Any thoughts on this, I’m not talking about an R730 18 tonner or anything daft but say a 44 tonner running with a triaxle stepframe lowloader mixed work but usually within an hour or so of base running empty one way and return loaded 75-100% weight. Would an R500 be a better bet than a 440 for example.
Currently I’m tootling around in an old Scania series 4 340 26 tonner doing the same work as I was doing with a 420 of similar vintage. I’m getting about 8mpg now compared to 10 before although there is a small amount of crane work and a couple of small differences which would account for some difference. It’s noticeable the extra effort involved in lugging the thing around though, the old motor would pull all day fully loaded whereas this old girl lumbers along with any load on.
A Scania 400 engine is £1500 more than the 360 engine, I’m sure that could be recouped fairly easily over a year or two. Some feedback would be good as I might have to start campaigning soon.
We got 6 520bhp Volvos and a 530 Daf and they’re returning between 9.5 and 10mpg. Although it’s unusual for us to pull a heavy load it does happen occasionally. We had a 600bhp Actros on demo last year and that returned 10.2 over the week.
That said, the boss does not allow anything to interfere with the air flow around the truck, so no spots, air horns or mirror guards. Also the trailer is as close to the cab as possible and the curtains are as tight as a drum. Everything to make it as slippery as possible. I realise you couldn’t do that on plant work. A 4m trailer helps too.
Just had a thought, our trucks are always clean, so we’re not carting half a ton of muck around which is bound to help. Maybe a clean curtain helps with the airflow too.
These vehicles will be workhorses on day work only so no fancy spots, horns or other embellishments will interfere with the airflow. One will be an 8x2 rigid the other a three axle unit as above.
We have an old series 4 420 unit to replace, it’s a bit windy to say the least and I although I don’t drive it often I think that more a more powerful unit would be beneficial given the short distance running and amount of non dual carriageway work it gets.
The 6 wheeler is due to be replaced by an 8 which will be so we can carry more weight, it won’t be everyday but the extra capacity will mean taking some of the workload off the artic, that means moving 14t excavators and running at max weight. Having had an FM12 420 8x4 a few years back I know that even with a heavy load it mastered the work, I’m thinking that is where we need to be looking rather than smaller engines.
When the proposal was put to Scania they came up with a G400 which would I guess be ideal for the job, Volvo came in at £19k for a 370hp FM, if you junked that engine for a bigger unit you’d still be quids in, for some reason Scania are back on the scene again having chopped about £10k off the price but now are offering a P360. To my mind if that was the best vehicle for us it would have been suggested at the start, obviously they are trying to cut the cost down to compete against the Volvo, but I’ll take an FM over a P Cab any day so I’ll try and hammer my point home.
Smiths made a mistake buying smaller engines in the hope of getting better mpg; Volvo FL 6w with Deutz 7l 320 does about 7.5mpg. Crap when you consider my 12l Alpha does 9.5, although I drive it at 40 and 50. Dad was given a demo R440 with Opticruise-gutless heap when compared to his Alpha with Cat rated at 450.
(Sorry to Scania fans but Dad and I would pick Fodens anyday )
The Morrisons DAF CF crap is plated to 44t and has a 360hp engine. Gawd it’s soul destroying driving them. They die on hills when empty never mind loaded
I have had this argument before, you would all know the one who goes for 10 pages before he gets it. Yes I am talking Carryfast here. A higher horsepower engine will require lower RPM do to the same work as one of less power. On your power graph your engine will have a peak HP prior to it’s top rpm. Depending on the transmission and the rear end gearing your higher HP engine should give you better performance. The lower rpm will in theory wear less than an engine of higher rpm. I give the example of the old GMC trucks of the early 1950’s they had a high oil pressure low rpm engine that would run forever at 50 mph. The Chevrolet has a higher rpm engine with a lower oil pressure engine that would constantly have main bearing issues. With a high hp engine a high speed set of rears you should be able to mate a gearbox be it a twin shift 5 and 4 or an 18 speed that will give you your low end torque and provide lower rpm on the engine at higher speeds thus giving you better overall fuel economy. The difference is the initial cost. Many companies will look at the savings they get at the purchase price rather than the cost overall of the life of the lorry. All the chrome bling added to a lorry that reduces the airflow will decrease the fuel economy.
