Stobarts fuel costs

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

Dunno then?:

Wheel Nut:

At 5252 RPM the Torque and Power are exactly the same.

Torque is turning force.

Power is about how much Work is being done by that Torque. You cannot have one without the other.

No engine has more horsepower than torque at 1600 rpm. It’s simply impossible.
No not true!

What?
Volvo FH12
Max Power 420hp @ 1750rpm
Max Torque 1475Lbft @ 1200rpm

A large diesel engine usually cannot get above 2,000 RPM, but has huge torque because of the long stroke. The torque is what lets your engine pull a heavy load up a hill.

The bigger the bang is what makes the crankshaft turn faster, but at what cost to fuel consumption. To get that big bang we have to feed the engine more food.

Without taking my horse outside and tying a weight of about 330 lbs to it and seeing if it can pull it up a slope in one minute. I will accept what I have already been told as a kid.

Explain yourself then!

Some important numbers;

Horsepower = torque X rpm / 5252

I am using proven mathematical facts from John Watt, Watt are you using?

“a strong horse could lift 150 pounds to a height of 220 feet in 1 minute.”

One horsepower is also commonly expressed as 550 pounds one foot in one second or 33,000

pounds one foot in one minute.

Three sets of numbers all saying the same thing.

5252 is the important number.

Torque is twisting or turning, of a wheel, a propshaft or a flywheel and all commonly

used as a comparison between engine output.

How to measure the capacity of a cylinder.

The cylinder bore x the cylinder stroke x the number of cylinders will give the swept

volume or cubic capacity of the engine.

Cylinder bore is measured using the mathmatical equation πr²

Ï€ = 3.1415926535 or 3.142 for simplicity

So in my example;πr² multiplied by 6.55(radius of the bore in cm) multiplied by 6.55

(radius of the bore in cm) multiplied by 15 (length of stroke in cm) (1 stroke = 180

degrees of the crankshaft)

So Volvo have actually had the badge on the door wrong for years;

Volvo FH12131.96895

using Volvos figures of a 131mm bore and a 150mm stroke

From these figures we can work out the compression ratio by adding the swept volume to

the volume of the combustion chamber plus the head gasket volume(thickness) plus the

piston deck height/ piston top volume and divided by the combustion chamber volume.

Thanks very much for letting me exercise my brain, it kept me out of the pub on a bank

holiday.

Wheelnut if you were in a building which was on fire would you rather have something coming to put it out and rescue you which goes like that old 1994 Pierce with the Turbocharged 6V92 in it or that zb slow heap with the 4 stroke 60 series mill in it.? No one’s arguing about that old well known formula for determining torque and horsepower figures what I’m,but I don’t know about the others,saying is that the zb thing will go a lot better/faster uphill or on the flat if it’s turning over nearer to it’s peak power than it’s peak torque and as a rule of thumb all you need to know is the maximum/peak power figure and at what revs it’s developed at to know how much maximum/peak torque the thing will have and at what revs peak torque will be developed at by using that old formula.

[wheel_nut]

Carryfast:
Wheelnut if you were in a building which was on fire would you rather have something coming to put it out and rescue you which goes like that old 1994 Pierce with the Turbocharged 6V92 in it or that zb slow heap with the 4 stroke 60 series mill in it.? No one’s arguing about that old well known formula for determining torque and horsepower figures what I’m,but I don’t know about the others,saying is that the zb thing will go a lot better/faster uphill or on the flat if it’s turning over nearer to it’s peak power than it’s peak torque and as a rule of thumb all you need to know is the maximum/peak power figure and at what revs it’s developed at to know how much maximum/peak torque the thing will have and at what revs peak torque will be developed at by using that old formula.

If I was on fire, I wouldn’t be arguing about what engine the appliance has in it. I would be utilising my equation Ï€r² working out the tank capacity to make sure it had enough H2o in it

But back to my engine.

Torque and Power are only ever the same at 5252rpm, look at the pretty graph, you can see the torque is highest a long way below that RPM figure, in a heavy truck the diesel engine is limited to around 2000rpm. Watch how the little ankle biters of the trucking world perform. The DAF 45 and Iveco Cargos etc, slipstream an artic the driver revs the nuts off them to overtake the laden 44 tonner, when they reach around cab length they die off very quickly, because they have not got enough torque to push through the invisible forcefield we can call drag.

