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

Every Country Road with my RV my friend

 

As a company driver, I used the scangauge to record RPM, Horsepower, and Fuel GPH breakpoints for the Maxxforce 13 -- basically a BSFC chart. Can't find it now, but that was an engine that pulled well down to ~950rpm and didn't have any holes at the power levels I demanded.


Haven't really bothered to do that with my 12.7 detroit -- it seems to jive pretty closely with this BSFC graph for the 1994 model:

View attachment 81189

Basically I pull down to 1100rpm when using under 150 horsepower, but keep it above 1300 when I need 250+ hp. I only use 300+ hp on critical expedited runs -- pretty rare. 250 will pull a 6% grade with 80,000 lbs at about 25mph.

 

Being around large boats for years and reading the magazines that give a true mpg readout and a optimum cruise speed I feel we have it made compared to you guys.

Some one needs to come out with a reputable site or magazine such as Road and Track for Semi Trucks.

Give Reputable tests and Reputable advice.


KR could have done this and still could if he called PP out to stand up and face their shortcomings but neither ever will sadly

 

Once again some of the most honest comprehensive data we can get.


Thanks Double Yellow

 

What surprises me with PP is they brag about putting all new valves in their rebuilt heads as oppeosed to /detroit reusing their old valves in their rebuilds yet PP has yet to create a new hi Performance head for the 12.7

The 12.7 is the Small black Chevy of /diesels

We were limited to 350 horse with that motor and 500 with the 454 before CNC head technology took over and created far better flowing heads

Soo Bruce impress us and create a new better flowing head that will work with a bigger and LARGER CFM turbo and also create a new Hi Flow Exhaust manifold instead of grinding and painting a old Dog and calling it the latest and greatest in exhaust and we would buy your ####.

 

That s all right the Tail was a sideline

Totally enjoy your educated Input , much more entertaining then the Tail


Now what were we talking ABOUT?

 

Can I add something? All of this craziness trying to beat the manufacturers when it comes to mpg is a wild goose chase that can't be won. I'm serious. No magical additive or lube (lol, I said lube) isn't going to improve on what they've done. When Freightliner came out with the Cascadia, that was the truck to beat for efficiency. A complete redesign, all the way to taking the visor off, which added an addition 10th of a mph for fuel economy. Then they made it better when they made the Evolution. Adding freight wings and trailer tails help. But all this other #### isn't going to do anything except for burn a bigger hole in your wallet. One would hope that these two figured that out, but they probably didn't.

If any of these "magical" add ons worked, the Paccars and the Daimlers of the world would jump all over them. They would implement these themselves, or make a copy of them, tweaking them to get out of a copyright law or trademark. Think about it. There's a reason they haven't. Because it's all ########. And it's bad for ya. Using some of these products will void the warranty. I'm just saying. I'm not a smart guy at all. But even I know there's no magic potion in a bottle.

 

Yea but nobody has really attacked that motor yet to get its full potentental


I have been around Hi-performance offshore boats for 40 years and hang on a site that is mostly do it your selfers with many well known reputable hi performance engine builders chiming in and helping on builds.

These reputable builders that chime in on this site I frequent are the best of the best,. Any thing less doesn't dare come into town as they will be run out of it.

I would love to see whqat they could do with a redesignon a 12.7 head . That is where all the power is made

Shoving boost and fuel with porting into that stock manifold is doing nothing unless that head can flow intake and especially exhaust air thru it.


Some one reputable needs to step up to the plate if the standard Detroit Head can be recast to provide a better quench pattern in the combustion area of the head and a better intake and exhaust flow..


If not throwing more boost and fuel on a head that has been designed by Detroit to flow only so many CFMs is a waste.

 

you should have read a little more carefully. First, this was directed at ipogsd or whatever his handle was, not ironpony (although it surely applied). Secondly, the guy went from saying he had an 3% improvement to saying a 6% improvement after looking at his numbers from 2014.

I know you are feeling attacked yourself because you've been duped into several of Rutherford's sales too. It's kind of hard to admit, isn't it ?

What I get really tired of is warrantless claims. You have to consider all the people that come to this site for information, how much damage it can do when they read something like a 6% improvement in fuel with FASS.

It's not my intent to hurt anyones FEELINGS, but your FEELINGS don't outweigh everyone elses pocketbooks. I'm not gonna allow others to get bad information just because ironpony wants to feel good about his FASS system or because Red Foreman thinks MicroBlue is great.

tails, wheel covers, a few other things, we have some data to work with. On these things with no data available I want to see it when a guy claims 6%, especially when he claims to have his numbers right in front of him. If that makes me a bully, so be it.

you let people make ridiculous statements without backing them up and they could wind up putting their signature on a $200,000 rolling pile of junk.

 

Early morning-itis. Was trying to recall a number I haven't revisited in a number of months.

snip...

Now that's something I never claimed in terms of a fuel economy improvement, you should at least read things before running your internet mouth. I was referring to the improvement in my bottom line at 6% after installation of a FASS, but before the drop in fuel prices.

In terms of fuel economy, I see an average improvement of 0.45 mpg... that's AVERAGE, vs similar periods in 2013. I base that on comparisons of 4-month intervals to take advantage of the statistical smoothing inherent in larger data sets since I run OTR 48. My fuel records are a matter of public record, and anyone interested in the link to them should PM me. I'll be happy to provide it to anyone who is legitimately interested. Jerks can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.