i hope you build your motor one day and your rods bend with out abuse and under 600 hp after spending 10-15 k it might give you some empathy , and if your implying from your next post i read that ben screwed up his build i would tread lightly unless you have proof.
Man look at the hell storm I found on the diesel place over some rods
- Thread starter sillyboyrs4
- Start date
i hope you build your motor one day and your rods bend with out abuse and under 600 hp after spending 10-15 k it might give you some empathy , and if your implying from your next post i read that ben screwed up his build i would tread lightly unless you have proof.
These rods were advertised to be stronger than stockers. There are many LBZ trucks with twins running out there with more hp and heavier foots/beat on more. There are even LB7/LLY trucks out there that are not having rod issues or have lasted longer than 15k. Is that clear to you? You buy something advertised to be better and clearly it wasn't and it caused catostrophic failure to your motor.
The mistake was made in manufacture.
Kinda wish you folk would stop "personalizing" this. It doesn't matter that Nick was involved. That has no effect on the rods. It isn't a personal attack on Nick, it's an attack on a product that didn't perform as advertised.
Yes, most folk have said that beyond the cost of parts, pretty much you are on your own. But I don't believe even that has been offered.
Since enough trucks have run twins with a single CP3 and survived, and many trucks have run 650rwhp with stock rods and lasted through lots of competition events, and the truck in question dyno'd at 550rwhp IIRC, it's pretty obvious that these parts weren't high performance parts.
There was dyno proof the rod was inheritently weaker and hopefully metallurgy information will follow.
As far as where liability is limited on "defective" parts....
Just like the Magnuson-Moss warrantee act where an aftermarket part has to be proved as the cause of a failure to reject a warrantee claim, there is case law where a defective part has broken and caused collateral damages. The company was forced to replace the part and pay for cost of replacement (parts and labor) of affected collateral parts.
The problem is burden of proof. Most times it's too expensive, time consuming, etc. and most just eat the additional cost themselves as it's cheaper in the long run (considering time is money).
In this case, I'm not sure what Nick stating in writing so there may be no legal leg to stand on.
I know Mike L, Guy, Erik and other's have all helped people out during failures "above and beyond the call of duty" whether or not their work and/or their parts even caused the problem. Many times they even helped out others when "another vendor or vendor part" was the actual cause of a problem. It will be interesting to see how this issue unfolds in the future and what Nick does. I know Guy and several other's helped Ben get is truck back on the road in this situation and they had nothing to do with the failure....
Not that it would happen as he makes sure his parts are tested and is a competent installer, but hypothetically speaking, I would be willing to bet that if Mike L installed a $5 part incorrectly into a transmission and it caused a catastrophic failure (total tranny rebuild), he would take care of the entire transmission (not just the $5 part) and get the customer back up and running in a timely manner......
Just some things to ponder.....
Last edited:
The solution to Ben's problem, will most likely be kept in "secret rooms" and hush hush to the general population for months after, just as the problem itself was when it first surfaced.
Pat,
I agree with you that the steel strength was suspect and that an engineer or metalurgist if consulted during the design process would have stated so. NiCrMo steel (4340) is superior to CrMo (4130) steel due to the nickel content especially for a part that is in an extreme heat environment like a diesel engine.
Did Nick consult with a mechanical engineer or metalurgist during the design process? If he did, then they should be the ones held liable for any damage caused by their error.
Rob
I agree with you that the steel strength was suspect and that an engineer or metalurgist if consulted during the design process would have stated so. NiCrMo steel (4340) is superior to CrMo (4130) steel due to the nickel content especially for a part that is in an extreme heat environment like a diesel engine.
Did Nick consult with a mechanical engineer or metalurgist during the design process? If he did, then they should be the ones held liable for any damage caused by their error.
Rob
Last edited:
The solution to Ben's problem, will most likely be kept in "secret rooms" and hush hush to the general population for months after, just as the problem itself was when it first surfaced.
From what I know, the engine was not torn down immediately after it blew up, as Ben did not have the time, money, substitute engine, or other vehicle to use. So there's your lag time. I dont have to tell you how long all that takes to arrange.
The only two people who truly know whats going on are Ben and Nick. All the rest of us are just bystanders.
Yes, this is supposed to only be about the parts failing, but when it involves two people I highly respect, it does tend to get a bit personal. I'd never wish things like this on my worst enemy.
Last edited: