Hi all, I have a question and I’ve searched online for an answer for a couple of hours, but can’t find the answer I’m looking for.
I’m trying to find a list of mpg fuel consumption for hgv’s, either for new trucks or a few years old, but everywhere that I’ve looked I can’t find anything.
I want to look at the mpg figures and compare them to see what engines and manufacturers are the most fuel efficient.
I would have thought that each truck manufacturer would have to give an official mpg figure, like car manufacturers do, admittedly I’d take their figures with a pinch of salt.
If anyone can point me in the right direction, I’d appreciate it.
Thanks for the reply. I thought they’d have had some kind of yard stick for measurement, guess not though. Must make things a bit harder for people comparing trucks though.
Manufacturers would lie drivers do lie so just pluck a figure out of thin air regarding fuel consumption and stick with it.My own Maggie at 40 ton runs about 8.5mpg.my buddy with a Volvo FH 500 hp well he swears he gets 10mpg doing the same work and I dare say others will be getting 15/20/25
If you read the truck tests in publications such as commercial motor, or roadway magazine normally include fuel figures. If you read these road test you will see there is hardly any difference between manufacturers, IMHO you need to be carefull in having the correct specification for your application, and employ a good well trained driver.
It’s a real “How long is a piece of string?” question. Driving up the motorway with a load of cornflakes and multidropping concrete around Central London are two totally different things, and different trucks might get better returns on one but not the other.
On mixed but mostly heavy running, my Renault Magnum 500 DXI gave 7.95 mpg over 7000km on a brim-to-brim check when I worked it out last week. Regular drivers claim to be getting over 10mpg on the same work but I can’t see it myself, it’s the usual lorry driver tale of “If you’ve been to Tenerife, he’s been to Elevenerife”
Hmmm, they’re all interesting and valid points. Thanks for the input.
So, in experience, are bigger engines more economical in general than smaller engines? Is a 500 bhp engine better on fuel than a 420, because it’s not having to be driven as hard? You know, same driver, same loads, same weather, or would there not be much in it? Guess they’re more difficult questions without clear answers…
Spooky558:
Hmmm, they’re all interesting and valid points. Thanks for the input.
So, in experience, are bigger engines more economical in general than smaller engines? Is a 500 bhp engine better on fuel than a 420, because it’s not having to be driven as hard? You know, same driver, same loads, same weather, or would there not be much in it? Guess they’re more difficult questions without clear answers…
We run steel at 44 tonnes.
About 10 years ago we used to do a regular run from Manchester to Scarborough which being loaded fully both ways was a bit of a fuel burner. Every truck went on it for a month at a time, and it’s fuel economy took a battering for that month. The interesting thing was we were running Volvo fh’s then too, with either 380, 420 or 460 engines. The 380’s were better on fuel on relatively flat runs but took a big dive on the Scarborough work, whereas the 460 used slightly more fuel on flat runs, but although fuel took a dive on the Scarborough job it wasn’t as big a drop as the 380’s was. Overall the 460 was best on fuel.
So in my opinion, as we now do mixed work I tend to go for a 480 or 460. If I was doing m62 corridor regularly I’d go for a bigger engine, 500 or 520. Or if I had a truck on a flat trunking job I’d go for a 420. It all depends what work you’re doing.
Spooky558:
Hmmm, they’re all interesting and valid points. Thanks for the input.
So, in experience, are bigger engines more economical in general than smaller engines? Is a 500 bhp engine better on fuel than a 420, because it’s not having to be driven as hard? You know, same driver, same loads, same weather, or would there not be much in it? Guess they’re more difficult questions without clear answers…
We run steel at 44 tonnes.
About 10 years ago we used to do a regular run from Manchester to Scarborough which being loaded fully both ways was a bit of a fuel burner. Every truck went on it for a month at a time, and it’s fuel economy took a battering for that month. The interesting thing was we were running Volvo fh’s then too, with either 380, 420 or 460 engines. The 380’s were better on fuel on relatively flat runs but took a big dive on the Scarborough work, whereas the 460 used slightly more fuel on flat runs, but although fuel took a dive on the Scarborough job it wasn’t as big a drop as the 380’s was. Overall the 460 was best on fuel.
So in my opinion, as we now do mixed work I tend to go for a 480 or 460. If I was doing m62 corridor regularly I’d go for a bigger engine, 500 or 520. Or if I had a truck on a flat trunking job I’d go for a 420. It all depends what work you’re doing.
Spooky558:
Hmmm, they’re all interesting and valid points. Thanks for the input.
So, in experience, are bigger engines more economical in general than smaller engines? Is a 500 bhp engine better on fuel than a 420, because it’s not having to be driven as hard? You know, same driver, same loads, same weather, or would there not be much in it? Guess they’re more difficult questions without clear answers…
We run steel at 44 tonnes.
About 10 years ago we used to do a regular run from Manchester to Scarborough which being loaded fully both ways was a bit of a fuel burner. Every truck went on it for a month at a time, and it’s fuel economy took a battering for that month. The interesting thing was we were running Volvo fh’s then too, with either 380, 420 or 460 engines. The 380’s were better on fuel on relatively flat runs but took a big dive on the Scarborough work, whereas the 460 used slightly more fuel on flat runs, but although fuel took a dive on the Scarborough job it wasn’t as big a drop as the 380’s was. Overall the 460 was best on fuel.
So in my opinion, as we now do mixed work I tend to go for a 480 or 460. If I was doing m62 corridor regularly I’d go for a bigger engine, 500 or 520. Or if I had a truck on a flat trunking job I’d go for a 420. It all depends what work you’re doing.
If you read the truck tests in publications such as commercial motor, or roadway magazine normally include fuel figures. If you read these road test you will see there is hardly any difference between manufacturers, IMHO you need to be carefull in having the correct specification for your application, and employ a good well trained driver.
What Coiler says^^^^ the fabled Scania flat out and 11.5 mpg economy argument falls apart when Commercial Motor run them round their regular test route with the same ballasted trailer and they struggle to break past 8mpg, and a downhill racing DAF beats them by .5 mpg
argument falls apart when Commercial Motor run them round their regular test route with the same ballasted trailer and they struggle to break past 8mpg, and a downhill racing DAF beats them by .5 mpg 