My 6+mpg is to the US gallon, that’s 3.72 litres & around 20% smaller than an imperial gallon, so my mid 6s are high 8s, that’s at an average speed of 64ish mph & to average that speed my needle has to go a lot further round the clock on a regular basis, my Pete is about as aerodynamic as a filing cabinet with the drawers pulled out, so it’s gearing has a big effect, I also hit hardly any traffic, even Chicago & New York are fine in the middle of the night & that’s when I try to hit them & I run at 36.3tons with 550hp so unless I’m in the mountains I don’t work the engine hardly at all, that all helps no end when you’re filling the tanks. If I had better aerodynamics, like a euro spec cabover & only one drive axle I could add 20% to that figure easily, while I’m a big fan of the American truck, my Pete in particular, it’s horses for courses, they are perfect over there, but would be about as much use as mudflaps on a tortoise over here 
newmercman:
My 6+mpg is to the US gallon, that’s 3.72 litres & around 20% smaller than an imperial gallon, so my mid 6s are high 8s, that’s at an average speed of 64ish mph & to average that speed my needle has to go a lot further round the clock on a regular basis, my Pete is about as aerodynamic as a filing cabinet with the drawers pulled out, so it’s gearing has a big effect, I also hit hardly any traffic, even Chicago & New York are fine in the middle of the night & that’s when I try to hit them & I run at 36.3tons with 550hp so unless I’m in the mountains I don’t work the engine hardly at all, that all helps no end when you’re filling the tanks. If I had better aerodynamics, like a euro spec cabover & only one drive axle I could add 20% to that figure easily, while I’m a big fan of the American truck, my Pete in particular, it’s horses for courses, they are perfect over there, but would be about as much use as mudflaps on a tortoise over here
In the context of a fuel economy comparison I’d say that does’nt seem to add up in favour of a 4x2 or 6x2?.You’re running a 550 horse truck,at faster speeds,which is less aerodynamic,and which has a 6x4 driveline.But you’re already getting around the same return on fuel consumption as a euro wagon which already has that 4x2 or 6x2 configuration.What you do seem to have made the case for is plenty of power,high gearing,high speeds and work the engine less and fit it with a 6x4 driveline. 
It’s just a shame that those yanks would’nt let me work there all those years ago. 
newmercman:
My 6+mpg is to the US gallon, that’s 3.72 litres & around 20% smaller than an imperial gallon, so my mid 6s are high 8s, that’s at an average speed of 64ish mph & to average that speed my needle has to go a lot further round the clock on a regular basis, my Pete is about as aerodynamic as a filing cabinet with the drawers pulled out, so it’s gearing has a big effect, I also hit hardly any traffic, even Chicago & New York are fine in the middle of the night & that’s when I try to hit them & I run at 36.3tons with 550hp so unless I’m in the mountains I don’t work the engine hardly at all, that all helps no end when you’re filling the tanks. If I had better aerodynamics, like a euro spec cabover & only one drive axle I could add 20% to that figure easily, while I’m a big fan of the American truck, my Pete in particular, it’s horses for courses, they are perfect over there, but would be about as much use as mudflaps on a tortoise over here
Carryfast:
newmercman:
My 6+mpg is to the US gallon, that’s 3.72 litres & around 20% smaller than an imperial gallon, so my mid 6s are high 8s, that’s at an average speed of 64ish mph & to average that speed my needle has to go a lot further round the clock on a regular basis, my Pete is about as aerodynamic as a filing cabinet with the drawers pulled out, so it’s gearing has a big effect, I also hit hardly any traffic, even Chicago & New York are fine in the middle of the night & that’s when I try to hit them & I run at 36.3tons with 550hp so unless I’m in the mountains I don’t work the engine hardly at all, that all helps no end when you’re filling the tanks. If I had better aerodynamics, like a euro spec cabover & only one drive axle I could add 20% to that figure easily, while I’m a big fan of the American truck, my Pete in particular, it’s horses for courses, they are perfect over there, but would be about as much use as mudflaps on a tortoise over hereIn the context of a fuel economy comparison I’d say that does’nt seem to add up in favour of a 4x2 or 6x2?.You’re running a 550 horse truck,at faster speeds,which is less aerodynamic,and which has a 6x4 driveline.But you’re already getting around the same return on fuel consumption as a euro wagon which already has that 4x2 or 6x2 configuration.What you do seem to have made the case for is plenty of power,high gearing,high speeds and work the engine less and fit it with a 6x4 driveline.
