bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower here ,but our lorries isn,t in firework only transporting work,we have a R420 in work in 60 tn and it have reaced home every evning sofar ,cheers benkku
Underpowering trucks isn’t a case of just ‘going slower’ it’s actually a case of throwing fuel away,owing to the lower gearing needed,to achieve the torque required at the wheels,to actually move the thing at anything like a productive average speed.
sorry you talk bullsh… ,think you havn,t seen normal haulingwork ever , our 340 volvo FH 12 goeswhit less fuel then the 144 in same work and same driver ,and i know couse i was the driver three months whit each,cheers benkku,still driving 5 day a week
So you’re saying that an R420 running at 60t gross would use less fuel over the same route at the same average speed as a 620 V8 yes or no.The answer to that question will sort out who’s talking bs.
the R420 CAN NEVER DO IT IN SAME SPEED,BUT THAT IS THE POINT COUSE IN REAL WORLD HIGH SPEED IS FOR FAST EDDIES,and other came when the time is in as promised,but bouth can do the same work ,but not at same speed,but only fools promise to do the job so fast that it cost you money,higher speed more fuel ,simple my friend ,and afew km/h more is only minits ,but expencive ,infuel andINVESTMENTS a 730 whit al eq is40% more money to the 420,cheers benkku
We have a saying here in England benkku ,“you can`t educate pork” i think everyone else on this thread agrees with your comments
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower here ,but our lorries isn,t in firework only transporting work,we have a R420 in work in 60 tn and it have reaced home every evning sofar ,cheers benkku
Underpowering trucks isn’t a case of just ‘going slower’ it’s actually a case of throwing fuel away,owing to the lower gearing needed,to achieve the torque required at the wheels,to actually move the thing at anything like a productive average speed.
sorry you talk bullsh… ,think you havn,t seen normal haulingwork ever , our 340 volvo FH 12 goeswhit less fuel then the 144 in same work and same driver ,and i know couse i was the driver three months whit each,cheers benkku,still driving 5 day a week
So you’re saying that an R420 running at 60t gross would use less fuel over the same route at the same average speed as a 620 V8 yes or no.The answer to that question will sort out who’s talking bs.
the R420 CAN NEVER DO IT IN SAME SPEED,BUT THAT IS THE POINT COUSE IN REAL WORLD HIGH SPEED IS FOR FAST EDDIES,and other came when the time is in as promised,but bouth can do the same work ,but not at same speed,but only fools promise to do the job so fast that it cost you money,higher speed more fuel ,simple my friend ,and afew km/h more is only minits ,but expencive ,infuel andINVESTMENTS a 730 whit al eq is40% more money to the 420,cheers benkku
We have a saying here in England benkku ,“you can`t educate pork” i think everyone else on this thread agrees with your comments
i know ramone ,only in misstake i bang my head to a tree once again ,cheers benkku
Bewick:
Aye “ramone” your probably right about the virtual “mission immpossible” to start with a single motor to-day and go on to create a substantial fleet,and run leagally as well.You see,back in the 50’s/60’s apart from BRS,the industry was basically smaller local outfits,yes there was bigger regional firms like Smith of Maddiston,Suttons etc. and ,of course,the TDG Group but they ran as seperate un-connected operations with each one having to “sink or swim” by their own individual efforts.W & J Riding of Longridge and the great Tom Riding were a shining example of the TDG method of operation,without a doubt Cheers Dennis.
Just think Dennis, if an “evolved” old A, B, C, licence system was still in place today there would be no Eddie Stobart fleet on the road. What a wonderful thought eh??
Carryfast:
Who’s saying that who is spouting bollox now.
Even this basic sentence does not make sense.
Or to put it another way who’s calling who a spouter of bollox now in wanting to return the road transport industry to the dark ages.
There’s only one individual on this thread that talks “Bollox” and he is a resident of Leatherhead,if the cap fits “CF” and you dispute the statement,why not create a new thread entitled “Who believes “CF” talks Bollox” simple choice “yes” or “no” then after one week we have a count up!! Cheers Bewick.
