Best Semi truck Engine?

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


So...will they build a nice cabover set up for a 600HP DD60?

No. Simply because there are no cabover glider trucks being offered for sale. The choices are limited in what is out there. Freightliner offers the Columbia and original style Coronado. KW is offering one of the 600 series of tractors, and Pete has the 389 as a glider. The KW offering requires, at a minimum, a 2004 or newer engine because of the wiring issues. I have heard that Western Star has one of the trucks as a glider, but can't confirm that. In the final analysis, the bulk of what is being produces as a glide is the Freightliners, hands down. And that only gives you Columbia and Coronado.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Butbutbut...real trucks don't have hoods!

Seriously: does FL still sell the Argosy here?

 

[TiredTrucker]

Argosy has not been offered for several years here. I would have given serious consideration to getting an Argosy glider if it were offered. Argosy was a great COE. There are NO cabovers offered for sale in the U.S. anymore. Well, not as semi tractors. Just some medium class straight truck bodies.

 

[blackman777]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
none of our 2008+ box trucks (6.7 Cummins) top 7.5MPG. My pre-DPF (250HP 7.2 Cat) truck manages 8.5-9MPG, despite being more powerful (250HP versus 220-230), higher (13'6" versus 13'), and more capable (33,000lb versus 26,000) than the DPF trucks!

Sounds like the same thing that happened to diesel cars. I've seen the Jetta TDI drop from 45 in 2000 (new EPA test) to 42 mpg because of the engine running richer to reduce NOx output. The EPA's obsession with reducing NOx is making these diesel engines less efficient & burn more fuel. Someone needs to knock some sense into them.

While lower MPG vehicles (that are EPA-2006 or 2010 compliant) are often ranked "cleanest" by well-to-wheel studies, I can't help thinking burning more oil is still a negative overall.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: JTK
TT, Just out of curiosity, how do you do fuel economy wise with your setup?



I average in the high 7's year round. Can regularly bust some 8's in the summer, and get walloped sometimes in the winter months.


Not bad for the power you've got.

Even the heavily governed/dialed-back and 'emissions compliant' ~2012 FL Cascadias(sp?) we have at work, the dash readouts are always around 7mpg average on those too. That 7mpg figure hasn't seemed to change in 20yrs LOL. My work seems to flip-flop from Volvo to Freightshaker.

The team drivers keep little pieces of electrical tape on the dash to cover up malfunction indicator lamps that often happen. If it's a serious one with a *flashing* MIL, the trucks shut right off on the fly. Horrible.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Well.... if we are talking about the dash readouts of the ECM, add .5 - .7 mpg to everything I stated. I was giving actual, pump to pump calculated numbers. The ECM gives me numbers that are down right in the stratosphere sometimes as it pertains to class 8 truck fuel mileage. It is a rare week that I do not average, for the week, into 8 mpg territory according to the ECM. If I only had to pay for fuel based on the ECM, what a wonderful world it would be.

 

[hattaresguy]

In the marine world were just starting to get screwed by this emissions nonsense, I can't wait.

Marine diesels are even more finicky because they are pumped to very high HP numbers, run at or near WOT most of their life under heavy load, in the worst environment imaginable.

For example a series 60 which no one uses anymore because Detroit is dead, but in a marine application it would make over 800hp and be shot after a few thousand hours.

Most of the guys running the bigger boats with pumped V12 and V16's seem to trade them in around the 1k hour mark. I suspect to avoid $100k+ rebuilds.

 

[Chris142]

The worst engine I delt with was a fleet of c12 cats. I think every driver we had including me got stranded by one of those steaming piles. The small cam cummins in my old 62 pete is still working every day. Id say 51 yrs is pretty good.
The 1693 and 3406 cats were legendary. The older n14 cummins was good too. Our 12.7 detroits were pretty good for the most part. Had a few computer issues and such but they always got you home. Mine was governed @67 mph but if i flipped the gear selector down with the cruise on I could set the cruise @84 mph and be gone!

 

[TiredTrucker]

My Series 60 has a 2100 RPM limit. Set that in front of an 18 speed with 2.64 rears like I have in mine, and in the top hole at 1600 rpm, the truck is in triple digit territory. That is why it has never been in the top hole.

 

[blackman777]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
In the marine world were just starting to get screwed by this emissions nonsense, I can't wait.

Also diesel locomotives. They are expected to cut their NOx, CO, and PM (soot) emissions by half in 2016. I was on a train going over the Colorado Rockies, and it was belching thick black smoke. How is Amtrak, Conrail, etc supposed to clean that up?