It’s just a shame that those yanks would’nt let me work there all those years ago.
Trust me
6x4 will almost always be less economical than 6X2, if everything else is equal, think about it? all them gears and shafts to turn, they all require energy, plus the rolling resistance of the extra tyre. The most ecomomical set up, is the twin steer,but the weight and traction costs, outweigh the advantages. Also except for going up hill, a twin steer, has always given me the most confidence on slippery corners etc. (4 wheels to point you in the direction you want to go)
Midlift’s are the worst for traction,tag’s are sometime’s better than a doubledrive as these can hop and spin when empty. Neither are popular in Ireland because of higher running cost’s and poor enforcement.
ellies dad:
Midlift’s are the worst for traction,tag’s are sometime’s better than a doubledrive as these can hop and spin when empty. Neither are popular in Ireland because of higher running cost’s and poor enforcement.
I would challenge that on ice and snow! especially if you can lift the mid lift. The more weight you can get onto the drive axle the better, in that a tag wins, I admit, the beauty of the mid lift is it is shared between the front and rear axles, so you can steer it too.
Off road proper though, multi drive wins every time, as you want as big a foot print as possible.
renaultman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
My 6+mpg is to the US gallon, that’s 3.72 litres & around 20% smaller than an imperial gallon, so my mid 6s are high 8s, that’s at an average speed of 64ish mph & to average that speed my needle has to go a lot further round the clock on a regular basis, my Pete is about as aerodynamic as a filing cabinet with the drawers pulled out, so it’s gearing has a big effect, I also hit hardly any traffic, even Chicago & New York are fine in the middle of the night & that’s when I try to hit them & I run at 36.3tons with 550hp so unless I’m in the mountains I don’t work the engine hardly at all, that all helps no end when you’re filling the tanks. If I had better aerodynamics, like a euro spec cabover & only one drive axle I could add 20% to that figure easily, while I’m a big fan of the American truck, my Pete in particular, it’s horses for courses, they are perfect over there, but would be about as much use as mudflaps on a tortoise over hereIn the context of a fuel economy comparison I’d say that does’nt seem to add up in favour of a 4x2 or 6x2?.You’re running a 550 horse truck,at faster speeds,which is less aerodynamic,and which has a 6x4 driveline.But you’re already getting around the same return on fuel consumption as a euro wagon which already has that 4x2 or 6x2 configuration.What you do seem to have made the case for is plenty of power,high gearing,high speeds and work the engine less and fit it with a 6x4 driveline.
It’s just a shame that those yanks would’nt let me work there all those years ago.
Trust me
6x4 will almost always be less economical than 6X2, if everything else is equal, think about it? all them gears and shafts to turn, they all require energy, plus the rolling resistance of the extra tyre. The most ecomomical set up, is the twin steer,but the weight and traction costs, outweigh the advantages. Also except for going up hill, a twin steer, has always given me the most confidence on slippery corners etc. (4 wheels to point you in the direction you want to go)
And that’s why I’d prefer an 8x4 rigid pulling a 45 foot drawbar trailer.Four wheels to point you where you’re going,two axles to drive it along the road and drawbars don’t jacknife like artics can.But exactly what do the actual figures say if we compare that artic using the twin steer unit if we compare it with that yank 6x4 unit which can manage around 8 mpg running at yank speeds.It’s the figures which prove the case not some unfounded theory which seems to exaggerate the extra transmission loads in using double drive.
Carryfast:
renaultman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
My 6+mpg is to the US gallon, that’s 3.72 litres & around 20% smaller than an imperial gallon, so my mid 6s are high 8s, that’s at an average speed of 64ish mph & to average that speed my needle has to go a lot further round the clock on a regular basis, my Pete is about as aerodynamic as a filing cabinet with the drawers pulled out, so it’s gearing has a big effect, I also hit hardly any traffic, even Chicago & New York are fine in the middle of the night & that’s when I try to hit them & I run at 36.3tons with 550hp so unless I’m in the mountains I don’t work the engine hardly at all, that all helps no end when you’re filling the tanks. If I had better aerodynamics, like a euro spec cabover & only one drive axle I could add 20% to that figure easily, while I’m a big fan of the American truck, my Pete in particular, it’s horses for courses, they are perfect over there, but would be about as much use as mudflaps on a tortoise over hereIn the context of a fuel economy comparison I’d say that does’nt seem to add up in favour of a 4x2 or 6x2?.You’re running a 550 horse truck,at faster speeds,which is less aerodynamic,and which has a 6x4 driveline.But you’re already getting around the same return on fuel consumption as a euro wagon which already has that 4x2 or 6x2 configuration.What you do seem to have made the case for is plenty of power,high gearing,high speeds and work the engine less and fit it with a 6x4 driveline.
