Hello all
Just wondering with these top two trucks which are similar in terms of reliability and price which is better on fuel? Are they both similar, some statistics with MPG’s would be helpful! Ideally a comparison between scania r450 and volvo fh460. Thanks
I always find fuel figures very misleading
I drive the same route most days, same weight , same truck, usually same trailer and around about the same time,
My driving is usually consistent as I know how the roads lie, where to brake ,ease off ,accelerate etc
I can return a round trip of 33 gallon, my best, 38 gallon the worst
All I can think is the weather conditions,
Depends on what engine you get for example the v8 620 I just got out of was averaging around 8mpg running the m62 corridor the new Volvo 500 I’ve just got in averaged 9.1 straight away and should only getting better once its bedded in
tonyb70:
I always find fuel figures very misleadingI drive the same route most days, same weight , same truck, usually same trailer and around about the same time,
My driving is usually consistent as I know how the roads lie, where to brake ,ease off ,accelerate etc
I can return a round trip of 33 gallon, my best, 38 gallon the worst
All I can think is the weather conditions,
Good post. Weather is definitely a factor. Obviously wind, but also temp and humidity affects air density. More importantly rain: a truck moving at speed will be “lifting” tons of water into the air in the form of spray.
The only way the O.P. can compare the two options he suggests is to do a test on both, on exactly the same roads, same loads, trailers, same weather etc. And as you say the variation between the same vehicle on different days can be less then the difference between the two. That is not to say there is no difference, but that is very difficult to measure. And what vehicle suits one particular set of circumstances can be different from which is suited to another
The minor difference in fuel consumption between the two will pale into insignificance when something goes wrong with either.
Over the years i always got better fuel in Scanias than the equivalent Volvo but a more marked difference still when the Scani is driven manually, but found the Volvo’s to be a tougher more durable vehicle overall, swings and roundabouts.
eg Volvo 420 car transporters averaged about 6mpg, Scania420 roughly 7mpg, that was across the fleet.
Neither sound good but you have to remember there is lots of PTO operating time included there, and tare weights up around 22 tons, plus the job was bonus paid as in the amount of metal you shifted so flat out was the order of the day.
Thank you for your comments. I understand weather plays a big factor in mpg’s, a dry sunny day compared to a wet rainy day with surface water and also traffic is another factor.
Tonyb70, which truck do you drive?
Also engines with high power where its not needed waste fuel as well, as I generally get better mpgs out of the 440 then my v8 so that could explain the difference in MPG’s for alix776 but perhaps the 620 climbed the hills better than the 500 Volvo. however alix776 are you overall happy with the Volvo or prefer the scania?
Thank you Juddian for the comparison between the vehicles you have driven, would you say the opticruise in the scania’s aren’t as sharp as they could be?
My question being is I’ve just ran Scania’s but not really looked at Volvo, I’ve heard they are very similar in terms of running and cost wise but just wondered if anybody has a scania 450 and Volvo 460 or scania 520 and Volvo 500 and see a major difference in fuel results and dealer services. I don’t want to commit to buying a Volvo if there isn’t much difference to a scania, might as well keep to the one brand. however hearing that the Volvo has a dual clutch temps me!
The newer autos in the Scanis are faster changing than previous incarnations, i hear what sounds like the exhauster fire up on upshifts which helps the revs to die quickly leading to faster changes still, and it must be said that the auto box in Scan is unequalled in response IMO when driven in manual override, but in comparison Volvos almost never need any driver input and seem the more reliable box, several of our Scanis have had new boxes or serious repairs, not something you hear about with Volvo.
Remember i only drive other makes now and again when my usual vehicle is off the road or unusually late back from night shift.
I had both makes long term 2005 on, both autos, both boxes reliable with me but the Scania did melt some sort of control unit atop the box whilst i was on holiday one summer, other than that no trouble with either.
The Volvo didn’t need any driver input but that was as much down to the low rev torque superiority of the Volvo engine, though the Scania would pull better for longer once up to speed the Volvo just got there quicker initially so IMHO if i was choosing a tipper or similar i’d be more inclined to Volvo.
Having said that the Scani was more stable overall in car transporter format by a long chalk and though the gearbox could have been better in auto it responded so well to manual input that i drove it continually in manual and as a result got better fuel figures than the rest of fleet…but the box needed manual input on fast steeping hills, without using manual it would have been easy for the loaded vehicle to stall out on two particular hills in Worcs on one of my regular round trips, road speed dropping faster than the gearbox could cope with, something the Volvo didn’t worry its pretty little head about.