Manufacturers and engineers have worked hard and while I was copying and pasting my pretty graph, they were busy designing a pretty multi coloured tachometer. which reads something like this,

0000 - 1050, Black
1050 - 1450 Green
1450 - 1850 Orange
1850 - 2200 Red

During your days or nights driving your beloved DAF do you remember the pretty flashing up/down arrows on the dashboard. That was the ZF Ecosplit advising you when to change up or down.

I remember taking a brand new laden F16 on a demonstration run with the salesman and a Volvo engineer from Crossroads Commercials in Hull. It was an invitation only open day and the choice of route was left to us.

We left the Humber Bridge car park and I headed off to Hull over Myton Bridge, the lights were against me so I had to set off at the bottom and keeping it in the green sector still managed a reasonable ascent. On my way back I took the old route using Boothferry Hill as my test section, at the bottom near AB Motors there is a tight roundabout so speed is kept down artificially. As we climbed the long hill the salesman was almost screaming at me to change down, the engineer sat on the bunk told me to stay as I was. The F16 romped up that hill using low down grunt, not balls out screaming rpm.

Before we forget the reason for this thread, it was about Stobarts fuel costs which I quickly changed to anyone’s fuel costs, in your fire engine with your screaming engine or your V8 Scania in a lower gear at maximum revs you said that it would go up faster but use more fuel, that kind of loses the argument in a fuel saving thread doesn’t it?

Remember the economical lorry drivers mantra;

LET IT LUG

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

Carryfast:
Wheelnut if you were in a building which was on fire would you rather have something coming to put it out and rescue you which goes like that old 1994 Pierce with the Turbocharged 6V92 in it or that zb slow heap with the 4 stroke 60 series mill in it.? No one’s arguing about that old well known formula for determining torque and horsepower figures what I’m,but I don’t know about the others,saying is that the zb thing will go a lot better/faster uphill or on the flat if it’s turning over nearer to it’s peak power than it’s peak torque and as a rule of thumb all you need to know is the maximum/peak power figure and at what revs it’s developed at to know how much maximum/peak torque the thing will have and at what revs peak torque will be developed at by using that old formula.

If I was on fire, I wouldn’t be arguing about what engine the appliance has in it. I would be utilising my equation Ï€r² working out the tank capacity to make sure it had enough H2o in it

But back to my engine.

Torque and Power are only ever the same at 5252rpm, look at the pretty graph, you can see the torque is highest a long way below that RPM figure, in a heavy truck the diesel engine is limited to around 2000rpm. Watch how the little ankle biters of the trucking world perform. The DAF 45 and Iveco Cargos etc, slipstream an artic the driver revs the nuts off them to overtake the laden 44 tonner, when they reach around cab length they die off very quickly, because they have not got enough torque to push through the invisible forcefield we can call drag.

Manufacturers and engineers have worked hard and while I was copying and pasting my pretty graph, they were busy designing a pretty multi coloured tachometer. which reads something like this,

0000 - 1050, Black
1050 - 1450 Green
1450 - 1850 Orange
1850 - 2200 Red

During your days or nights driving your beloved DAF do you remember the pretty flashing up/down arrows on the dashboard. That was the ZF Ecosplit advising you when to change up or down.

I remember taking a brand new laden F16 on a demonstration run with the salesman and a Volvo engineer from Crossroads Commercials in Hull. It was an invitation only open day and the choice of route was left to us.

We left the Humber Bridge car park and I headed off to Hull over Myton Bridge, the lights were against me so I had to set off at the bottom and keeping it in the green sector still managed a reasonable ascent. On my way back I took the old route using Boothferry Hill as my test section, at the bottom near AB Motors there is a tight roundabout so speed is kept down artificially. As we climbed the long hill the salesman was almost screaming at me to change down, the engineer sat on the bunk told me to stay as I was. The F16 romped up that hill using low down grunt, not balls out screaming rpm.

