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

I plan on going down Saturday, I would like to hear their response, i'm wondering if I should wear muck boots or not....?

 

HOGWASH...

 

NONSENSE..

 

I can not make sense of your nonsense!

 

The truck will be back on the road soon!

 

As my kids like to say Holy ###### wow....90 pages about a snake oil salesman....i ain't Never...

 

Only 23 on my tapatalk

 

I went to Ruffie's fb page, not "let's truck" and saw a thread regarding that highway shutdown in dc a couple years ago. There was a bull hauler who agreed with it when Kevin and his sycophants didn't. They thought he was dumb for going as fast as he did and getting terrible mileage. He got 5.0 going 70-80, And then they said he was full of it when he told them the rates he got, and accused HIM of being a steering wheel holder! This is what I have thought when they we're saying slow down and save fuel, "if it makes sense, fine, if the rates pay to go fast, then that's what has to be done!" Dang sheeple.

 

I really like the part where he says O/O's and farmer's don't use full power. Apparently he's never been on a farm threw harvest, where the ground is wet, and time is short, because its going to rain or snow the next day, and the trucker need to keep his or her foot in it so the combine doesn't sit waiting. Never once have I ever thought that our tandem grain truck needed less power, its always this thing could use another 100 hp. When getting a loaded super-b (140,000 pounds +/- generally more + than - at harvest) moving in the field, where its touch and go weather or not your going to need a tow, to make it to the road, thats another time where I could always use less power. I think I'll trust the opinions of my local mechanic, and the instructors at the local college when it comes to mechanical questions.

 

Well said. Just to add to it:

Your typical heavy duty manual transmission is 97% efficient. If you replaced the transmission with a driveshaft, you'd gain -at most- 3% efficiency. But direct drive is not a driveshaft -- it still has some windage losses. Call it 99.5% -- a 2.5% improvement...

But if you swap to a direct drive configuration, your mpg will not go up 2.5%! Here's why:

You drive from Sacramento to Los Angeles. 340 miles are flat and you are in top gear. 20 miles are steep uphill and you are in an underdrive. 20 miles are downhill and you are not burning any fuel.

Say you have a typical overdrive setup. You get 9mpg on the flat, 2 mpg uphill, and don't burn any fuel downhill. 340/9 = 37.8 gallons burned flat ground in top gear. 20/2 = 10 gallons burned uphill in an underdrive. 0 gallons burned downhill.... 380 miles/ 47.8 gallons = 7.95mpg

Now when you go to direct drive, you don't burn 37.8 gallons on the flat, you burn 97.5% of that (36.86 gallons -- 9.225mpg on the flat). But your overal mpg improves only 2% (8.11mpg -- 380/46.86), not 2.5% because you burn just as much fuel in the lower gears going up steep hills.


That still is something and it is why I specifically bought a direct drive truck for myself. But that 2% isn't free. You put more torque on the driveshaft, ujoints, transmission mounts, etc. Direct drive transmissions are also not rated for as much torque (unless you're using a 13speed, but then your starting ratios aren't as low). Either way, direct drive rear end ratios tend to require more clutch slipping off the line so don't expect to get as much life out of your clutch.

So there are some offsetting costs to consider. For me? Still worth it, but I realize it isn't a magic bullet for everyone