It’s just a shame that those yanks would’nt let me work there all those years ago.
Trust me
6x4 will almost always be less economical than 6X2, if everything else is equal, think about it? all them gears and shafts to turn, they all require energy, plus the rolling resistance of the extra tyre. The most ecomomical set up, is the twin steer,but the weight and traction costs, outweigh the advantages. Also except for going up hill, a twin steer, has always given me the most confidence on slippery corners etc. (4 wheels to point you in the direction you want to go)And that’s why I’d prefer an 8x4 rigid pulling a 45 foot drawbar trailer.Four wheels to point you where you’re going,two axles to drive it along the road and drawbars don’t jacknife like artics can.But exactly what do the actual figures say if we compare that artic using the twin steer unit if we compare it with that yank 6x4 unit which can manage around 8 mpg running at yank speeds.It’s the figures which prove the case not some unfounded theory which seems to exaggerate the extra transmission loads in using double drive.
Can’t do the figures for American trucks, but I’ve run beside 6x4s in this country, they’ve all been horrendous on fuel. Also (I’m showing my age here) The difference in economy between twins and singles is well documented, there’s even a difference between Supersingles and normal tyres. Ever wonder why racing cyclists have razor thin tyres? The more rubber you have on the road, the more friction/rolling resistance you have working against you.
I bought my own fuel, for 20 years, running max gross, doing approx 100,000 miles a year, believe me, It’s not all theory
renaultman:
Carryfast:
renaultman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
My 6+mpg is to the US gallon, that’s 3.72 litres & around 20% smaller than an imperial gallon, so my mid 6s are high 8s, that’s at an average speed of 64ish mph & to average that speed my needle has to go a lot further round the clock on a regular basis, my Pete is about as aerodynamic as a filing cabinet with the drawers pulled out, so it’s gearing has a big effect, I also hit hardly any traffic, even Chicago & New York are fine in the middle of the night & that’s when I try to hit them & I run at 36.3tons with 550hp so unless I’m in the mountains I don’t work the engine hardly at all, that all helps no end when you’re filling the tanks. If I had better aerodynamics, like a euro spec cabover & only one drive axle I could add 20% to that figure easily, while I’m a big fan of the American truck, my Pete in particular, it’s horses for courses, they are perfect over there, but would be about as much use as mudflaps on a tortoise over hereIn the context of a fuel economy comparison I’d say that does’nt seem to add up in favour of a 4x2 or 6x2?.You’re running a 550 horse truck,at faster speeds,which is less aerodynamic,and which has a 6x4 driveline.But you’re already getting around the same return on fuel consumption as a euro wagon which already has that 4x2 or 6x2 configuration.What you do seem to have made the case for is plenty of power,high gearing,high speeds and work the engine less and fit it with a 6x4 driveline.
It’s just a shame that those yanks would’nt let me work there all those years ago.
Trust me
6x4 will almost always be less economical than 6X2, if everything else is equal, think about it? all them gears and shafts to turn, they all require energy, plus the rolling resistance of the extra tyre. The most ecomomical set up, is the twin steer,but the weight and traction costs, outweigh the advantages. Also except for going up hill, a twin steer, has always given me the most confidence on slippery corners etc. (4 wheels to point you in the direction you want to go)And that’s why I’d prefer an 8x4 rigid pulling a 45 foot drawbar trailer.Four wheels to point you where you’re going,two axles to drive it along the road and drawbars don’t jacknife like artics can.But exactly what do the actual figures say if we compare that artic using the twin steer unit if we compare it with that yank 6x4 unit which can manage around 8 mpg running at yank speeds.It’s the figures which prove the case not some unfounded theory which seems to exaggerate the extra transmission loads in using double drive.