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower here ,but our lorries isn,t in firework only transporting work,we have a R420 in work in 60 tn and it have reaced home every evning sofar ,cheers benkku
Underpowering trucks isn’t a case of just ‘going slower’ it’s actually a case of throwing fuel away,owing to the lower gearing needed,to achieve the torque required at the wheels,to actually move the thing at anything like a productive average speed.
sorry you talk bullsh… ,think you havn,t seen normal haulingwork ever , our 340 volvo FH 12 goeswhit less fuel then the 144 in same work and same driver ,and i know couse i was the driver three months whit each,cheers benkku,still driving 5 day a week
So you’re saying that an R420 running at 60t gross would use less fuel over the same route at the same average speed as a 620 V8 yes or no.The answer to that question will sort out who’s talking bs.
the R420 CAN NEVER DO IT IN SAME SPEED,BUT THAT IS THE POINT COUSE IN REAL WORLD HIGH SPEED IS FOR FAST EDDIES,and other came when the time is in as promised,but bouth can do the same work ,but not at same speed,but only fools promise to do the job so fast that it cost you money,higher speed more fuel ,simple my friend ,and afew km/h more is only minits ,but expencive ,infuel andINVESTMENTS a 730 whit al eq is40% more money to the 420,cheers benkku
So you’re actually saying that the 420 would use less fuel to haul the same 60 t gross weight,over the same route,at the same average speed as the 620 and you’ve got the nerve to say that I talk bs.
I didn’t say one is doing the job any faster than the other I said the ‘SAME average speed’.IE whatever average speed you’re saying the 420 can do the SAME job at the 620 can do the SAME job more fuel efficiently because it’s engine is turning over at less speed to do it.I don’t know why I bother because it’s obvious that you can’t even understand that the issue is all about one having more torque v weight than the other not one of the 620 being faster than the 420.They’re actually both going to get back at exactly the same time.It’s just that the 620 would have burnt less fuel to do the SAME job at the SAME average speed.It’s not my fault that you seem to be having some trouble with understanding the meaning of the word SAME.
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower here ,but our lorries isn,t in firework only transporting work,we have a R420 in work in 60 tn and it have reaced home every evning sofar ,cheers benkku
Underpowering trucks isn’t a case of just ‘going slower’ it’s actually a case of throwing fuel away,owing to the lower gearing needed,to achieve the torque required at the wheels,to actually move the thing at anything like a productive average speed.
sorry you talk bullsh… ,think you havn,t seen normal haulingwork ever , our 340 volvo FH 12 goeswhit less fuel then the 144 in same work and same driver ,and i know couse i was the driver three months whit each,cheers benkku,still driving 5 day a week
So you’re saying that an R420 running at 60t gross would use less fuel over the same route at the same average speed as a 620 V8 yes or no.The answer to that question will sort out who’s talking bs.
the R420 CAN NEVER DO IT IN SAME SPEED,BUT THAT IS THE POINT COUSE IN REAL WORLD HIGH SPEED IS FOR FAST EDDIES,and other came when the time is in as promised,but bouth can do the same work ,but not at same speed,but only fools promise to do the job so fast that it cost you money,higher speed more fuel ,simple my friend ,and afew km/h more is only minits ,but expencive ,infuel andINVESTMENTS a 730 whit al eq is40% more money to the 420,cheers benkku
We have a saying here in England benkku ,“you can`t educate pork” i think everyone else on this thread agrees with your comments
I agree it just depends on the definition of pork in this case.I’d say that would be an accurate description of anyone who thinks that a 420 could pull 60t gross over the same route,at the same average speed,and burn less fuel doing it,than a 620.
newmercman:
All this talk of proprietary engines is ■■■■■■■■ for starters, AEC and Leyland were manufacturers, the ones that fitted loose engines were assemblers, there’s a huge difference. Atkinson, ERF, Foden, Guy, Seddon and Scammell were really the same as kit cars when it comes down to it. To emphasise this Ford famously quoted that they only made two things on the Transcon, the badge and the profit!
There also seems, again, to be a bit of a power output increase going on, CF keeps quoting over 300HP figures as comparisons when the over 300HP lorry was a rare beast until the late 80s both here and abroad. For every F89/12 or 140/1/2/3 etc there were a dozen F88/10 or 110/1/2/3 etc, except in Italy.
