That’s why Detroit changed to four stroke, is it?
Got any reference to say weight shouldn’t be imposed on a lead vehicle? It sounds like a non-engineer, crackpot idea you made up. Failing to finish an apprenticeship does not make you an engineer.
How is me posting a photo proof of anything? It’s amazing what garbage you can extrapolate from nothing, trying to support your imaginary theories.
Detroit changed to 4 stroke because 1 the Detroit Diesel division that made the two stroke no longer existed.Just like the GM truck division that made the Astro with Cummins or Detroit options.Only the brand name was sold to the creators of the 60 series.Like GMC trucks became Volvo.
2 Road vehicle emissions regulations also played their part.Unlike marine engines.In which the 2 stroke diesel is generally accepted to be the more efficient way to power a massive container ship than 4 stroke.
All moot if/when diesel fuelled ICE is banned for road vehicle use.
Good luck with changing your mobility scooter and trailer to tractor and semi trailer configuration.
In a nutshell, two stroke is is fuel inefficient and cannot be made emissions compliant. There is nothing “good engineer” about them.
Can you offer any citations to reliable sources stating that weight shouldn’t imposed on a lead vehicle, or did you just make that up?
I can see disadvantages in the lack of weight on the lead vehicle, can’t you?
The big container ship 2 strokes are mega though 
And usually run at 80~90rpm on a crude fuel, not refined diesel.
So are you saying that 4 stroke would be more efficient ?.
Why would they want to magnify any supposed deficiency v 4 stroke to that level ?.
Obviously weight and load deck space ideally shouldn’t be transferred from trailer to lead vehicle if you want to maximise the payload ( battery ) capacity of the lead vehicle. As I said feel free to dump a tonne of that trailer weight and 6 feet of its load deck space on that mobility scooter.
Bearing in mind the lifetime mileage expectations of a container ship where do you get the conclusion that two stroke is less fuel efficient than than 4 stroke.
Obviously economics would decide and the former wins out.
Your only reference point for road vehicles is the fuel efficiency of the Detroit as it stood by its standards of development at the closure of the division.
Which was as close as makes no difference to the 14 litre Cummins if not moreso comparing like with like specific torque and power outputs.
Obviously any potential emissions technology development also stopped at that point.
Also bearing in mind the 60 series was a pre existing non GM design just looking for a brand name after the fact.
It wasn’t a GM product designed to replace the two stroke range.
Why obviously? What difference does it make where the weight (mass actually, before you want to go off on a pedant’s tangent) comes from, as long as axle groups are not overloaded. To date, cleverer people than you seem to have designed battery powered trucks without having to resort to your much cherished truck and dog combination. All freight could be dispensed with to absolutely maximize the “payload (battery) capacity”, but that is rediculous even by your standards.
Forget electric vehicles for a while and focus on mainstream trucks. You have had an unhealthy fetish for the truck and dog combination. If that is what you’re comfortabe driving, that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean that is the most suitable combination for every task, any more than if a driver prefers to drive a tip truck all frozen foods should be delivered by tip truck. A truck and dog combination has uses in vocational roles, but for the vast majority of transport tasks a semitrailer is superior.
You have made a statement that good engineering practice dictates that no weight shoul be imposed on the prime mover. Actually I think you meant by the trailer, but I’ll let that faux pas go through to the keeper. Where did you find this nugget of information, have you got a reference, or did you just make it up?
Directly from personal experience. Head to head Kenworth K100 8V92TA @ 450 hp, 15speed overdrive, 3.7 diffs vs White Road Commander Cummins 14 litre @ 444 hp, 13 speed overdrive, 3.7 diffs, specs as close as damn it. The Kenworth rarely achieved 5mpg whereas the White usually returned 6~7mpg. How many trucks have you driven (not moved) with 300 or more horsepower?
As this is a truck forum let’s keep the discussion to trucks, comparing apples to apples. Ships have no emission standards with which to comply.
Oh for heaven’s sake! Where do you get these hairbrained ideas from? Do you pluck them out of the air or do they fall out of your addled brain?
The Series 60 was a clean sheet design by Detroit, after the Penski buy in.
I’d like to see any credible reference contradictory to that.
I sometimes wonder if you can separate reality from imagination when you think, as a truck driver with limited experience, know better than successful, pillars of transport, or you pluck imaginary beliefs ftom your head to bolster your inaccurate arguments.
Except it has multi fuel capability including LNG or LPG.
So it’s good for very low speed running and will run on anything from bunker oil to LPG.It’s also obviously a better choice for fuel efficiency for a lifetime of circumnavigating the world’s oceans than 4 stroke.
So everything that Detroit Diesel might have developed if it had stayed in business and exhaust emissions regs weren’t tightened to the point of eventually making all diesel engines obsolete including 4 stroke.
Who said anything about lack of weight on the lead vehicle ?.The issue is compromising weight and space capacity of the lead vehicle to take account of weight transfer/imposition from the trailer.
Especially assuming that you want to maximise battery carrying capacity of an EV let’s call it road locomotive.
Im all confused as to what cf is talking about
Is it something like putting the batterys under the trailer to get bigger batterys and more distant and just have a small battery on tractor unit
That do for now? I really don’t have the inclination to do a proper search.
So where is the citation say it is good engineering practice?
Did I miss where you answered how many +300hp trucks you had driven?
So is he. He keeps contradicting himself and introducing random, inaccurate waffle, while all the time avoiding the awkward questions.
Inaccurate waffle.Like you’re going to need to find over 5t of battery weight capacity and more space than a tractor unit wheelbase will allow to match the kwh energy content of just 75 gallons of diesel, let alone more, allowing for 40% diesel engine efficiency.
Now tell me my figures of 10-15t of batteries and the load space of a 6 or 8 wheeler rigid are ‘inaccurate’.
Bearing in mind no engine to power lights and other ancillaries or an engine coolant run heater.It all has to come out of the batteries.
No think along the lines of a 6 or 8 wheeler rigid ballast tractor ( road locomotive ) in which call it 10-15 tonnes of swap out battery packs are the ‘ballast’.
NZ and Scandinavian regs and vehicle types would already allow it.
Quick change of Euro regs to match Sweden and NZ job done.
Are you genuinely obtuse, or deliberately ignoring information that does not align with your blinkered view of the perfect combination?
I have already told you that we have electric trucks running up and down the Hume, nightly. These trucks are receiving exchange batteries at the halfway point and are within weight and dimensional limits of their ICE counterparts.
Define weight and dimensions, payload, distance between battery changes, etc etc.
Not exactly a go anywhere general haulage outback trucking operation.
As I said Sweden and NZ have the exact configurations to actually make it work in the real world.It’s just that the rigid prime mover is now a locomotive pack not part of the payload hauling operation.
Certainly no need for a pointless compromised Chinese tractor unit to pull the same trailer.
Up to 86 tonne, 40 pallet spaces within an overall length of 30 metres, up to 500 km.
There is no way 40 pallet spaces can be achieved towed behind a ridgid truck, within 30 metres. Even if it was allowed to exceed 30 metres it would require eight more wheels and tyres.
@Carryfast Outback transport is only a very small part of the overall transport task, the vast majority being up and down the eastern seaboard from Melbourne to Townsville and west to Adelaide. Battery exchange depots at < 500 km on these routes would be viable and coincide with mandatory rest breaks. No operators in this country are operating ridgid truck and dog on interstate or intrastate distance work. There is a good reason for that, it simply doesn’t work economically.
You really have no idea how transport works here, I don’t care how many times you’ve watched reruns of Outback Truckers.
I think Carryfast and Turbo live in the same alternative existance!