This new 500bhp 6 cylinder engine, can’t see any mention of turbocompound anywhere, have Scania quietly dropped this from their line up?.
I’ve seen one now in the ‘flesh’ so to speak & it starting to grow on me…
Defo looks VW group now with those headlights. Reminds me of the new touareg ,Golf ,Polo etc…
the outside dont look much better than a DAF…the new VW concept is far greater than this scania, i am biased anyway, but the vw will need some beating.
They have a couple in Haydock Commercials and welcome you to look around it.
Carryfast:
Rikki-UK:
I could go on about what they have got right with this new range,Going by the discussion going on concerning nmm’s Volvo D13 timing cover leak saga and expense,for one example,the choice between pushrod Scania V8 v OHC/CIH Volvo,should be a no brainer no matter how the Scania might look.
An ohc/ cih engine will have direct operation of the valves and lends itself very easy to variable valve timing/ vanos. The Volvo engine is a far more advanced and efficient engine than Scanias outdated pushrod V8…
routier:
First (Dutch) One on the road?0
That surely is the frankenstein of all current trucks. Looks like three different designers (front/side/rear) have all cobbled their ideas together and came up with one really hideous creation. One big square block for the front yet they stick an air deflector on the roof 
Someone at Scania very obviously thought ‘this looks good’ before signing it off… 
It still looks like a scania…and after 2 years of development…ha ha money for old rope if you ask me…no dont… anyway to me it doesnt look much different to the last series apart from a slight tweak on the front, and a bit stuck on the roof…the sides are exactly the same…Look at the difference between a Renault series, and a magnum…totally different, thats what a change should look like…
Manufacturers today should look at changes to the inside, ( yes scania have good storage ) but the old 141 had a bloody wardrobe to hang clothes up in, they should build showers in and a toilet, even if they have to campaign for a bit of extra length…this is what drivers want, especially trampers who spend a week away, or the international boys who are away for weeks. At the end of the day, the bosses have to have a say, as they are more prone to know what drivers want, or what drivers need, ( not the type of bosses who cut off the aircon to save 20p a day ) but real bosses. Anyway, the ne VW concept truck is way ahead of this piece of crap, and yes i am biased , theyre uncomfortable, the sun visor is useless, but the engine is good, so ok for a bosses point of view. But give me a Daf anyday.
Here it is in the flesh
Shame about the bland Euro-dance music, but that truck does look good. Though I must say, what really struck me about that video was how beautiful the roads were!
is it correct that they come with a twin plate box as standard ?
AndrewG:
An ohc/ cih engine will have direct operation of the valves and lends itself very easy to variable valve timing/ vanos. The Volvo engine is a far more advanced and efficient engine than Scanias outdated pushrod V8…
How does CIH have any more ‘direct’ operation of the valves than a pushrod motor has. 
IE they both use rockers to operate the valves.Meanwhile Scania’s pushrod V8 is anything but outdated in addition to obviously being a lot easier and therefore cheaper to work on in the case of a heads off job and/or all the resulting aggro of a rear drive CIH set up in the case of a timing cover seal leak.
As for VVT why bother in the case of a forced induction engine.Or even in the case of a naturally aspirated car engine.Which is probably why an old tech pushrod Monaro or VXR8 holds it value better than a modern BMW which is worth relative peanuts with a few miles on it.
Carryfast:
AndrewG:
An ohc/ cih engine will have direct operation of the valves and lends itself very easy to variable valve timing/ vanos. The Volvo engine is a far more advanced and efficient engine than Scanias outdated pushrod V8…How does CIH have any more ‘direct’ operation of the valves than a pushrod motor has.
As for VVT why bother in the case of a forced induction engine.Or even in the case of a naturally aspirated car engine.Which is probably why an old tech pushrod Monaro or VXR8 holds it value better than a modern BMW which is worth relative peanuts with a few miles on it.
I can’t imagine push rods being much of a disadvantage in a slow revving engines. Overhead cams are important in high revving short life performance engines.
double post
Bluey Circles:
Overhead cams are important in high revving short life performance engines.
It’s just another myth. 
AndrewG:
Carryfast:
AndrewG:
An ohc/ cih engine will have direct operation of the valves and lends itself very easy to variable valve timing/ vanos. The Volvo engine is a far more advanced and efficient engine than Scanias outdated pushrod V8…How does CIH have any more ‘direct’ operation of the valves than a pushrod motor has.
As for VVT why bother in the case of a forced induction engine.Or even in the case of a naturally aspirated car engine.Which is probably why an old tech pushrod Monaro or VXR8 holds it value better than a modern BMW which is worth relative peanuts with a few miles on it.
An overhead cam engine has direct contact via buckets on the valves and a cam in head engine operates the valves through short rockers. An overhead valve engine (as per Scanias V8) has very long pushrods acting on rockers which add flex in the valve train. Variable valve timing reuces overlap at low rpm to increase torque output and efficiency and increases it higher up the rev range to improve power output, these are the advantages of VVt. Forced induction or naturally aspirated, VVT has the same advantages. The V8 Scania although still being able to push out the hp numbers is technologically way behind on much newer designed engines like Volvos 13litre and 16litre range.
As for comparing a Monaro with a BMW theyre chalk and cheese. The Vauxhall is way behind on tech and quality compared to the German car and i would suggest the BMW will always ultimately be the more desirable car. Compare the VXR8 with an M5, there really is no comparison…
AndrewG:
An overhead cam engine has direct contact via buckets on the valves and a cam in head engine operates the valves through short rockers. An overhead valve engine (as per Scanias V8) has very long pushrods acting on rockers which add flex in the valve train. Variable valve timing reuces overlap at low rpm to increase torque output and efficiency and increases it higher up the rev range to improve power output, these are the advantages of VVt. Forced induction or naturally aspirated, VVT has the same advantages. The V8 Scania although still being able to push out the hp numbers is technologically way behind on much newer designed engines like Volvos 13litre and 16litre range.
As for comparing a Monaro with a BMW theyre chalk and cheese. The Vauxhall is way behind on tech and quality compared to the German car and i would suggest the BMW will always ultimately be the more desirable car. Compare the VXR8 with an M5, there really is no comparison…
As I said how many VVT CIH engines are there and what is the point anyway in the case of a low revving forced induction truck diesel when it’s just more pointless tech to go wrong.Bearing in mind the Scania V8’s specific torque potential which currently stands at around 160 lb/ft per litre.
As for the LS powered VXR8 v E39 M5 V8 for example either in terms of their respective output potential or maintenance costs or residual values which part have I got wrong.
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
Overhead cams are important in high revving short life performance engines.It’s just another myth.
those nascar engines have always flown into the face of logic, I believe they also have a relatively long stroke which is an odd feature in such an engine.
But getting back to the point I was making, there is no obvious major advantage in having overhead cams on a low revving engine.
Bluey Circles:
But getting back to the point I was making, there is no obvious major advantage in having overhead cams on a low revving engine.
As I said at around 160 lb/ft per litre the Scania motor obviously has the ideal combination of output and pushrod simplicity and therefore lower maintenance costs.Compared to its more complicated CIH opposition. On that note if it was me I’d try to get it into the US market as a loose option in competition with Volvo/Mack and Detroit and ■■■■■■■ the former and latter of which seeming to have their problems.
Bluey Circles:
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
Overhead cams are important in high revving short life performance engines.It’s just another myth.
those nascar engines have always flown into the face of logic, I believe they also have a relatively long stroke which is an odd feature in such an engine.
But getting back to the point I was making, there is no obvious major advantage in having overhead cams on a low revving engine.
But there is…less valve train components meaning less reciprocating mass.