It’s all pointless comparisons with our Leatherhead loon, as usual…
So lets just imagine that we’re both running the show when the T45 was introduced.There’s going to be a big argument between us concerning wether we’re going to use outsourced engines for it to move the thing forward to at least make it competitive with something like an F12 which is already established in the market.
I say we’re going to need around 10 hp per tonne gross at the very least ( having known that since at least the early 1970’s ),( remembering that 38 t is a very real possibility in the very near future ) and you say bs we’re only going to offer the thing with the TL12 in it because that,in your opinion,is the type of output that every one else is using and that’s good enough and there’s no way that we’re going to use outside engine suppliers because that would make us look like a kit car builder.
Then we re write history to show that you win the argument and therefore there are no 300 hp + Rolls or ■■■■■■■ powered T45’s ever produced with the results to prove it on the balance sheet before Leyland closed it’s doors for good.
Just read the comment about realisation that we needed 10 bhp per ton in the early 70s,well youd be hard pushed to find a company churning out 320 bhp motors in those days i think 180 - 240 would have been the norm with 220 bhp being much nearer the mark with a few 140s as an exception to the rule and if you nipped up the M6 you may find a haulier running a few "top power " for the time Atkis because he couldn`t get hold of the Big Js with the same engine in
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower here ,but our lorries isn,t in firework only transporting work,we have a R420 in work in 60 tn and it have reaced home every evning sofar ,cheers benkku
No we don’t have any hills in Finland. We have some small crests but not hills.
A fleet truck running in southern parts a 420hp engine works well. But already north of Oulu the terrain gets to demanding for a small 420, you just can’t keep a reasonable average speed if you also want a good fuel consumption. With reasonable I mean over 70km/h and fuel consumption around 36-38l/100km when running at 60t
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower here ,but our lorries isn,t in firework only transporting work,we have a R420 in work in 60 tn and it have reaced home every evning sofar ,cheers benkku
No we don’t have any hills in Finland. We have some small crests but not hills.
A fleet truck running in southern parts a 420hp engine works well. But already north of Oulu the terrain gets to demanding for a small 420, you just can’t keep a reasonable average speed if you also want a good fuel consumption.
qite right some parts of finland needs more then 500 hp , deffo a540 to 560 is ok if hauling al the country ,and nohrteast finland and woodhaulage needs the 600+ power(know the roads soutern of oulu well ,higher up not cheers benkku (no hills )
newmercman:
All this talk of proprietary engines is ■■■■■■■■ for starters, AEC and Leyland were manufacturers, the ones that fitted loose engines were assemblers, there’s a huge difference. Atkinson, ERF, Foden, Guy, Seddon and Scammell were really the same as kit cars when it comes down to it. To emphasise this Ford famously quoted that they only made two things on the Transcon, the badge and the profit!
There also seems, again, to be a bit of a power output increase going on, CF keeps quoting over 300HP figures as comparisons when the over 300HP lorry was a rare beast until the late 80s both here and abroad. For every F89/12 or 140/1/2/3 etc there were a dozen F88/10 or 110/1/2/3 etc, except in Italy.
It’s all pointless comparisons with our Leatherhead loon, as usual…
So lets just imagine that we’re both running the show when the T45 was introduced.There’s going to be a big argument between us concerning wether we’re going to use outsourced engines for it to move the thing forward to at least make it competitive with something like an F12 which is already established in the market.
I say we’re going to need around 10 hp per tonne gross at the very least ( having known that since at least the early 1970’s ),( remembering that 38 t is a very real possibility in the very near future ) and you say bs we’re only going to offer the thing with the TL12 in it because that,in your opinion,is the type of output that every one else is using and that’s good enough and there’s no way that we’re going to use outside engine suppliers because that would make us look like a kit car builder.
Then we re write history to show that you win the argument and therefore there are no 300 hp + Rolls or ■■■■■■■ powered T45’s ever produced with the results to prove it on the balance sheet before Leyland closed it’s doors for good.