Can’t do the figures for American trucks, but I’ve run beside 6x4s in this country, they’ve all been horrendous on fuel. Also (I’m showing my age here) The difference in economy between twins and singles is well documented, there’s even a difference between Supersingles and normal tyres. Ever wonder why racing cyclists have razor thin tyres? The more rubber you have on the road, the more friction/rolling resistance you have working against you.
I bought my own fuel, for 20 years, running max gross, doing approx 100,000 miles a year, believe me, It’s not all theory
It’s not so much an issue of rubber because we’re talking about the difference between 6x2 versus 6x4.But if we want less grip then everyone would have ditched double sets of rear wheels for singles.But in the context of trying to provide traction and grip at the unit’s drive axle/s and to avoid jacknifing it’s more grip which is needed not less and you can’t cut down on tyre size much if you’re imposing high weights on them wether twin or single.But a heavy haulage Euro type 6X4 is’nt the same by way of comparison with a typical yank 6x4 general haulage wagon and those operators using double drive rigids here on general work would never be able to make the job pay if there was that big a difference?.
Carryfast:
renaultman:
Carryfast:
renaultman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
My 6+mpg is to the US gallon, that’s 3.72 litres & around 20% smaller than an imperial gallon, so my mid 6s are high 8s, that’s at an average speed of 64ish mph & to average that speed my needle has to go a lot further round the clock on a regular basis, my Pete is about as aerodynamic as a filing cabinet with the drawers pulled out, so it’s gearing has a big effect, I also hit hardly any traffic, even Chicago & New York are fine in the middle of the night & that’s when I try to hit them & I run at 36.3tons with 550hp so unless I’m in the mountains I don’t work the engine hardly at all, that all helps no end when you’re filling the tanks. If I had better aerodynamics, like a euro spec cabover & only one drive axle I could add 20% to that figure easily, while I’m a big fan of the American truck, my Pete in particular, it’s horses for courses, they are perfect over there, but would be about as much use as mudflaps on a tortoise over hereIn the context of a fuel economy comparison I’d say that does’nt seem to add up in favour of a 4x2 or 6x2?.You’re running a 550 horse truck,at faster speeds,which is less aerodynamic,and which has a 6x4 driveline.But you’re already getting around the same return on fuel consumption as a euro wagon which already has that 4x2 or 6x2 configuration.What you do seem to have made the case for is plenty of power,high gearing,high speeds and work the engine less and fit it with a 6x4 driveline.
It’s just a shame that those yanks would’nt let me work there all those years ago.
Trust me
6x4 will almost always be less economical than 6X2, if everything else is equal, think about it? all them gears and shafts to turn, they all require energy, plus the rolling resistance of the extra tyre. The most ecomomical set up, is the twin steer,but the weight and traction costs, outweigh the advantages. Also except for going up hill, a twin steer, has always given me the most confidence on slippery corners etc. (4 wheels to point you in the direction you want to go)And that’s why I’d prefer an 8x4 rigid pulling a 45 foot drawbar trailer.Four wheels to point you where you’re going,two axles to drive it along the road and drawbars don’t jacknife like artics can.But exactly what do the actual figures say if we compare that artic using the twin steer unit if we compare it with that yank 6x4 unit which can manage around 8 mpg running at yank speeds.It’s the figures which prove the case not some unfounded theory which seems to exaggerate the extra transmission loads in using double drive.
Can’t do the figures for American trucks, but I’ve run beside 6x4s in this country, they’ve all been horrendous on fuel. Also (I’m showing my age here) The difference in economy between twins and singles is well documented, there’s even a difference between Supersingles and normal tyres. Ever wonder why racing cyclists have razor thin tyres? The more rubber you have on the road, the more friction/rolling resistance you have working against you.
I bought my own fuel, for 20 years, running max gross, doing approx 100,000 miles a year, believe me, It’s not all theory
It’s not so much an issue of rubber because we’re talking about the difference between 6x2 versus 6x4.But if we want less grip then everyone would have ditched double sets of rear wheels for singles.But in the context of trying to provide traction and grip at the unit’s drive axle/s and to avoid jacknifing it’s more grip which is needed not less and you can’t cut down on tyre size much if you’re imposing high weights on them wether twin or single.But a heavy haulage Euro type 6X4 is’nt the same by way of comparison with a typical yank 6x4 general haulage wagon and those operators using double drive rigids here on general work would never be able to make the job pay if there was that big a difference?.
