I know little of it's effect, other than providing a 'densified slickness' (invented word) which supposedly allows the rings to 'float' off an oil film on the liner wall.
I'd be very skeptical that it would allow proper break-in of the rings, due to possibly too low a friction for good ring 'seating'.
Again, just an assumption.

 

Most of the time I leave out heavy but deadhead back pulling the passes here in Colorado with a 09 Columbia, Detroit and no mod's done, (aka no snake oil). I'm averaging 7.2mpg

 

There are places where you want an oil film to remain, like cylinder walls. The cross-hatch isn't there for looks. Microbluing the cylinder would mean minimal oil retention, I would think.

 

Ahh, totally agree. You said what I meant (for proper ring seating), but sure worded it waaay off base. I'm past tired & sure wasn't thinking straight.

BTW,, doesn't the crosshatch come from the piston spinning in circles so fast at high revs??