Geoff Weeks

Thanks for the update.

NTC NT88

I got 1.3m out of original build on an 855 Cummins. The rest is hard to say as they were all overhauled at some point before I got them. At 1.3m it had no problem running, just a problem keeping oil off the outside, it leaked from just about every gasket. I ended up doing an out of chassie overhaul on it. ($1500 in parts). AFAIK it is still running today.

So you are saying it has been apart before? Still that isn't all a bad thing. things replaced before they cause more damage.

Like Joey, I would oil the bushing and push the pin through without the piston then see how much if any "wiggle" the pin has. I had a job that required me to "break all the rules" of engine building. I found that you can get years of good results with used parts, even those swapped from another used engine. Ideal, no, but it taught me that perfection can be a bad thing just as wear can. I have pulled dry liners out of one block to be inserted into another. I have replaced broken valve springs caused by excessively worn valve guide, on a hot engine on the side of the road, to have it go a few more year before the head of the valve dropped. The repair was only supposed to last the "season" and the head was supposed to come off. Promises made but not kept by the owner.

I recently repaired a D950 Kubota, the useable wear limit was .2mm on the crank bearings, the 1st undersize on the bearings was also .2mm! While I doubt that engine would have good oil pressure if all the crank bearing clearances were .2mm (~.008"), when assembling a used crank with new bearings it would be highly unlikely that you would be far off the new part range for bearing clearances. In my case the clearances were within the spec's for new crank (re-ground) and new bearings.

What many people fail to understand, there are spec's for new parts fitting together and "usable wear limits" which are far greater. If within the "usable wear limit" the mfg is saying it is good enough to be re-used. Not as good as new parts but not determental to placed back in service. You use the 1st when assembling new parts together and the other when reusing parts that are already in service.

Be careful of perfection being the enemy of good enough. What are your plans for this build? Another 2M miles build? or a engine that can go another 1m miles? Yes, there are specs for new parts, often there are spec's for usable wear limit. having built many engine with success, I would use my "mechanic's feel" for things like pin bushings. I know that isn't what the "book" lists as the spec for new parts going together, however as long as it is within usable wear limits it will give satisfactory results. Even slightly outside usable wear limits it would give a fair lifespan. So this comes back to what your plans are for the engine. If you are doing it for hire, and offering a guaranty, then spend the money for reconditioned parts or to have your parts reconditioned. If, however you are building for yourself, can accept a little risk, and have the basic understanding of what it required and can make your own judgement, then "feel" is good enough. I see Joey was writing about the same time as I was.

I've read numerous reports that the 2nd airman has been safely rescued from Iran. I think I can speak for most of us, that is a huge sigh of relief.

I believe all the switches on the system are grounding switches (ground for low oil/air high water temp). so will show "power" when the switches are not grounded. At least that is how the vast majority I have seen work. Ground any one of the switches and the buzzer come on.

Another way to look at it that may help: If you had a "normal" truck and wanted to see why the Cummins fuel solenoid wasn't working and what to check to see if there was power there with the key on, you would clip one end of the test light to either the frame or engine block and use the pointy end to the stud with the wire from the ignition switch, and if the light lit, you would know you had power to the solenoid. Nothing is different when the truck is positive ground, you hook the test light up exactly the same and the results you see are exactly those of a "normal" truck.

yes, just different terms. It refers to the the wire that is carrying the current when one side of the circuit is grounded to the frame or surrounding metal. Look at it this way: You could run two wires from the battery (positive and negative) to every device and the surrounding metal could be "neutral" neither + or -. Instead of doing that you tie one side (either positive or negative) to the metal and eliminate one of the two wires. Ships houses, many things use the two wire method so any metal you touch is not a part of the circuit. Low voltage vehicles they cut the wiring in 1/2 by using the body for one of the wires. It makes no difference from an operational stand point which polarity is tied to the chassie. Positive or negative, it makes no difference, Light bulbs, most motor, many gauges, will function without any changes. Volt meters and some designs of temp and fuel gauges, you have to have the + lead connect to "ground" and - lead goes to feed (hot, live, whatever term you use).

Ok, then anything that is ground, the frame, the steering column, etc will light the light. Anything that has "hot" power will not. Move the clip to the positive (ground side) and the light will light when the probe touches something that is "live". I think what is confusing you is you are so used to positive being "hot" and negative being "ground", but your system is the reverse.

At that vintage polarity only matters with some gauges, alternator (but not generator) and any radio with transistors. What type of test light are you using? If you are using a non powered one like pictured, normally the end with the alligator clip gets hooked to ground (positive in your case) and the item being tested wire will supply the negative. Cummins solenoid doesn't care about polarity, it will work just fine on positive ground.

As a contractor for the state, it is definitely a commercial enterprise, which just goes to show the hypocrisy of some of the laws.

People don't tend to wholesale revolution when they have a good std of living. The problem was there was a lot of money made from the extraction of raw materials, but most of the money went to the Shah and those close to the ruling party. The masses were kept in line with brutal tactics. Those that were on the receiving end of the materials and money, were fine with it. Huge amounts of money were spent on things only the few could enjoy, while the rest were told to "shut up". It got so bad that the US started to pull back on support in terms of military equipment. When the Shah had to leave (partly for cancer treatment, partly because the support keeping him in power was crumbling) the opposition, which was a broad coalition of groups from the far left to the far right, saw their chance and acted together overthrow the government. The middle and left of center were seen as more cozy to nations outside the Middle East and the far right won the power struggle that came after the fall. The rest, they say is history. If everything was so peachy, you have to wonder why a minor cleric had to live in exile in France? As I stated earlier, what should have happened according to international law and convention, was the embassy closed (if that is what the host country wanted) and the staff given safe passage out. That is not what happened and has made Iran a pariah state, that at least, is of the own making.

Only applies to commercial registration Brocky and I know someone who has a 1947 Pete registered and running as a contractor with Cal-Fire.

The above (NBC) clip is how I remember it also. It wasn't a government that invaded the embassy compound, rather the government failed to come to the aid of the of the embassy and disperse the rioters, which they should have done by international convention. If they wanted them out, they should have provided safe passage. Too many want to forget the history where the US and UK overthrew a democratically elected ruler, and installed the Shah, which started the whole thing. It likely could have been avoided if we hadn't done that, or didn't shield the corrupt Shah, when he was deposed.

sooo, where does that put North Korea, Russia, China...... All are nuclear and have ballistic missile systems, and would seam a greater "threat" if using the above criteria.

It would do little to the price and would crash the economy. During Covid, there was a world wide slow down in demand and the price dropped, beacuse there was no place that was using it at the old rate. Today, there is world wide demand, and that is what sets the price. If we cut demand here, it would just be sold to the highest bidder on the open market, which is, in other words, market price. We would hurt ourselves and the overseas buyers would see the benefit. The "downside" of free market economies.

Found a slightly better pic.

When I was doing O/D I was based out of the Chicago area. Only place that would be worse would be NYC. This one was just shy of 16', 20 cyl EMD gen set 168,000 lbs, 14' wide

Done a few 16'+ loads myself and they wear you out more than anything. As I said, never seen something like your Drake, looks interesting.

My grandfather had a '27 or '28 back in the day. The one thing he always talked about was the "central lube" system. You pulled a lever under the dash, and it sent grease to all the lube points. quite a car.

It does sound like it would work for you and as I said, that is one of the best condition of that type trailers I have seen. The only time I have seen cut axles is with LP tank trailers, but they carry much less weight. That is the 1st on a low boy I have seen. Tire wear could be helped by flipping the inside to outside at regular intervals, to even out the wear.