cieranc:
Why you lads need 700 to pull a fridge ■■
It’s simple mathematics.If you’ve got something that can put out more horsepower at 1,000 rpm than something else can put out at 1,500 rpm it’s the more powerful one that will be more economical.The problem comes when someone decides to run the more powerful one up to peak power instead of just being happy with using the same amount of power as the less powerful one has.
Not true.
Stevie
If it’s not true then you wouldn’t have modern trucks with 400-500 bhp that are a lot more fuel efficient than ones of only 300-400 during the 1980’s.It’s all about torque which just means power at as low rpm as possible.
Had a 3.5 V8 landy once, tuned perfectly, in good health, even when I only crept along barely tickling the throttle, it would only ever return about 14-16 mpg at best.
Also had a 2.25 petrol landy, which was absolutely gutless, had to rev the nackers off it just to make it go. Was a tired old bus. Still did 19-20 mpg though, even though it got flogged everywhere it went.
Try a 4.6 V8 Land Rover v the 2.2 but with both pulling a zb great big heavy trailer.
Had a 3.5 V8 landy once, tuned perfectly, in good health, even when I only crept along barely tickling the throttle, it would only ever return about 14-16 mpg at best.
Also had a 2.25 petrol landy, which was absolutely gutless, had to rev the nackers off it just to make it go. Was a tired old bus. Still did 19-20 mpg though, even though it got flogged everywhere it went.
Try a 4.6 V8 Land Rover v the 2.2 but with both pulling a zb great big heavy trailer.
Yeah, good point. Though both were 109’s and both regulary pulled the same 3 ton trailer.
One with the little engine always got more mpg, had to kick its head in to get it to move mind.
cieranc:
Geoff Johnson was telling me that their Actros Titan (8x6) pulling the full set of Nicholas bogies, did 3mpg empty, and 1mpg loaded (200ton).
I used to have a driver that could get very similar mpg figures to those
How is that justifiable??
As im in the rail industry, i know for a fact that the V16 MTU thats 2500 HP and is fitted in the “125 HST” fleet still returns 1 mile to the gallon! There is 2 of them on one train mind you.
One thing that comes to mind is that trains run on steel wheels, less drag. In my case we don’t run above 44 tonne so the driver was just crap, or he was nicking the fuel, either way he didn’t last long
cieranc:
Why you lads need 700 to pull a fridge ■■
It’s simple mathematics.If you’ve got something that can put out more horsepower at 1,000 rpm than something else can put out at 1,500 rpm it’s the more powerful one that will be more economical.The problem comes when someone decides to run the more powerful one up to peak power instead of just being happy with using the same amount of power as the less powerful one has.
Not true.
Stevie
If it’s not true then you wouldn’t have modern trucks with 400-500 bhp that are a lot more fuel efficient than ones of only 300-400 during the 1980’s.It’s all about torque which just means power at as low rpm as possible.
If what you say was true, tesco would have a fleet of 380hp V8 16 litre Scanny P cabs and V8 Axors . Frictional losses from a 12 litre six are far less than those of a 16 litre 6 or V8 tuned for the same hp, hence the death of the long stroke diesel.
cieranc:
Why you lads need 700 to pull a fridge ■■
It’s simple mathematics.If you’ve got something that can put out more horsepower at 1,000 rpm than something else can put out at 1,500 rpm it’s the more powerful one that will be more economical.The problem comes when someone decides to run the more powerful one up to peak power instead of just being happy with using the same amount of power as the less powerful one has.
Not true.
Stevie
If it’s not true then you wouldn’t have modern trucks with 400-500 bhp that are a lot more fuel efficient than ones of only 300-400 during the 1980’s.It’s all about torque which just means power at as low rpm as possible.
If what you say was true, tesco would have a fleet of 380hp V8 16 litre Scanny P cabs and V8 Axors . Frictional losses from a 12 litre six are far less than those of a 16 litre 6 or V8 tuned for the same hp, hence the death of the long stroke diesel.
What I say is true because Tesco have probably never even tried the idea of putting a 560 on the job, governed to just sufficient rpm to provide 380-400 bhp max.
raymundo:
And this one is my next ‘drivin’ job for a month or two. And just like most UK roads not rolled very flat !
Credit for the picture to Danny of ‘‘solwayshipping’’
For a moment I thought Richard Long Transport had gone to sea (his colours )
Not quite, his are a tad darker and dare I say ‘much better quality paint application’ but thanks to Volvo, Daf an Scania and not some bored Fillipino sailor with his mind on something else when he throws the paint on.
BTW as had been stated before in another thread, WTF has this to do with a truckin forum ■■
If what you say was true, tesco would have a fleet of 380hp V8 16 litre Scanny P cabs and V8 Axors . Frictional losses from a 12 litre six are far less than those of a 16 litre 6 or V8 tuned for the same hp, hence the death of the long stroke diesel.
[/quote]
Im sure when Volvo changed from the 12L to 13L engine the new motor is now a longer stroke for more torque, fh13 440 more torque than fh12 460.
