Carryfast:
What’s the difference assuming it’s pulling a tipping trailer v an artic which is what I was actually referring to in that case ?.While the former obviously provides the flexibility of being able to haul two seperate loads for two different destinations or a much bigger full load,than a 32 tonner.
Which leaves the question of overall lifetime operating costs and residual value of the simple un stressed bullet proof V8 in whatever output spec,even at 32 t gross.Bearing in mind it doesn’t have to be a 620 let alone a 730.
That’s assuming we’re actually even discussing such a spec anyway as opposed to V8 badges being stuck on lesser spec wagons.
Doyle’s trucks don’t pull trailers. Very few drawbar tippers in this country. You even highlighted me saying ‘rigid tipper’. As for residual values, always found this a bit of a pointless justification, all that’s happening is you are getting back some (rarely all) of the extra £30/40k you forked out for a 730
In which case it’s obvious that I wasn’t actually referring to a 620 let alone a 730 for 32t gross operation. But as I said can still see the point in going for the lower output spec V8 in that case.As for residuals the point is you get back ‘proportionally’ more of the purchase costs not all of them and I can certainly understand the idea in paying more for a used V8 specced 32 tonner for the reasons I’ve given IE a torquey,unstressed,simple to maintain,pushrod motor.What’s not to like.
As for Doyle if they are speccing 730 32 tonners that’s up to them,they must see some point in it,possibly a company image thing ?.
Off he goes again…it’ll be Thatcher, the American south and 6x4’s next
Carryfast:
As for Doyle if they are speccing 730 32 tonners that’s up to them,they must see some point in it,possibly a company image thing ?.
It’s a look at me ego thing. As any experienced tipper man will tell you a R730 doesn’t make a great deal of business sense in a sector where payload is everything
beefy4605:
More power = more loads in the day . Faster journey times mean they may be able to get an exrta load (or two) in every day . If your paid by the load it starts to make sence .
You’re talking absolute rubbish, unless you’re running loaded up a mountain with every load it won’t make any sense at all!
You’ll need to do an extra load every day to make up for the weight penalty of running a v8 and the extra purchase price!
Sounds to me like a contract haulier that has to bend over every time they’re told to doing a bit of willy waving
Carryfast:
In which case it’s obvious that I wasn’t actually referring to a 620 let alone a 730 for 32t gross operation. But as I said can still see the point in going for the lower output spec V8 in that case.As for residuals the point is you get back ‘proportionally’ more of the purchase costs not all of them and I can certainly understand the idea in paying more for a used V8 specced 32 tonner for the reasons I’ve given IE a torquey,unstressed,simple to maintain,pushrod motor.What’s not to like.
As for Doyle if they are speccing 730 32 tonners that’s up to them,they must see some point in it,possibly a company image thing ?.
Off he goes again…it’ll be Thatcher, the American south and 6x4’s next
If it’s all about payload surely a 6 wheeler and a 3 axle trailer makes a lot of sense.Who knows I might be pioneering a new definitive tipper spec without leaving my armchair.
As for the payload issue v trips.What’s the weight penalty of the V8 v a decent 6 cylinder motor ? x how many journeys in a shift ?.While by your logic the F 7 would have dominated the tipper world and all tippers would still be fitted with 7 litre motors.
Be honest the sceptics just don’t like to see rigid drivers driving better motors than artic drivers.
Carryfast:
In which case it’s obvious that I wasn’t actually referring to a 620 let alone a 730 for 32t gross operation. But as I said can still see the point in going for the lower output spec V8 in that case.As for residuals the point is you get back ‘proportionally’ more of the purchase costs not all of them and I can certainly understand the idea in paying more for a used V8 specced 32 tonner for the reasons I’ve given IE a torquey,unstressed,simple to maintain,pushrod motor.What’s not to like.
As for Doyle if they are speccing 730 32 tonners that’s up to them,they must see some point in it,possibly a company image thing ?.
Off he goes again…it’ll be Thatcher, the American south and 6x4’s next
If it’s all about payload surely a 6 wheeler and a 3 axle trailer makes a lot of sense.Who knows I might be pioneering a new definitive tipper spec without leaving my armchair.
As for the payload issue v trips.What’s the weight penalty of the V8 v a decent 6 cylinder motor ? x how many journeys in a shift ?.While by your logic the F 7 would have dominated the tipper world and all tippers would still be fitted with 7 litre motors.
Be honest the sceptics just don’t like to see rigid drivers driving better motors than artic drivers.
Doing muck away a trailer will soon become a ball ache with getting stuck.
As for that much power I doubt most tipper journeys would be long enough to make up enough time to do anymore than a 400 bhp truck.