Steve-o:
The Morrisons DAF CF crap is plated to 44t and has a 360hp engine. Gawd it’s soul destroying driving them. They die on hills when empty never mind loaded
No wonder you can buy a used trolley on the cheap…Our subsidiary concrete firm have 8w mixers with 360s and 8 speed 'boxes; with the drum turning they’re bad enough, we’ve got 2x 6wheel Dafs with 360 plus ASTronic-gutless aswell compared to anything with a kite badge
i drove a daf 410, and a daf 460. the 460 was better on fuel than the 410.
i now drive a scania r500, it is better on fuel than the daf 460.
mcburneys are getting very good returns on their fh700.
i would expect the bigger engine trucks will last much longer, than small engine trucks.
Dave the Renegade:
Ivor Duggan & Sons run three Foden six wheelers at 26 ton,with 400 Cat engines,all giving a good mpg on fuel.
When Godfrey Smith was alive and running the lorry side of Smiths, he’d not buy anything smaller than a 10litre as he believed small engines worked harder.
Thanks for the replies chaps, it confirms what I thought.
To me it’s a no brainer, spend a little extra now and reap the benefit of lower fuel bills over the next 10 years. As fuel goes up in price the extra cost of the engine will be paid off even quicker.
I’ll have to try and stick my oar in when I get a chance but unfortunately on our firm things with wheels play poor second to those with tracks.
8wheels:
Thanks for the replies chaps, it confirms what I thought.
To me it’s a no brainer, spend a little extra now and reap the benefit of lower fuel bills over the next 10 years. As fuel goes up in price the extra cost of the engine will be paid off even quicker.
I’ll have to try and stick my oar in when I get a chance but unfortunately on our firm things with wheels play poor second to those with tracks.
Not that it will stop me campaigning.
well in 10 years your boss may not be very happy with you,we run scania r 420,s,g-400,g-380 and when it commes to mpg the little one [380] wins hans down,it ■■■■■■ on the other two,and goes just as well,id take a 380 over the other two every day.
theres obvious differences though as 400,380 are manuals,420 are autos,420,400 are non ad-blue,380,s use ad-blue.
so the theory more hp gives better mpg than less hp doesnt always work.
that said our old[innovate 480 i-shift volvoes would match the mpg of our 380 scanias,but i think that was more to do with they used to put a name and shame list on board so every one was trying to get the best figures they could as they didnt want to be bottom of pile .
if i was you id let boss make his own decision then if its the wrong one hes only got himself to blame,not you
I’m sure the boss will make his own decision and take little or no notice of my input, however at least I can moan if he buys a crap vehicle and if I stay there I might have 10 years of it.
As for the 380 surely the ad blue cost must be considered? Although the Volvo would be need it too.
As an uninformed guess I’d suppose that your 380 units are getting a lot smoother ride than our work would provide, a lot more dual carriageway and motorway than we do.
And really I just want more power so I’m not constantly changing gear all day long and thrashing the ■■■■ out of the engine, using fuel consumption is just a means to an end, it’s not monitored at present and there is no comparable vehicle to compare with.
8wheels:
I’m sure the boss will make his own decision and take little or no notice of my input, however at least I can moan if he buys a crap vehicle and if I stay there I might have 10 years of it.
As for the 380 surely the ad blue cost must be considered? Although the Volvo would be need it too.
As an uninformed guess I’d suppose that your 380 units are getting a lot smoother ride than our work would provide, a lot more dual carriageway and motorway than we do.
And really I just want more power so I’m not constantly changing gear all day long and thrashing the ■■■■ out of the engine, using fuel consumption is just a means to an end, it’s not monitored at present and there is no comparable vehicle to compare with.
you do realise the manual 400,s or ours have NO splitter[neither do the 380,s],which is my only gripe with the 380,s ,too big a gap between 8 th and 7 th without a splitter when your at top weight,the same applies to our 400,s,no splitter,if i was asking the boss for anything id ask to try a demo manual against a auto box.
you do realise as well that all our 400,s have a manualwindow winder for the drivers window instead of electric,it drives me batty winding it up and down every time you need to reverse,talk to shunter,security etc etc,i wouldnt have one for that reason alone,but that maybe how our lot spec them
Top weight for me will be 32t have driven both Volvo and Scania 8 wheelers with 4 over 4 gearboxes never bean an issue but I had a stretched unit 6wheeler with the 3 over 3 and loved it, would be happy with that.
I’ve a feeling that the gearbox on the spec sheet is the 12+2 3 over 3 unit with OptiCruise if required (uncertain about this) Fairly sure that leccy windows are part of the deal, bloody hope so had them on my last one and this current one has manual jobs which are crap.
)
.