Before we forget the reason for this thread, it was about Stobarts fuel costs which I quickly changed to anyone’s fuel costs, in your fire engine with your screaming engine or your V8 Scania in a lower gear at maximum revs you said that it would go up faster but use more fuel, that kind of loses the argument in a fuel saving thread doesn’t it?

Remember the economical lorry drivers mantra;

LET IT LUG

It would have lost the argument in the fuel saving thread IF all other parameters stayed the same which they don’t.As any Irish driver from ‘our’ day knows letting it lug ain’t quite the same thing as keeping her lit Firstly that water tank in that fire engine will pump out in no time probably long before you’ve been rescued and before the fire is anywhere near out with the engine being run at almost peak power not torque through the pto and that’s why they put those fire hydrants in all over the place But it takes time to hook up to those and as any fire truck driver knows keeping her lit on the way to the fire saves lives.The reason why they limit most modern truck engines to 2,000 rpm is because there’s sfa left in the power band at those revs or even less whereas in the good old days you could,if you did’nt have a 13 speed fuller in it,let that old two stroke lug down to around peak torque at 1,200 rpm before downshifting back to peak power at 2,300 rpm.However it would go a lot better by keeping it lit at around 1800-2,000 by using the splitter with the slightly,if at all ,increased fuel consumption being more than payed for in productivety because while those drivers who were still getting the load to where it was going by plodding up the hills the others were tipped and on their way to the next job.And while you were busy struggling up that hill can you remember whether your foot was flat to the floor or like mine would have been around three quarters application in that half gear or so lower with the revs in the orange because you’ve forgotten about the extra torque multiplication at the driving wheels provided by the lower gear which more than outweighs the 10% or less torque drop at the crankshaft at around max power revs.But I’d say that you’ve confused my reference to max power revs with running the thing at higher revs than peak power and the productivety differences provided by a V8 Scania compared to a so called economical Gardner powered Brit heap where the mantra let it lug was invented long before the F16 came along which is probably why the Irish were doing more miles on continental work with a V8 Scania than those Brits stuck on UK were doing with their Gardner powered heaps . And no none of the DAF 2800’S had eco spilt boxes as I’ve said before one had a ZF constant mesh 12 speed splitter and the ATI’s had 9 speed fullers although they would have gone better with 13 speed ones because that allows you to keep her lit better.

[wheel_nut]

Carryfast:
And no none of the DAF 2800’S had eco spilt boxes as I’ve said before one had a ZF constant mesh 12 speed splitter and the ATI’s had 9 speed fullers although they would have gone better with 13 speed ones because that allows you to keep her lit better.

My memory fails me here as my recollections of the DAF marques were the 2600 with a ZF Constant Mesh box followed by the 2800 DKS DKTD etc fitted with a 13 speed fuller.b The only other Daf I recall with a 12 speed box was the 2100/2300/2500 series, the babies of the fleet although I did have a 2500 at 38 tonne with a powder tanker that would eventually catch pigeons.

I drove a lot of 3300 DAF tractors and they were all fitted with 16 speed ZF splitter boxes from Y registration up until the replacement 95. All the 3600ATi were only fitted with the ZF160S Ecosplit the exception to this rule was that there was a glut of Turkish Specification Dafs which were part of a cancelled order and sold to UK operators. These are pictured and mentioned elsewhere on these forums.

The up/down flashing dashboard arrows were fitted on the models before the 1985 Ati which as I remember them were X to B registration and all ZF’s

[waddy640]

Having read this thread one point comes to mind. If I drive at 44 tonnes 100 miles on SC with loads of bends and hills, does this use more fuel than running at 24 tonnes on DC and motorways?

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

Carryfast:
And no none of the DAF 2800’S had eco spilt boxes as I’ve said before one had a ZF constant mesh 12 speed splitter and the ATI’s had 9 speed fullers although they would have gone better with 13 speed ones because that allows you to keep her lit better.

My memory fails me here as my recollections of the DAF marques were the 2600 with a ZF Constant Mesh box followed by the 2800 DKS DKTD etc fitted with a 13 speed fuller.b The only other Daf I recall with a 12 speed box was the 2100/2300/2500 series, the babies of the fleet although I did have a 2500 at 38 tonne with a powder tanker that would eventually catch pigeons.