NB12:
If what you say was true, tesco would have a fleet of 380hp V8 16 litre Scanny P cabs and V8 Axors . Frictional losses from a 12 litre six are far less than those of a 16 litre 6 or V8 tuned for the same hp, hence the death of the long stroke diesel.
Im sure when Volvo changed from the 12L to 13L engine the new motor is now a longer stroke for more torque, fh13 440 more torque than fh12 460.
The FH13 engine will still be a short stroke motor compared to some of the thumpers that were around in the early days. Despite Carryfast knowing better Volvo must feel that the 13l is probably the optimum size for max efficiency running at the 400-500 hp bracket, and torque is now largely determined by cpu programming.
Carryfast:
If it’s not true then you wouldn’t have modern trucks with 400-500 bhp that are a lot more fuel efficient than ones of only 300-400 during the 1980’s.It’s all about torque which just means power at as low rpm as possible.
Hmmmm… Common rail, electrical injectors, ECU, variable geometry turbines, lighter and stronger pistons/rods/cranks/cams, fuel pre heaters, clutched alternators, variable valve timing and other engine loveliness that’s standard now but wasn’t mainstream in the 80’s have anything to do with it?
Carryfast:
If it’s not true then you wouldn’t have modern trucks with 400-500 bhp that are a lot more fuel efficient than ones of only 300-400 during the 1980’s.It’s all about torque which just means power at as low rpm as possible.
Hmmmm… Common rail, electrical injectors, ECU, variable geometry turbines, lighter and stronger pistons/rods/cranks/cams, fuel pre heaters, clutched alternators, variable valve timing and other engine loveliness that’s standard now but wasn’t mainstream in the 80’s have anything to do with it?
Most of which go’s into managing an engine to produce optimum torque at optimum rpm.Which means as much as possible at as low rpm as possible.
NB12:
If what you say was true, tesco would have a fleet of 380hp V8 16 litre Scanny P cabs and V8 Axors . Frictional losses from a 12 litre six are far less than those of a 16 litre 6 or V8 tuned for the same hp, hence the death of the long stroke diesel.
Im sure when Volvo changed from the 12L to 13L engine the new motor is now a longer stroke for more torque, fh13 440 more torque than fh12 460.
Volvo must feel that the 13l is probably the optimum size for max efficiency running at the 400-500 hp bracket.
Absolutely if someone is going to run a 560-730 bhp V8 Scania up to max power in each gear running at 40-44 t max.
But drive the thing without running it above 1,000-1,100 rpm,at which point it’s putting out over 400 bhp,then things might look a bit different.
Carryfast:
But drive the thing without running it above 1,000-1,100 rpm,at which point it’s putting out over 400 bhp,then things might look a bit different.
I’m sure Volvo, Scania and Merc have tried that one, their R&D look at all sorts of alternatives to come up with the most economical engines to give them an advantage over one another, but whatever
A big low stressed engine will give decent economy if as carryfast says it is driven using the low down power. If you think about it most tesco motors only run 28 32 ton tops so the power to weight ratio is probally fairly good.
Carryfast:
But drive the thing without running it above 1,000-1,100 rpm,at which point it’s putting out over 400 bhp,then things might look a bit different.
I’m sure Volvo, Scania and Merc have tried that one, their R&D look at all sorts of alternatives to come up with the most economical engines
They probably already know it but it’s all about price.But they just haven’t worked out yet that rationalising the product,to using just one (big powerful) engine,that’s just rev limited to the power needed for the application,and getting rid of all the rest (should) make it possible to supply a torque monster V8 for the price of a six cylinder by economies of scale.
Carryfast:
But drive the thing without running it above 1,000-1,100 rpm,at which point it’s putting out over 400 bhp,then things might look a bit different.
I’m sure Volvo, Scania and Merc have tried that one, their R&D look at all sorts of alternatives to come up with the most economical engines
They probably already know it but it’s all about price.But they just haven’t worked out yet that rationalising the product,to using just one (big powerful) engine,that’s just rev limited to the power needed for the application,and getting rid of all the rest (should) make it possible to supply a torque monster V8 for the price of a six cylinder by economies of scale.
Carryfast:
They probably already know it but it’s all about price.But they just haven’t worked out yet that rationalising the product,to using just one (big powerful) engine,that’s just rev limited to the power needed for the application,and getting rid of all the rest (should) make it possible to supply a torque monster V8 for the price of a six cylinder by economies of scale.
You seem to be ignoring (or are ignorant of) the notion that most of the big manufacturers produce these engines for markets other than trucks, and it could be argued that for some manufacturers more of these engines end up in these markets than in hevy trucks. These markets include marine, plant and large generator applications, and all of them will generally use the same basic engine block which is tuned to suit the particular application, meaning the economy of scale for truck applications is not necessarily as important as you think.
Also, lets not forget that such a ‘generic’ V8 engine as you describe is, by any stretch of the imagination (yes, even yours), going to be a large item of equipment and of considerable mass. This will not suit the many applications (inclusing those I listed above) where midrange 6-cylinder engines currently rule the roost, such as tipper operations which are sensitive to the physical size and mass of an engine block.
I would love to see Scania squeeze such a V8 under the cab of a P-series 8 wheeler, and I doubt the operators would be too fond of the payload hit either!