Where’s here?
I don’t know of anyone running double drive units around here except for the waste transfer people.
General all seem to be using Midlifts or twin steers, and the forestry lads are using tags.
Edit; We have on one axle.
renaultman:
Carryfast:
renaultman:
Carryfast:
renaultman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
My 6+mpg is to the US gallon, that’s 3.72 litres & around 20% smaller than an imperial gallon, so my mid 6s are high 8s, that’s at an average speed of 64ish mph & to average that speed my needle has to go a lot further round the clock on a regular basis, my Pete is about as aerodynamic as a filing cabinet with the drawers pulled out, so it’s gearing has a big effect, I also hit hardly any traffic, even Chicago & New York are fine in the middle of the night & that’s when I try to hit them & I run at 36.3tons with 550hp so unless I’m in the mountains I don’t work the engine hardly at all, that all helps no end when you’re filling the tanks. If I had better aerodynamics, like a euro spec cabover & only one drive axle I could add 20% to that figure easily, while I’m a big fan of the American truck, my Pete in particular, it’s horses for courses, they are perfect over there, but would be about as much use as mudflaps on a tortoise over hereIn the context of a fuel economy comparison I’d say that does’nt seem to add up in favour of a 4x2 or 6x2?.You’re running a 550 horse truck,at faster speeds,which is less aerodynamic,and which has a 6x4 driveline.But you’re already getting around the same return on fuel consumption as a euro wagon which already has that 4x2 or 6x2 configuration.What you do seem to have made the case for is plenty of power,high gearing,high speeds and work the engine less and fit it with a 6x4 driveline.
It’s just a shame that those yanks would’nt let me work there all those years ago.
Trust me
6x4 will almost always be less economical than 6X2, if everything else is equal, think about it? all them gears and shafts to turn, they all require energy, plus the rolling resistance of the extra tyre. The most ecomomical set up, is the twin steer,but the weight and traction costs, outweigh the advantages. Also except for going up hill, a twin steer, has always given me the most confidence on slippery corners etc. (4 wheels to point you in the direction you want to go)And that’s why I’d prefer an 8x4 rigid pulling a 45 foot drawbar trailer.Four wheels to point you where you’re going,two axles to drive it along the road and drawbars don’t jacknife like artics can.But exactly what do the actual figures say if we compare that artic using the twin steer unit if we compare it with that yank 6x4 unit which can manage around 8 mpg running at yank speeds.It’s the figures which prove the case not some unfounded theory which seems to exaggerate the extra transmission loads in using double drive.
Can’t do the figures for American trucks, but I’ve run beside 6x4s in this country, they’ve all been horrendous on fuel. Also (I’m showing my age here) The difference in economy between twins and singles is well documented, there’s even a difference between Supersingles and normal tyres. Ever wonder why racing cyclists have razor thin tyres? The more rubber you have on the road, the more friction/rolling resistance you have working against you.
I bought my own fuel, for 20 years, running max gross, doing approx 100,000 miles a year, believe me, It’s not all theory
It’s not so much an issue of rubber because we’re talking about the difference between 6x2 versus 6x4.But if we want less grip then everyone would have ditched double sets of rear wheels for singles.But in the context of trying to provide traction and grip at the unit’s drive axle/s and to avoid jacknifing it’s more grip which is needed not less and you can’t cut down on tyre size much if you’re imposing high weights on them wether twin or single.But a heavy haulage Euro type 6X4 is’nt the same by way of comparison with a typical yank 6x4 general haulage wagon and those operators using double drive rigids here on general work would never be able to make the job pay if there was that big a difference?.
Where’s here?
I don’t know of anyone running double drive units around here .
Here means England not the States and rigids are’nt units.However if I get started on my own doing traction work or whatever with artics I’ll try to use one of those yank 6x4 units which as we’ve been told by someone who uses one can manage around 8 mpg running around at 65 mph or more.It’s obvious that hardly anyone here in England is using double drive units because we’ve seen them all over the news for a week stuck and jacknifed in a few inches of snow
I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again, the reason they use 6x4s in America is the same reason they always have, they don’t like change.