I drove a lot of 3300 DAF tractors and they were all fitted with 16 speed ZF splitter boxes from Y registration up until the replacement 95. All the 3600ATi were only fitted with the ZF160S Ecosplit the exception to this rule was that there was a glut of Turkish Specification Dafs which were part of a cancelled order and sold to UK operators. These are pictured and mentioned elsewhere on these forums.

The up/down flashing dashboard arrows were fitted on the models before the 1985 Ati which as I remember them were X to B registration and all ZF’s

Those three versions of the 2800 were the only ones I drove wheelnut.I’m sure it was a 1978 DKS I can still remember it’s reg it was that good and the others were definitely ATI’s with the slap across shift range change only 9 speed Fullers.I’m sure the DKS we had had a constant mesh 12 speed splitter not the 13 speed fuller because it did’nt have any range change on it.It was a bit like the early constant mesh six speed in it’s shift pattern in going from right to left through the gears all on the stick which we had in one of those very early small DAF’s and which was only used as a yard shunter when I started.I think it was a 1600? not 2600?.But the one in the 2800 was much heftier to use and with the splitter on all the gears and the change seemed to need a lot more care in matching revs/speed etc than you could usually get away with on a fuller and clutchless changes were definitely out with that one.It would be very interesting to find out if that wagon had a rare ZF option on it ?.But I think there were plenty of 13 speed Fuller options available on many of the big DAF range through 2800 3300 etc ?.But a 2500 at 38 tonnes must have been a nightmare on hills and that 12 speed was a horrible synchro job

[wheel_nut]

Carryfast:
But the one in the 2800 was much heftier to use and with the splitter on all the gears and the change seemed to need a lot more care in matching revs/speed etc than you could usually get away with on a fuller and clutchless changes were definitely out with that one.It would be very interesting to find out if that wagon had a rare ZF option on it ?.But I think there were plenty of 13 speed Fuller options available on many of the big DAF range through 2800 3300 etc ?.But a 2500 at 38 tonnes must have been a nightmare on hills and that 12 speed was a horrible synchro job

DAF 2800 DKS with a 12 speed box in 1977
Here you are CF. I never drove this model with the 12 speed but presume it was a different gearbox to the backwards way round version of the DAF 2600 that Bestbooties drove.

L’introduction de la cabine avancée sur la serie des tracteurs 2600 au début des année 60 marque une évolution majeur pour le constructeur hollandais.
Vaste, confortable, cette cabine permet aux camion DAF d’entrer dans le domaine de la traction longue distance.
En 1970, la cadine basculante apparait et s’instale definitivement.
L’arrivéez de 2800 poursuit l’evolution avec la cabine F240.
Dotée de la cabine profonde de 2,05m, le DAF 2800 est un camion luxueux avec deux couchettes de 1,90m de long et 60cm de largeur, des eclairages individuels, un siege passager avec accoudoirs et appuie tete, des rangements divers et des porte goblets.
Soucieux de la securité, DAF propose aussi une colone de direction rétractable en cas de choc et un bourelet de protection autour du tableau de bord.
L’ossature de la cabine est constituée de profilés type caisson-poutres déformants, et des baies vitrée d’une surface importante garentissant une visibilitée exelante.
Le DAF 2800 est motorisé par deux type de 6 cylindres diesel a injection direct doter de refroidisseur d’huile. DKA 1160 de 230 ch ou le DKS 1160 de 320 ch suralimenter et interrefroidit par echangeur frontal air-air.
Ce dernier moteur présente un couple de 125 m.kg.
Combiné a une boite a 12 rapports, il transmet sa puissance a un pont arriere suportant 13t de charge avec reducteur dans les moyeux.
Le freinage est classic a air comprimé, avec deux circuits, le premier assurant le freinage sur l’essieu avant et la remorque, et le second commandant l’essieu arriere et si besoin le vehicule tracté.

