you often here a driver say,that a particular make of truck is"gutless".this puzzles me,because i was under the impression,that if two engines made the same amount of bhp and torque…then they would perform pretty much alike.
i know bore/stroke affects midrange on motorcycle engines,but with a truck engine producing it`s power through such a narrow rev range…would it be relevant?
im also aware gearing makes a difference,but how can it be,that a similar output engine can appear so gutless when compared with its rival.
I can’t compare because I’ve only driven 1 scania 230 but it is ■■■■■■■ gutless. It needs half gears because you go up from 4 to 5 and the bloody thing dies a death I don’t know if all 230’s are the same but I’ve driven a daf 360 that pulled well I’ve talked to drivers that drive scania 360’s and they say it couldn’t pull the skin of a bowl of custard.
commonrail:
you often here a driver say,that a particular make of truck is"gutless".this puzzles me,because i was under the impression,that if two engines made the same amount of bhp and torque…then they would perform pretty much alike.
i know bore/stroke affects midrange on motorcycle engines,but with a truck engine producing it`s power through such a narrow rev range…would it be relevant?
im also aware gearing makes a difference,but how can it be,that a similar output engine can appear so gutless when compared with its rival.
tolerances?
driver myth?
But just like bikes, it depends on how that power is geared.
Pre euro messing about lorries developed far more useable power than later ■■■■■■ about with saving the world engines in my experience.
Old and bold is the way on.
When my tipper was in for MOT I ended up with a euro 4 FM with similar gg power and it really was a hick piece of junk in comparison. My old girl would pull it’s hind legs off
Tipper Tom:
Pre euro messing about lorries developed far more useable power than later ■■■■■■ about with saving the world engines in my experience.
Old and bold is the way on.
When my tipper was in for MOT I ended up with a euro 4 FM with similar gg power and it really was a hick piece of junk in comparison. My old girl would pull it’s hind legs off
Agreed. I had an elderly (even back then!) ERF E14 on heavy haulage back in 2001 or so. It had a 365 ■■■■■■■ engine and it flew. It’d pull anything too. I loved that truck, would happily swap it for almost anything I’ve driven since. Modern trucks are so dull to drive.
It’s not all about the horses. There’s a little thing called torque as well. Some manufacturers have there’s down low, hence a good pull, while others have it up high, so really take an age to hit top performance. Then there’s the gear box and final drive ratios. So next time you think your truck is a pile of ■■■■, just think, it might be your boss who’s ■■■■ for not choosing the right set up
Regular servicing makes a huge difference.
If you don’t change the fuel filter and air filters regular, Then you’ll end up driving a gutless piece of crap. But it’ll be your fault that it’s using loads of fuel. Not the mechanics, Not the transport managers, and not the directors fault. It’ll all be down to you.
Don’t think it necessarily has to be makes/models, can have a noticeable difference between identical units doing the same work. Run I’m on just now I can be in 10 different units a week all same model/spec, some are plodders, some fly.
chicane:
Don’t think it necessarily has to be makes/models, can have a noticeable difference between identical units doing the same work. Run I’m on just now I can be in 10 different units a week all same model/spec, some are plodders, some fly.
When we had a fleet of Gardner powered Fodens it was surprising how different they performed. Some driver’s used to run them in religiously keeping the revs down for the first few weeks and they never did pull well. Gardners themselves used to advise running at full rpm but being careful not to over rev them (which you could easily do with a Foden 12 speed g/box) and those lorries always performed better. I had a Foden with the Rolls 265 Li engine and it was always a gear down on hills compared to the other similar engined trucks, but apparently the fuel consumption was slightly better!
I presume it all depends where this peak power comes in the rev range, an example being a Daf PACCAR MX340 engine (in the XF105 and CF85) produces 460bhp between 1500-1900 rpm and it produces 2300nm between 1000-1400 rpm. So unless your giving it some your very rarely going to be using max power.
Got those figures off their website
My regular drive is a CF65 with 220 BHP not sure about the torque, 4 other drivers have got Merc Axors 1824 and when fully freighted the DAF steams on whilst the MERCS drop right back!
Foxstein:
I presume it all depends where this peak power comes in the rev range, an example being a Daf PACCAR MX340 engine (in the XF105 and CF85) produces 460bhp between 1500-1900 rpm and it produces 2300nm between 1000-1400 rpm. So unless your giving it some your very rarely going to be using max power.
Got those figures off their website
Power is not something that should ever be used to its full extent in a lorry, all you will get by revving a modern diesel engine that high is a lot of noise and empty fuel tanks
Torque is what makes the truck move, so the 1000-1400rpm range is where you need to be to get the most pulling power
Depends on the set up regarding tubos etc, a turbo can increase the pulling power by vast amounts. I have driven 250’s in the past and been whipped by other makes of trucks with 250’s in them and in the same respect I have blown away other 250’s.
n the company I now work for I have had 3 trucks since starting, my first 04 Columbia pulled very well with the Merc 450 under the bonnet but used lots of fuel, my second 06 Columbia also had a 450 Merc, pulled a bit better and used far less fuel, my current Cascadia has a 450 Detroit in it and will out pull both of those, it also does one more mile per gallon.
Not that many of you will know where I am refering to but when I leave NYC heading north over the Tappan Zee Bridge with a full load of sugar for Ben & Jerry’s there is a long climb immediately after the bridge, it is about a mile of a bit more, with the Columbia’s I would be down the box at least 2 gears and down to 45 mph, with the Cascadia I drop 1 gear and it never drops bellow 55 mph. Same size engine, just different set ups.
Pat Hasler:
Depends on the set up regarding tubos etc, a turbo can increase the pulling power by vast amounts. I have driven 250’s in the past and been whipped by other makes of trucks with 250’s in them and in the same respect I have blown away other 250’s.
n the company I now work for I have had 3 trucks since starting, my first 04 Columbia pulled very well with the Merc 450 under the bonnet but used lots of fuel, my second 06 Columbia also had a 450 Merc, pulled a bit better and used far less fuel, my current Cascadia has a 450 Detroit in it and will out pull both of those, it also does one more mile per gallon.
Not that many of you will know where I am refering to but when I leave NYC heading north over the Tappan Zee Bridge with a full load of sugar for Ben & Jerry’s there is a long climb immediately after the bridge, it is about a mile of a bit more, with the Columbia’s I would be down the box at least 2 gears and down to 45 mph, with the Cascadia I drop 1 gear and it never drops bellow 55 mph. Same size engine, just different set ups.
Not strictly true, you have had three different trucks with three different EPA compliant engines, each one has totally different ECM settings to get through the emission regs, so each one will have different driving characteristics
.
