Hi All
I know MPG’s vary due to the nature of the work and conditions but could you all post what trucks you have and what mpg’s they get. Looking at purchasing another vehicle and want to know whats currently the best out there
Heard the New DAFs and Scania New Gens are pretty good!
Its normally the person in control that has more of an influence.
Just a paid driver not an OD.
I’ve had various lorries on my full weight 44 ton work, invariably the fuel consumption on the same runs has been remarkably similar among them all, as said above the driver is the one who makes a difference by utilising each individual vehicle’s strengths to the best advantage, or the driver doesn’t bother, simple as that.
Yes once run in the new gen 450 Scania is economical, but not so much better than anything else, but it does get through some adblu.
What is proving much more important than minor fuel differences is the difference in service from the various makes we run, Scania win this hands down (as well as reliability), and a surprising name or two cropping up in the wouldn’t touch with a bargepole again, where they would literally have to be doing twice the mpg to make up for the rather pointless dealership(s) and the disappointing reliability.
Juddian as your vast experience and very perceptive mind is rare would you expand a bit on the reliability or otherwise of the various modern makes you have experienced or a knowledge of?
Our Euro 6 500hp Volvo Fh 4’s and much heavier on Adblue than our Euro 5’s and they are very good on fuel but our neighbour has 6 cylinder Scania NG’s that are about 10-15% better on fuel it seems.
A mate who drives for an outfit that include Mercs are exasperated with the Mercedes spare parts delay regardless of which dealer they use for some strange reason and will probably sell them off as soon as they can for this reason of downtime alone.
Volvo seems to be getting on top of the reliability of the Euro 6 emissions equipment but their ongoing battery problems are a joke for a tramper/long distance truck.
Their new option of a second battery set certainly guarantees a start in the morning but doesn’t do anything to reduce battery drain so the excessive idling continues.
I sometimes think some of the out of fashion makes like Iveco and certain MAN models are under rated but no recent experience to suppot this.
Do the Volvo engined Renaults have the same reliable add blue ?
Punchy Dan:
Do the Volvo engined Renaults have the same reliable add blue ?
Renault get Volvo’s last generation stuff. Not necessarily a bad thing per se…
I drive a Renault t cab 18 plate good on fuel and ad blue but same battery issues as Volvo always coming up same drain issues on it to but other than that it’s not a bad bit of equipment
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What strikes me with most modern motors that there are just to many toys !!! for the driver to use thus the battery doesn’t have the capacity , simply attempting to get a gallon out of a pint pot ■■?.
My 2013 Scania 480 Euro5, does 6.76 mpg, all day long. (Ave over last 90,000 or so km) Deep joy!!
We run a 2013 Actros 1845 and a 2018 Actros 2545, both of which are averaging around 11mpg, although a lot of the work we do is fairly light. Both trucks have been 100% reliable, but not a single days downtime so far.
I run an R620, and a v4 FH500, both mostly running between 40/44 tonne, and both Euro 5. Scania averages around 6.8/7mpg, Volvo 8.1/8.3mpg.
My three 18 plate DAF XF Euro 6 450 are averaging 10.25 mpg on bulk powder tanker work, including blowing time. I consider them run in now at 70 to 80,000 km. A similar 68 plate DAF on identical work is high 9 mpg and improving. My best mpg at 11 is a 63 Actros that does a 400 miles round trip trunk 5 nights weekly with a 'fridge. The driver is obsessed with mpg and getting his weekly fuel bonus.
Where I work we are running mostly newer DAF and Scania. The latest 480 DAF are a little better on fuel than the 3 year old 450s. The new 450 Scanias have very similar similar figures to the 480 DAF.
Some of the economy is probably due to the top speed limited being noticeably less on all the newer trucks irrespective of make.
We’ve got few regular runs and don’t put the same driver into different vehicles, so can’t easily do any more meaningful comparisons.
With maybe half an mpg difference between makes and more than a one mpg difference, same truck and driver, on different weeks it’s not easy to be definative.
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
Attn Hurryup&Wait.
I agree with you about Scania being good overall and in our area at least the dealer back up knocks spots off all others, they’re also in the top fuel figures and are good to drive to boot.
MAN are sorting their previous issues out (that EGR 440 engine) and yes they are underrated, in some cases drivers hate them purely due to the large steering wheel though clutch engagement and smooth take off with Arsetronic was a learned technique 
, early days yet with Traxon which is much improved.
Generally with fuel consumption, as i said before all the vehicles i’ve used on this job the fuel differences haven’t been enough to say one stands out more than all others, the most economical engine i found over the last 12 years was the 420 Scania (going to say euro 5 but don’t hold me to that, hmm probably euro 4 thinking about it) and yes i have seen a genuine 15mpg on one of those but on very light work (driven in manual and not over 1000rpm if anyone’s interested) and i was sad enough to take a pic of the dash 
To put things in perspective, in the 80’s i used to average 7 to 7.5 mpg at 38 tons at a mean cruising speed of 70mph, on one economy run (again fairly light work and just to see what she could do to the gallon) with the same lorry running at 55mph i got just over 12mpg, so much for progress, but then that lorry was geared for 1100 rpm @ 70…and yes properly specced Brit motors knocked spots off the Swedes both for performance and fuel usage.
On transporters at the time, early to mid noughties we ran Volvo and Scania (mainly) 420’s, bear in mind these things tared off at 22 tons and lots of fast idle running the hydraulics sometimes for hours a day, the Volvos returned around 6mpg overall, the Scanias 7 to 7.5…sounds bad i know but car transporter work has always been fuel heavy, and seldom does it involves long distance trunking.
On my current work, which is tanker and full weight, a long easy motorway run might see the 10 to 10.5 (incl pressure tipping) Gingerfold mentions but i run at 52/53 mph and not just for fuel but mainly cos i can’t be arsed with all the pushing and shoving of the ‘‘on the limiter haven’t got a minute to bloody live crew’’, so by running at 52 they can all go by 10ft from the arse of the vehicle they are tailgating at any particular moment 
.
Other runs we do might be as low as 7 if it’s more local, so tipping time is a larger proportion of the fuel usage.
The driver makes all the difference, some drivers don’t give a toss and it’s foot to the floor all the way and on the throttle right up till the last second at junctions (so heavy brake and tyre wear too), their fuel consumption figures are bad, circa 2mpg+ heavier on many runs.
I’m not obsessed with idling as some trainers/managers seem to be, see i’d rather let the engine get a bit of warmth into it before asking it to work hard, and there is no way on earth i’m going to switch off an engine with red hot turbos.
Fuel wouldn’t be my only consideration when choosing a make, but if you asked me to choose an overall best bet make for good fuel usage good back up and a solid durable product that can stand some hard work, then Scania have it and by quite a margin, but that’s only my opinion and on the sort of work i do, a pure trunking job especially if not full weight then other makes might be better, horses for courses.
Thanks Juddian, I must admit the Scania is my overall favourite as well although they are not without their niggles too but I have not been in an NG yet which I believe brings their cab right up to the front row after years at the back of the class.
The Scania V8 engine seemes to be a bullit proof engine but with the 6 cylinders now easily giving 11 HP per ton in many makes you would need serious hills or weight to justify the extra purchase cost and fuel cost of the V8 I would have thought but what I see on the road says otherwise.
I’ll dream on as these are decisions I’ll not have to make anytime soon 