Voila en ce qui concerne le DAF 2800

But a 2500 at 38 tonnes must have been a nightmare on hills and that 12 speed was a horrible synchro job

Ooh, you must have been spoiled, Volvo F7 and 2300 & 2500 DAF’s were very common in the bulk tanker world, where every litre carried in the tank counts

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

Carryfast:
But the one in the 2800 was much heftier to use and with the splitter on all the gears and the change seemed to need a lot more care in matching revs/speed etc than you could usually get away with on a fuller and clutchless changes were definitely out with that one.It would be very interesting to find out if that wagon had a rare ZF option on it ?.But I think there were plenty of 13 speed Fuller options available on many of the big DAF range through 2800 3300 etc ?.But a 2500 at 38 tonnes must have been a nightmare on hills and that 12 speed was a horrible synchro job

DAF 2800 DKS with a 12 speed box in 1977
Here you are CF. I never drove this model with the 12 speed but presume it was a different gearbox to the backwards way round version of the DAF 2600 that Bestbooties drove.

L’introduction de la cabine avancée sur la serie des tracteurs 2600 au début des année 60 marque une évolution majeur pour le constructeur hollandais.
Vaste, confortable, cette cabine permet aux camion DAF d’entrer dans le domaine de la traction longue distance.
En 1970, la cadine basculante apparait et s’instale definitivement.
L’arrivéez de 2800 poursuit l’evolution avec la cabine F240.
Dotée de la cabine profonde de 2,05m, le DAF 2800 est un camion luxueux avec deux couchettes de 1,90m de long et 60cm de largeur, des eclairages individuels, un siege passager avec accoudoirs et appuie tete, des rangements divers et des porte goblets.
Soucieux de la securité, DAF propose aussi une colone de direction rétractable en cas de choc et un bourelet de protection autour du tableau de bord.
L’ossature de la cabine est constituée de profilés type caisson-poutres déformants, et des baies vitrée d’une surface importante garentissant une visibilitée exelante.
Le DAF 2800 est motorisé par deux type de 6 cylindres diesel a injection direct doter de refroidisseur d’huile. DKA 1160 de 230 ch ou le DKS 1160 de 320 ch suralimenter et interrefroidit par echangeur frontal air-air.
Ce dernier moteur présente un couple de 125 m.kg.
Combiné a une boite a 12 rapports, il transmet sa puissance a un pont arriere suportant 13t de charge avec reducteur dans les moyeux.
Le freinage est classic a air comprimé, avec deux circuits, le premier assurant le freinage sur l’essieu avant et la remorque, et le second commandant l’essieu arriere et si besoin le vehicule tracté.

Voila en ce qui concerne le DAF 2800

But a 2500 at 38 tonnes must have been a nightmare on hills and that 12 speed was a horrible synchro job

Ooh, you must have been spoiled, Volvo F7 and 2300 & 2500 DAF’s were very common in the bulk tanker world, where every litre carried in the tank counts

Thanks for posting that wheelnut and spoiled was probably the right word at that point in my carreer but not what went before and what came after.If that beast was happy pulling that type of load there you can imagine what it went like at around the 28-30 t gross that I usually drove it at ,and for the benefit of the new drivers that means without a speed limiter ,and I can also remember what the hopeless 2500’s that we had on the fleet went like at the same weight so you’ve got my respect and sympathy for having to use one at 38t.By the way like I said previously it had a right to left shift pattern with top over at the left side if that’s what you meant by backwards way round.

[wheel_nut]

Carryfast:
By the way like I said previously it had a right to left shift pattern with top over at the left side if that’s what you meant by backwards way round.

That was the same one which was fitted in the 2600 I believe, apologies for confusing everyone else. good thread though

I only ever had Eaton Fuller RTO11613 or the ZF160S in a DAF F2800/3300 and a 12 speed in a DAF 2500 and DAF 2300.

Anyone from the Yorkshire area will remember the first green trucks that Humber Kitchens used were 2300 albeit only running at 32500kg

I reckon they were good on fuel though
Just to keep the thread topic on track of course…

[wheel_nut]

Carryfast:
I can also remember what the hopeless 2500’s that we had on the fleet went like at the same weight so you’ve got my respect and sympathy for having to use one at 38t.