Just read the comment about realisation that we needed 10 bhp per ton in the early 70s,well youd be hard pushed to find a company churning out 320 bhp motors in those days i think 180 - 240 would have been the norm with 220 bhp being much nearer the mark with a few 140s as an exception to the rule and if you nipped up the M6 you may find a haulier running a few "top power " for the time Atkis because he couldn`t get hold of the Big Js with the same engine in
The ‘people’ who I’m talking about were actually working in factories like Scammell at the time planning their future product strategies based on logic not the demands of the average UK haulier who’s idea of how to build a fuel efficient wagon was running at 32t gross with less than 250 hp preferably using an 8 litre engine.Hence the eventual 350 Rolls powered T45 as opposed to a 500 powered ERGO
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower here ,but our lorries isn,t in firework only transporting work,we have a R420 in work in 60 tn and it have reaced home every evning sofar ,cheers benkku
No we don’t have any hills in Finland. We have some small crests but not hills.
A fleet truck running in southern parts a 420hp engine works well. But already north of Oulu the terrain gets to demanding for a small 420, you just can’t keep a reasonable average speed if you also want a good fuel consumption.
qite right some parts of finland needs more then 500 hp , deffo a540 to 560 is ok if hauling al the country ,and nohrteast finland and woodhaulage needs the 600+ power(know the roads soutern of oulu well ,higher up not cheers benkku (no hills )
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that anything less than a 600 + at that weight is going to be a compromise in relation to fuel efficiency regardless of terrain.
Hey, Call it hills or hilly,Belgium has no hills the highest point is about 700 meters. But if you have done the old N4 Brussels - Luxembourg with it’s 200 km steep hills of 6 to 10% ,and up and down over and over again.
You will of course be happy with much power, but we did it with 250hp years ago and drove much more relaxed ( you took a break if you needed it and not obligated by law,less traffic,slower traffic and the biggest you didn’t have to watch your digitacho to keep within your ours to be legal). And nowadays on that same road there is little difference between a 480hp and 600+,average speed,fuel with 44 tons gross. With a 700+ you can be faster but with a higher fuel consumtion, and then not always the possibility to overtake the slower and you will lost your gains fast.For the need of 600+ engines they have to increase the gross weight (60/70 tons or so). But the high power is most asked today to acelerate fast and stand up with the traffic flow nowadays.
Years ago in the Nederlands they drove F88 's with 50 tons gross but traffic was much slower so they were no annoying other. Of course you annoy always some one,even today if you have 650hp with 44tons gross and an empty 400hp behind you, you will me understand.
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower here ,but our lorries isn,t in firework only transporting work,we have a R420 in work in 60 tn and it have reaced home every evning sofar ,cheers benkku
No we don’t have any hills in Finland. We have some small crests but not hills.
A fleet truck running in southern parts a 420hp engine works well. But already north of Oulu the terrain gets to demanding for a small 420, you just can’t keep a reasonable average speed if you also want a good fuel consumption.
qite right some parts of finland needs more then 500 hp , deffo a540 to 560 is ok if hauling al the country ,and nohrteast finland and woodhaulage needs the 600+ power(know the roads soutern of oulu well ,higher up not cheers benkku (no hills )
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that anything less than a 600 + at that weight is going to be a compromise in relation to fuel efficiency regardless of terrain.
Yes 600 bhp at 60 tons makes much more sense than 730 bhp at 44 tons , and its also 10 bhp per ton
tiptop495:
Hey, Call it hills or hilly,Belgium has no hills the highest point is about 700 meters. But if you have done the old N4 Brussels - Luxembourg with it’s 200 km steep hills of 6 to 10% ,and up and down over and over again.
You will of course be happy with much power, but we did it with 250hp years ago and drove much more relaxed ( you took a break if you needed it and not obligated by law,less traffic,slower traffic and the biggest you didn’t have to watch your digitacho to keep within your ours to be legal). And nowadays on that same road there is little difference between a 480hp and 600+,average speed,fuel with 44 tons gross. With a 700+ you can be faster but with a higher fuel consumtion, and then not always the possibility to overtake the slower and you will lost your gains fast.For the need of 600+ engines they have to increase the gross weight (60/70 tons or so). But the high power is most asked today to acelerate fast and stand up with the traffic flow nowadays.