Also I understand cutting the soot with filters/traps but I don't understand what's so horrible about NOx? The EPA should work-out some trading system where if CO is zero (as is the case with most diesels) then more NOx may be output. i.e. Instead of CO = 0.1 and NOx = 0.1 gram/mile make it a combination: CO + NOx may equal 0.2 g/mile.

 

[supton]

I thought CO2 was considered a pollutant (at least in some circles)? At some point they are going to have to do what is suggested: some total limit, compromised of a sum of the emissions, trade one pollutant for another.

 

[afoulk]

I'm a mechanic for a Mack dealer and I gotta say, they all have their problems, international more so than the others though. The new Macks really do drive nice though, especially with the m-drive tranny ( i-shift if its a Volvo). I see so many new internationals and paccar trucks on the high way blowing white or gray smoke. Yes Mack/Volvo have their issues too (oil wicking up the engine harness, injectors/cups) but they have gradually been working all the bugs out and I think they're more reliable than most of what's out there today. I blame most of it on the government though, its so hard for the manufacturers to really test and develope their products when the government keeps changing the emissions regs on them every few years. Though Mack/Volvo is a pain to deal with warranty wise from the dealership end, they do make a good effort to take care of the customer.

 

[skully]

before we pick the best engine, how bout which is the best truck??? then we'll get to the details from there!!!

 

[CurtisB]

That would depend on the needs of the driver. Manufacturers aside, I would never want to drive anything without four way diff locks or Michelin snow tires (yes they do make winter tires for semi's). I would take any truck (besides Navistar) that is properly equipped for winter driving over one that isn't.

 

[blackman777]

Originally Posted By: skully
before we pick the best engine, how bout which is the best truck??? then we'll get to the details from there!!!

Please stick to the Subject: line.

 

[skully]

Originally Posted By: blackman777
Originally Posted By: skully
before we pick the best engine, how bout which is the best truck??? then we'll get to the details from there!!!

Please stick to the Subject: line.

aye aye capt.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: afoulk
I blame most of it on the government though, its so hard for the manufacturers to really test and develope their products when the government keeps changing the emissions regs on them every few years.


I have to concur with that. If this EPA stuff would have went a little slower it might have turned out better. It is one thing to EGR a gasoline engine, quite another to EGR a diesel. The dynamics are so much different. I have become convinced, if they would have only went with SCR to begin with, they could have avoided many issues. The engines could have been tuned properly to maximize efficiency and exhaust particulates, and the SCR could have taken care of the NOx. But, doing it the way they did, just made the problem worse.

Slapping EGR on the diesel increased soot levels. Slapping more EGR increased it more. OMG, now we need to control the soot we created, so now we need a DPF. Oh, now that we really got things screwed up, let's put on SCR like we should have done in the first place, but by God, we are not going to allow them to take off the EGR, so we still need the DPF to handle all the soot from that. We will appease them by letting them dial back the EGR a little because they now have SCR, but we at the EPA like EGR so much we are going to force them to keep it.

My 2000 Detroit Series 60 12.7 is finely tuned to where it hardly ever creates smoke. It is a very efficient engine. Sure, it does not have SCR, so the NOx is higher than the newer engines. But soot is way lower. Proof positive, if they would have tuned the engines properly, and went with SCR to begin with, we might have avoided most of this nonsense over the last few years.

The most terrifying words a citizen can hear.... "I am from the government, and I am here to help."

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Dupont Dodge Viper Blue Pearl Elite body paint w the frame and undercarriage painted in Dupont Dodge Viper Red. Have some pics posted at my Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/cliff.downing.7/photos

Very nice indeed! Silly question, but what sort of fuel economy does a truck like this attain these days?

 

[NateDN10]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Dupont Dodge Viper Blue Pearl Elite body paint w the frame and undercarriage painted in Dupont Dodge Viper Red. Have some pics posted at my Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/cliff.downing.7/photos

Very nice indeed! Silly question, but what sort of fuel economy does a truck like this attain these days?

Already talked about earlier in the thread.

 

[NateDN10]

Originally Posted By: blackman777
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
In the marine world were just starting to get screwed by this emissions nonsense, I can't wait.

Also diesel locomotives. They are expected to cut their NOx, CO, and PM (soot) emissions by half in 2016. I was on a train going over the Colorado Rockies, and it was belching thick black smoke. How is Amtrak, Conrail, etc supposed to clean that up?

Also I understand cutting the soot with filters/traps but I don't understand what's so horrible about NOx? The EPA should work-out some trading system where if CO is zero (as is the case with most diesels) then more NOx may be output. i.e. Instead of CO = 0.1 and NOx = 0.1 gram/mile make it a combination: CO + NOx may equal 0.2 g/mile.


NOx, along with unburnt HC, is involved in smog formation.