Renaultman has a point with tyres, up to 50mph rolling resistance is the greatest factor in fuel economy, over 50mph & aerodynamics take over. There are some in the US that are pretty serious about this, the firm I mentioned before also run wide base singles on all axles but the steer axle, they are 455/50 22.5s so much wider than the super single we use in Europe, the most fuel efficient 5 axle truck is one with an aerodynamic cab shell, a direct top transmission, single drive & wide singles instead of twins. This company has a fleet average of over 7.5mpg & that’s US gallons, anyone getting under that is out the door, they know the trucks will only get less if it’s being driven incorrectly.
My truck is running on 24.5 rims with 11R tyres, I have a double overdrive box with a .73 final ratio & 3:70 rear axles, this gives me a touch under 1500rpm at 70mph, if every other factor is equal the shape of my truck alone will cost in the region of 1mpg when compared to an aero truck, we run some & this is how it works out in the real world not on paper, the only difference in them is the cab, driveline etc is all the same. I may run higher speeds but the truck is geared for it, I can’t run under 60mph in top gear. My fuel economy is near the top in comparison to our fleet average, which is mid 5s US, that’s a huge difference to the 7.5 US the other mob get, at current fuel prices & an average of 120000miles per year, each /10th of a mpg is worth a $1000, I did over 165000miles in 09 so my truck was at least $25000 less efficient than those of the fleet from New Mexico, part of that $25000 comes from the double drive, our fuel is $2.60 per US gallon, fuel in the UK is a little bit more expensive, try selling the 6x4 idea now, you may well be able to run in the snow, but that ain’t a lot of good when you’re stuck behind Mr Average in his 6x2 who has got stuck just outside the gates to the yard 
For what it’s worth, having driven 4x2s, both kinds of 6x2s & now 6x4s, in my opinion the best configuration for a European artic would be a 6x2 mid lift with no block on the ability to lift it, pulling a tandem trailer with a lifting front axle, obviously to run 44tons in the UK you’d need a triaxle with lifting front axle, the combination of a lift axle on the unit & trailer would throw enough weight on the drive axle that if you can’t get moving it’s time to stop being a hero & park it up until the road clears.
newmercman:
I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again, the reason they use 6x4s in America is the same reason they always have, they don’t like change.Renaultman has a point with tyres, up to 50mph rolling resistance is the greatest factor in fuel economy, over 50mph & aerodynamics take over. There are some in the US that are pretty serious about this, the firm I mentioned before also run wide base singles on all axles but the steer axle, they are 455/50 22.5s so much wider than the super single we use in Europe, the most fuel efficient 5 axle truck is one with an aerodynamic cab shell, a direct top transmission, single drive & wide singles instead of twins. This company has a fleet average of over 7.5mpg & that’s US gallons, anyone getting under that is out the door, they know the trucks will only get less if it’s being driven incorrectly.
My truck is running on 24.5 rims with 11R tyres, I have a double overdrive box with a .73 final ratio & 3:70 rear axles, this gives me a touch under 1500rpm at 70mph, if every other factor is equal the shape of my truck alone will cost in the region of 1mpg when compared to an aero truck, we run some & this is how it works out in the real world not on paper, the only difference in them is the cab, driveline etc is all the same. I may run higher speeds but the truck is geared for it, I can’t run under 60mph in top gear. My fuel economy is near the top in comparison to our fleet average, which is mid 5s US, that’s a huge difference to the 7.5 US the other mob get, at current fuel prices & an average of 120000miles per year, each /10th of a mpg is worth a $1000, I did over 165000miles in 09 so my truck was at least $25000 less efficient than those of the fleet from New Mexico, part of that $25000 comes from the double drive, our fuel is $2.60 per US gallon, fuel in the UK is a little bit more expensive, try selling the 6x4 idea now, you may well be able to run in the snow, but that ain’t a lot of good when you’re stuck behind Mr Average in his 6x2 who has got stuck just outside the gates to the yard
For what it’s worth, having driven 4x2s, both kinds of 6x2s & now 6x4s, in my opinion the best configuration for a European artic would be a 6x2 mid lift with no block on the ability to lift it, pulling a tandem trailer with a lifting front axle, obviously to run 44tons in the UK you’d need a triaxle with lifting front axle, the combination of a lift axle on the unit & trailer would throw enough weight on the drive axle that if you can’t get moving it’s time to stop being a hero & park it up until the road clears.
Can’t argue with that
I was pulling Wheat out of our yard, between Christmas and New year, fresh snow, hard packed snow, and snow turned to Ice.