Carryfast:
In which case it’s obvious that I wasn’t actually referring to a 620 let alone a 730 for 32t gross operation. But as I said can still see the point in going for the lower output spec V8 in that case.As for residuals the point is you get back ‘proportionally’ more of the purchase costs not all of them and I can certainly understand the idea in paying more for a used V8 specced 32 tonner for the reasons I’ve given IE a torquey,unstressed,simple to maintain,pushrod motor.What’s not to like.
As for Doyle if they are speccing 730 32 tonners that’s up to them,they must see some point in it,possibly a company image thing ?.
Off he goes again…it’ll be Thatcher, the American south and 6x4’s next
If it’s all about payload surely a 6 wheeler and a 3 axle trailer makes a lot of sense.Who knows I might be pioneering a new definitive tipper spec without leaving my armchair.
As for the payload issue v trips.What’s the weight penalty of the V8 v a decent 6 cylinder motor ? x how many journeys in a shift ?.While by your logic the F 7 would have dominated the tipper world and all tippers would still be fitted with 7 litre motors.
Be honest the sceptics just don’t like to see rigid drivers driving better motors than artic drivers.
Fancy that, another industry you have zero experience of but still think you know best, fancy that indeed. You’re certainly showing your age talking about F7’s
kr79:
Doing muck away a trailer will soon become a ball ache with getting stuck.
As for that much power I doubt most tipper journeys would be long enough to make up enough time to do anymore than a 400 bhp truck.
Ironically drawbar tipper outfits are common in many places outside the UK and not unheard of here.
While there’s no argument that big power tippers would be relatively pointless if it’s all local inner city/town work.But that all changes in the case of running further out of town work.Although having said that more torque also helps in the case of pulling through soft ground regardless.All of which is probably why AJ Bull at least long ago had some very respectably specced bulkers and tippers by the standards of the day and which probably might sometimes have received similar comments regarding too much flash motor for the job.I’m guessing it’s more an envy thing in that regard than any objective view.
In this case it’s probably more just a question of the pros and cons of speccing the Scania V8 v any of the 6 cylinder alternatives,regardless of type.In which I think I’ve made a realistic case as to why some would rightly choose the V8 option.With the peak power figure being totally irrelevant in that choice.
You still get 7litre engines in tippers, not common but they are available. I drive one, with “only” 290bhp.
Our MAN TGM grab compared to a similar TGS carries about 250kg more. And yes payload still counts on a grab tipper when you sell materials.
On the weight penalty front the last generation Scania, on an R series cab, 8x4, these are the heaviest chassis options I found:
410 6IL: 8970kg incl 20l fuel plus water and oil. Not including body.
520 V8: 10163 incl 20l fuel plus water and oil. Not including body.
Now I’ve never done tipper work but I would guess that the 9l 5IL wouldn’t be the engine of choice for the work. Not enough grunt. So 1,193 would be the weight penalty for a V8 over the 11.7 6IL.
Now torque:
410 6IL - 2150Nm
450 6IL - 2350Nm - Ive driven this engine on containers and it couldn’t pull the skin of a rice pudding.
520 V8 - 2700Nm
Thats a 550Nm difference in torque output between the 410 and 520. As I said above, I’ve driven the 450 in the New Generation Scania and its woeful at 38t up hill. I can imagine that the 410 is equally poor at 32t. Judging by ABBA Commercials claims about its Predator Ultilite body, a lightweight steel tipper body is about 2.5 tonnes. That gives a 19t payload on four axles with a full tank of diesel and a driver in the cab from the V8. How much would the 1 additional tonne earn you?? I have no idea but then you have to consider that with the extra torque and power, you aren’t working the engine as hard so you are going to get better MPGs up hills etc.
As for price difference, for a tractor unit. The basic spec 450 normal roof New Gen is around £95k plus vat. The 580 V8 is around £120k, so 25k more but a V8 should retain most of the increased price over a 6IL in the used market so what you spend out now you will get back eventually. You also add in a lot of spec inside the cab which isn’t standard. Its more nicey, nicey for the driver than business relevant but its a lot easier to clean quarry mud off a leather interior than a fabric one, and leather is standard on the V8.
The question to ask is does the loss of 1t payload and increased purchase cost offset the increased residual values, increased fuel economy and increased driver satisfaction. If you put the price of the last three greater than the price of the first two, a V8 makes great sense. Of course when your fleet is due to off-hire the V8, its going to sell quicker too because O/ds love rumbly noises and tanned cow arse.
If you are paid by the load which I’m guessing muckaway type work is? then you could have a flash big engine and fancy (possibly vomit inducing) paint job if you so wish, though any profit is probably spent on steam cleaning and polish!