[/quote]
And here it be, in all it’s glory

[ady1]

dont know about dafs and all the other stuff but what has been brought up to stobarts is the fact the new g-400 are getting round the 8/9 m.p.g mark,wheras the g-380 are 12/13/14 m.p.g,now i know a way a driver drives can save fuel but to me having a fuel efficient truck in the first place makes sence.
your never going to get the same out of a v8 range rover as a tdci mondeo how ever fuel efficently you drive.
so id bee intrested to know if stobarts to test trucks for fuel efficency before they get them.
as one of our was saying the other weekt hose 480 innovate volvos were doing 10/11 mpg on the same work as were getting 8/9 ,s out of g-400/r-420,s

[carryfast]

ady1:
dont know about dafs and all the other stuff but what has been brought up to stobarts is the fact the new g-400 are getting round the 8/9 m.p.g mark,wheras the g-380 are 12/13/14 m.p.g,
your never going to get the same out of a v8 range rover as a tdci mondeo how ever fuel efficently you drive.

But you’re also never going to get the same power and torque outputs from a zb mondeo tdci than the old V8 petrol motor in the old Rangey especially at 4.6 Litres.Supercharge the thing and run it on LPG and take into account the maintenance costs of the old pushrod old tech lump it’s a no contest.But 14 MPG from a wagon running at 40 tonnes ? as Victor Meldrew would say I don’t believe it. The old rule that you can’t get more out than you put in still applies.

[kr79]

There is a happy medium when choosing the power of the engine you spec to low and you will burn deisel by thrashing the truck to maintain a decent speed but going for the big 600-700 bhp truck could leave you drinking fuel unless you are easy on the loud pedal.
In these days of limiters theres no point in driving the life out the truck at full power all the time as you wont gain much ground.
I cant comment on trucks of the daf 2800 era but all the trucks i have driven start to dig in on hills at the bottom of the green band as it hits maximum tourqe and this is where all the truck test magazines say you should be. Ive tried over the last few weeks on my regualar routes keeping in the green and letting it lug on the hills and going flat out at max power and my journey times are about the same but going for more power uses a fair bit more fuel.
Cant see what the problem of trying to drive economicly is the way the profit margins are every little helps

[carryfast]

kr79:
There is a happy medium when choosing the power of the engine you spec to low and you will burn deisel by thrashing the truck to maintain a decent speed but going for the big 600-700 bhp truck could leave you drinking fuel unless you are easy on the loud pedal.
In these days of limiters theres no point in driving the life out the truck at full power all the time as you wont gain much ground.
I cant comment on trucks of the daf 2800 era but all the trucks i have driven start to dig in on hills at the bottom of the green band as it hits maximum tourqe and this is where all the truck test magazines say you should be. Ive tried over the last few weeks on my regualar routes keeping in the green and letting it lug on the hills and going flat out at max power and my journey times are about the same but going for more power uses a fair bit more fuel.
Cant see what the problem of trying to drive economicly is the way the profit margins are every little helps

There’s also a happy medium when ‘driving’ the big power truck not just speccing it.There’s a happy medium between slogging away at lower revs in a higher gear trying to make the crankshaft torque turn the driving wheels at a reasonable speed or trying to run the thing at higher revs in a lower gear providing more torque at the wheels but NOT full accelerator application.The magazines all seem to have missed that point probably because they are’nt actually factory test drivers but are more qualified towards the acedemic writing side of the equation.I’d bet that I could drive that 700 hp wagon just as economically,or more, at a higher average speed than a lower powered one.

[kr79]

whats the point in spending another 20k or so an say an fh16 660 comared to a 460 even with a higher average speed i doubt you could do enough more kms a day to make much of a difference in the amount of work you could do due to the good old speed limiter. I do belive a high power truck can give good economy in driven properley and a low power truck will use more fuel as its struggling to do the job but realisticly a 440-480 bhp is the ideal comprimise for a 44ton truck in the uk it will give decent average turn of speed and its not struggling to maintain speed in tough going and it doesnt have so much power you are racing cars off the lights and blowing diesel straight out the exhaust. Im sure we have all been there when you are plodding along when the v8 scania comes flying by. as sweet as the sound coming out of them twin stacks is whats it doing to the gallon as its tearing up the middle lane