Loaded to 44T with the Mid Lift, and the front axke lifted, diff lock on, a bit of judicious use of momentum. I never spun a wheel
newmercman:
I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again, the reason they use 6x4s in America is the same reason they always have, they don’t like change.For what it’s worth, having driven 4x2s, both kinds of 6x2s & now 6x4s, in my opinion the best configuration for a European artic would be a 6x2 mid lift with no block on the ability to lift it, pulling a tandem trailer with a lifting front axle, obviously to run 44tons in the UK you’d need a triaxle with lifting front axle, the combination of a lift axle on the unit & trailer would throw enough weight on the drive axle that if you can’t get moving it’s time to stop being a hero & park it up until the road clears.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again they’re right to not like change.It’s not just a case of getting moving in bad weather conditions it’s a case of keeping moving and in a straight line while you’re actually running.But you’re right about parking up with a 4x2 or 6x2 in bad conditions and that’s exactly what they’ve often been doing recently here because of just a few inches of snow on the road and many of the ones who did’nt park up ended up off the road or worse.Given a few more weeks,(or possibly months) of that and if it had been a bit deeper then any arguable cost savings would’nt look so inviting.Especially if there’s some heros like me around who’d be out there taking work and customers off of those outfits who had the choice of park up or crash or maybe get nicked for running overweight on the drive axle of a 6x2 running as a 4x2 but which should be running as a 6x2 if only it could stay on the road doing it
Oh no, not this 6x4 vs. 6x2 debate again
It says ERF not RAF:
Would it be possible to have a 6x2 with switchable drive so in bad weather you can switch to the other rear axle making it a 6x4 ? Just a thought as over the years I’ve had a few 4x4’s which you could select either 2 wheel drive or 4 wheel drive. There would be the gross weight disadvantage but it would not really effect economy as most of the time you would be running with 2 wheel drive.
I think MAN makes quite what you’re after (I think it was MAN, but I’m not sure about the manufacturer). They make front wheel drive which doesn’t have ordinary drive shaft coming from gearbox but have some sort of free rolling electrical (or hydraulic, can’t remember) motors attached to hubs of the front wheels. This allows driver to turn his vehicle from 6x2 to 6x4 while moving. Difference to ordinary 6x4 is that you have a 4x4 lorry with undriven tag or midlift axle instead of double drive bogie.
If I recall correctly this system weighed few hundred kg.
Kyrbo:
Oh no, not this 6x4 vs. 6x2 debate againKyrbo If only this was trucknet USA then we’d probably get a different perspective and we’d have a real debate
Carryfast:
Kyrbo:
Oh no, not this 6x4 vs. 6x2 debate againKyrbo If only this was trucknet USA then we’d probably get a different perspective and we’d have a real debate
Or if this was Trucknet NL, the “special cars” would still be 4x2 with a tri-axle trailer running at 50 tonne gross, even in a country where the weights are more or even in Belgium which already allow 42 tonne on 5 axles, they don’t seem to want double drive and tandem axle trailers.
Why don’t they want double drive?
load capacity,
less manoeuvrability,
higher fuel consumption,
more maintenance,
tyre costs,
& driver acceptance.
who cares about the theory? i run 6x2 midlifts which lift at maximum weight if you need to, and so far have had none get stuck in the snow, jacknife , crash , slide off road or turn over. so maybe the biggest % in this debate is the driver. how much care he takes and how good he actually is at driving in testing conditions. i dont doubt 6x4 may have an advantage in some circumstances but in general haulage in the uk i think 6x2 is more cost effective. this is only my opinion, im not claiming its fact or correct in every case but as a whole i believe its 6x2 in uk for general haulage.
yorkshireborn:
who cares about the theory? i run 6x2 midlifts which lift at maximum weight if you need to, and so far have had none get stuck in the snow, jacknife , crash , slide off road or turn over. so maybe the biggest % in this debate is the driver. how much care he takes and how good he actually is at driving in testing conditions. i dont doubt 6x4 may have an advantage in some circumstances but in general haulage in the uk i think 6x2 is more cost effective. this is only my opinion, im not claiming its fact or correct in every case but as a whole i believe its 6x2 in uk for general haulage.
It may only be your opinion but it’s correct Sir
i think in some shape or form my question has been answered in a combinations of people posts 
as you were.