But if you get paid by the tonne then you are going to want the lightest motor you can get surely as even 250kg - 500kgs difference in net weight can add up to a lot of loads dropped over the course of a year.
they do sound good though with V8 engines,many years ago when I was 11 my dad worked for a local builders merchants and every day a company called lavender brothers used to deliver aggregate,what got me was the sound of the lorries,a dodge K series eight wheeler with a perkins V8 engine,lovely sound,you don’t see many [if at all]around anymore even on the classic truck scene,such a shame.
nsmith1180:
On the weight penalty front the last generation Scania, on an R series cab, 8x4, these are the heaviest chassis options I found:
410 6IL: 8970kg incl 20l fuel plus water and oil. Not including body.
520 V8: 10163 incl 20l fuel plus water and oil. Not including body.
Now I’ve never done tipper work but I would guess that the 9l 5IL wouldn’t be the engine of choice for the work. Not enough grunt. So 1,193 would be the weight penalty for a V8 over the 11.7 6IL.
Now torque:
410 6IL - 2150Nm
450 6IL - 2350Nm - Ive driven this engine on containers and it couldn’t pull the skin of a rice pudding.
520 V8 - 2700Nm
Thats a 550Nm difference in torque output between the 410 and 520. As I said above, I’ve driven the 450 in the New Generation Scania and its woeful at 38t up hill. I can imagine that the 410 is equally poor at 32t. Judging by ABBA Commercials claims about its Predator Ultilite body, a lightweight steel tipper body is about 2.5 tonnes. That gives a 19t payload on four axles with a full tank of diesel and a driver in the cab from the V8. How much would the 1 additional tonne earn you?? I have no idea but then you have to consider that with the extra torque and power, you aren’t working the engine as hard so you are going to get better MPGs up hills etc.
As for price difference, for a tractor unit. The basic spec 450 normal roof New Gen is around £95k plus vat. The 580 V8 is around £120k, so 25k more but a V8 should retain most of the increased price over a 6IL in the used market so what you spend out now you will get back eventually. You also add in a lot of spec inside the cab which isn’t standard. Its more nicey, nicey for the driver than business relevant but its a lot easier to clean quarry mud off a leather interior than a fabric one, and leather is standard on the V8.
The question to ask is does the loss of 1t payload and increased purchase cost offset the increased residual values, increased fuel economy and increased driver satisfaction. If you put the price of the last three greater than the price of the first two, a V8 makes great sense. Of course when your fleet is due to off-hire the V8, its going to sell quicker too because O/ds love rumbly noises and tanned cow arse.
The torque advantage is probably the biggest factor produced from an obviously less stressed engine.
Although having said that the 13 litre 490 6 cylinder option would be a formidable opposing choice providing more than 2,500 nm and which would probably be a fairer match v the V8 than either an 11.7 litre 6 or the new generation 450.On that note I think I can understand why some operators might just then decide to maximise the advantages in going for the V8 by going for the 730.On the same basis that it’s mostly/all about the low stressed torque combined with company image and resulting residual values.Not the irrelevant headline peak power figure which will never be used at that weight or possibly rarely even at 44t gross.IE in for a penny might as well be in for a pound in that case.
V8 tippers are purely for bragging rights and nothing else, we have a couple of subbys with 500 v8 scanias that run with us on busy jobs and they can’t get anymore runs done than our 380s can.
McGurke:
V8 tippers are purely for bragging rights and nothing else, we have a couple of subbys with 500 v8 scanias that run with us on busy jobs and they can’t get anymore runs done than our 380s can.
Yep, not that long ago you’d only have seen those things hauling big diggers for Heanor. Now you see boy racer truck drivers tailgate car drivers on the M1 in their 4x2 V8 artics. These wildly over-specced tippers should be restricted IMHO, especially in cities - a laden 32-tonner with a 580 engine could do a lot more damage if a terrorist got hold of it than even a normal tipper, but the same goes for a plain incompetent driver.
McGurke:
V8 tippers are purely for bragging rights and nothing else, we have a couple of subbys with 500 v8 scanias that run with us on busy jobs and they can’t get anymore runs done than our 380s can.
Yep, not that long ago you’d only have seen those things hauling big diggers for Heanor. Now you see boy racer truck drivers tailgate car drivers on the M1 in their 4x2 V8 artics. These wildly over-specced tippers should be restricted IMHO, especially in cities - a laden 32-tonner with a 580 engine could do a lot more damage if a terrorist got hold of it than even a normal tipper, but the same goes for a plain incompetent driver.
Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk
More V8 jealousy arrives.
Terrorists are going to kill is all with 580s, give your head a shake ffs
One of them was me lovely bit of kit. Very well specced truck thats good on fuel and beats all the other trucks i have driven. U can keep ur volvos and renaults thanks
But as I said can still see the point in going for the lower output spec V8 in that case.As for residuals the point is you get back ‘proportionally’ more of the purchase costs not all of them and I can certainly understand the idea in paying more for a used V8 specced 32 tonner for the reasons I’ve given IE a torquey,unstressed,simple to maintain,pushrod motor.What’s not to like.