[carryfast]

kr79:
whats the point in spending another 20k or so an say an fh16 660 comared to a 460 even with a higher average speed i doubt you could do enough more kms a day to make much of a difference in the amount of work you could do due to the good old speed limiter. I do belive a high power truck can give good economy in driven properley and a low power truck will use more fuel as its struggling to do the job but realisticly a 440-480 bhp is the ideal comprimise for a 44ton truck in the uk it will give decent average turn of speed and its not struggling to maintain speed in tough going and it doesnt have so much power you are racing cars off the lights and blowing diesel straight out the exhaust. Im sure we have all been there when you are plodding along when the v8 scania comes flying by. as sweet as the sound coming out of them twin stacks is whats it doing to the gallon as its tearing up the middle lane

It’s horses for courses but the general idea when CLIMBING or under high engine load situations lower gear,more power,less accelerator application will usually give better economy.In the days before speed limiters it was trucks like those Scanias and the mantra more power = more productivety and better economy which was proved to be best and why you’re now talking about 480hp at 44 tonnes not 300.But get rid of the limiters and you might understand a bit more.But whatever power you’ve got the idea of driving a truck is’nt to race cars off the lights.

[kr79]

I am not stupid I can see how a high power truck from the 80s such as a scania 142 with 420 bhp and no limiter could be much more efficient and productive than a 300 bhp scania 112 as its not going to slow down as much on the hills and I can see how that older scania could have an advantage over a modern 420 bhp truck as it could be doing nearer 70 mph before it hit a hill. But even on the level what sort of revs would that older truck be doing at 70 mph.
Limiters are here to stay and trucks are designed to run at there most fuel efficient at 56mph.
I wasn’t saying you should be racing cars but was trying to point out a high power truck in the wrong hands will use lots of fuel

[wheel_nut]

kr79:
Limiters are here to stay and trucks are designed to run at there most fuel efficient at 56mph.
I wasn’t saying you should be racing cars but was trying to point out a high power truck in the wrong hands will use lots of fuel

Of course they are and the silly sod you are “discussing” it with wants to drive 60 or 70 tonne lorries with two trailers in the UK at 80mph, because no one would give him a “suitable” job when he was younger. apart from that he wants to add an additional ten foot blindspot on the front of it.

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

kr79:
Limiters are here to stay and trucks are designed to run at there most fuel efficient at 56mph.
I wasn’t saying you should be racing cars but was trying to point out a high power truck in the wrong hands will use lots of fuel

Of course they are and the silly sod you are “discussing” it with wants to drive 60 or 70 tonne lorries with two trailers in the UK at 80mph, because no one would give him a “suitable” job when he was younger. apart from that he wants to add an additional ten foot blindspot on the front of it.

But maybe if I’d have got into Canada when I was younger I reckon that I’d have been as happy as a pig in zb. But even I’m not saying let’s run a 60 tonne + outfit at 80 mph.But a very high powered wagon geared to run at 80 mph will be ok on fuel at 65-70 mph and give better productivety wether at 44 tonnes or 60 tonnes +.Probably a lot better than running a 480 here with a speed limiter set at 53 mph and letting the thing slog up the hills in a gear higher than you should be in and one day someone might be glad of that slightly increased blindspot on the front if by some chance they run the thing into the back of another truck at that ‘safe’ 53 mph.

[kr79]

I’ve driven a T cab scania on bulk rubbish work in London and would be happy to never drive a bonneted truck again. Any way a driver as good as you would never run in to the back of another truck. Why don’t you go to Canada now and drive all over the USA there’s a few on here who have done it. You moan you never got the breaks when you were younger to drive round europe in a top notch truck with a cb radio a michelin man on the roof and an unlimited supply of yorkie bars. There are plenty of guys of your era on here who did and they can’t of all had a mate or relative who got them the gig while the ink was still wet on there licence. I’d bet most worked there way through a sucsession of crap trucks crap loads and crap wages before they got there chance on euro work and even then a lot probably got the crap multi collection and drop work before getting the cream. Prehaps. your attitude when you went to look for the jobs was the problem. If its like on here you more than likley went in and told the man his prized fleet of leyland marathons and gardner powered ERFs where piles of crap which to be fair they probably were and he should buy a fleet of bedford tm two strokes