Years ago in the Nederlands they drove F88 's with 50 tons gross but traffic was much slower so they were no annoying other. Of course you annoy always some one,even today if you have 650hp with 44tons gross and an empty 400hp behind you, you will me understand.
bye Eric,
If you can acheive 56 mph on most hills over here on motorways at say 480bhp what will you aceive with a 600bhp + id say very little.Yes it may take a few seconds less to reach the 56 mph limit but is it really worth all the extra power and cost .Im with you on this 1 Eric
bma.finland:
can tell you 80% of new scanias in finland are not V8 and more the70 % of V8 are 500 ,and meny of the 6cyl haule60tn ,not near your 10hp/tn ,same in sweden ,and we have hills to here ,we are used to go slower here ,but our lorries isn,t in firework only transporting work,we have a R420 in work in 60 tn and it have reaced home every evning sofar ,cheers benkku
No we don’t have any hills in Finland. We have some small crests but not hills.
A fleet truck running in southern parts a 420hp engine works well. But already north of Oulu the terrain gets to demanding for a small 420, you just can’t keep a reasonable average speed if you also want a good fuel consumption.
qite right some parts of finland needs more then 500 hp , deffo a540 to 560 is ok if hauling al the country ,and nohrteast finland and woodhaulage needs the 600+ power(know the roads soutern of oulu well ,higher up not cheers benkku (no hills )
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that anything less than a 600 + at that weight is going to be a compromise in relation to fuel efficiency regardless of terrain.
Yes 600 bhp at 60 tons makes much more sense than 730 bhp at 44 tons , and its also 10 bhp per ton
So getting back to the actual relevant argument a Rolls 350 powered T45 ( or even an AEC 700 fixed head powered 3VTG depending on it’s torque output ) would be a more fuel efficient,and productive,( let alone more reliable ),wagon running at 32 t gross than a 500 powered ERGO.Which,as I’ve said,Scammell’s engineers ( and Dr Fogg ) could have told you long before the T45 was even introduced on the market.
Dear old Geoffrey is the stereotypical eccentric chap from Surrey isn’t he?
I think the TL12 was always going to be an underdog, not for practical reasons, but due to the reputation of the headless wonder that preceeded it. As an example look to IVECO, the Stralis is a very good lorry, yet people still see it as cheap & nasty because they still think of it as a FIAT that will rust into oblivion if someone flushes a toilet within half a mile.
An interesting article in last week’s Commercial Motor, a comparison between Chris Waites’ high powered Scania and Volvo, both at over 700 bhp. Chris has been in business a long time and runs ‘normal’ power trucks and high power ones on livestock haulage, trailers that are like pulling a house behind you because of the aerodynamics. I’m not particularly interested in the ‘super-truck’ concept for high power, but what was interesting was the claim in the article that one of the high power trucks did a run from Scotland 45 minutes quicker than a 480 bhp powered truck. The article claimed that both the 700+ bhp Scania and Volvo were returning 7.3 mpg (it didn’t say what the 480 bhp truck was getting). Taking the article with a big pinch of salt, from my own experience with our DAFs at 460 bhp the computer claims about 8.3 mpg, but the actual mpg from physical week-to-week tank refills is about 0.7 mpg less, so it would be interesting to learn what the actual tank refill mpg is for the 700+ bhp trucks. As for time saving, long years in this business has shown me time and time again that I can give two drivers identical jobs and work and one of them might be up to 2 hours quicker than the other in doing an identical day’s work. It’s not all down to engine power output. In other words I’m saying don’t believe everything you read in magazines such as Commercial Motor, they can be slanted in any way they want.
Tank to tank measurements are the only way to judge mpg, ECU readouts are notoriously unreliable and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I’ve run big power lorries in my time, every one of them liked a drop of fuel, I bought them because I could, there were no sound business reasons, they were pure indulgence on my part.
I had a 430 Stralis running alongside my 540s, on all but the biggest hills you never knew the difference, until you got to the fuel pumps, the 430 had a meagre thirst compared to it’s bigger siblings. That was running at 44tonnes both ways from London to South Wales and back every night and local work in and around the M25 during the day, sort of throws CF’s argument out the window I reckon, especially as it’s real world, not theory or a youtube video!
,but our lorries isn,t in firework only transporting work,we have a R420 in work in 60 tn and it have reaced home every evning sofar