Swings and roundabouts and personal preference i reckon, both are decent enough vehicles if specced with the right engine man enough for the job, which it sounds like you are doing 
JSingh:
Thank you for your comments. I understand weather plays a big factor in mpg’s, a dry sunny day compared to a wet rainy day with surface water and also traffic is another factor.Tonyb70, which truck do you drive?
Also engines with high power where its not needed waste fuel as well, as I generally get better mpgs out of the 440 then my v8 so that could explain the difference in MPG’s for alix776 but perhaps the 620 climbed the hills better than the 500 Volvo. however alix776 are you overall happy with the Volvo or prefer the scania?
Thank you Juddian for the comparison between the vehicles you have driven, would you say the opticruise in the scania’s aren’t as sharp as they could be?
My question being is I’ve just ran Scania’s but not really looked at Volvo, I’ve heard they are very similar in terms of running and cost wise but just wondered if anybody has a scania 450 and Volvo 460 or scania 520 and Volvo 500 and see a major difference in fuel results and dealer services. I don’t want to commit to buying a Volvo if there isn’t much difference to a scania, might as well keep to the one brand. however hearing that the Volvo has a dual clutch temps me!
The scania flew up the hills at full weight most of our work is full weight on the m62. The other main difference between them is dealer back up Scania seams more on the ball. Having said that the Volvo we run at 52 53 on heavy loads where as the scania was run on the limiter. I’m happier than u thought I would be with the Volvo, however I’ve only had the Volvo 4 days . But do miss shear grunt of the v8. The Volvo does still pull very well. I have to say I don’t own the I’m just driving them just bear in mind the Scania price hike
A firm I sub to on a regular basis had a fleet of Scania’s (about 250 or so) Both artic (R cabs, 420 6 wheelers & 380 4 wheelers), 17 ton (P cabs) & wag & drag (P cabs) - all opticruise
But they also ran 1 or 2 of everything else, so they could monitor fuel, tyres, servicing etc
They had 1 x Iveco, 1 x CF, about 6 XF’s. a MAN, 2 x Mercs (inc 1 x gas), 1 x Renault
I thought that was a pretty good idea,
They purposely had no Volvo’s at the time, as they reckoned in the past they had poor fuel consumption,
Well, like them or hate them, there was never any trouble with the Scania’s, and the odd times there was a problem, the back up was brilliant,
Then there was a staff change up top, and they got a couple of FM’s
Now the whole fleet has gone over to FM 450’s, and they are nothing but trouble,
Constant ad blue faults, limp mode, software updates,
And the response from Volvo is pretty cr4p too
Now these are high mileage, low weight runs - Trunking day & Night often empty or part loaded if that makes a difference
I am told that the mpg on the Scania’s was better than the Volvo’s, but the monthly deal on the Volvo’ was better.
I think accountants are just looking at the monthly rental, and not taking overall costs into account.
The cost of the rental vehicle during downtime must far outweigh the actual monthly savings
Jasper
Have you read the Actros v T Range thread plenty of info there if looking for a change
stick to what you know
I had a daf 63 plate Euro 6 460 super space
I’ve recently got a 66 plate iveco 460
I havnt run this truck over the same route as I did with Daf, so i can’t compare.
But I do know in3years it will be no where near as reliable
I had a daf 63 plate Euro 6 460 super space
I’ve recently got a 66 plate iveco 460
I havnt run this truck over the same route as I did with Daf, so i can’t compare.
But I do know in3years it will be no where near as reliable
We have a Scania R520 V8 and a Volvo FH4 500. Both on the same kind of work and both pulling the same trailers round the same route.
The Scania returns around 7.5 - 8 mpg . It has a manual gearbox (gearstick ) and is one of the most hated lorries in the yard . We struggle to find drivers for it when the regular drivers (its double shifted ) go on holidays.
The FH4 500 returns 9.5 - 10mpg has the Ishift gearbox. They never seem to put a foot wrong .
Its rumoured that the Scania was £30 grand more than the FH4 and 2mpg worse off.
Mike Ponsonby:
stick to what you know
Did you ever get that R480 to perform on mpg?
Juddian:
The minor difference in fuel consumption between the two will pale into insignificance when something goes wrong with either.Over the years i always got better fuel in Scanias than the equivalent Volvo but a more marked difference still when the Scani is driven manually, but found the Volvo’s to be a tougher more durable vehicle overall, swings and roundabouts.
eg Volvo 420 car transporters averaged about 6mpg, Scania420 roughly 7mpg, that was across the fleet.
Neither sound good but you have to remember there is lots of PTO operating time included there, and tare weights up around 22 tons, plus the job was bonus paid as in the amount of metal you shifted so flat out was the order of the day.
That’s a very good point Scania assistance are excellent I’ve heard Volvo are nowhere near in terms for customer service