Hi,
What kind of MPG of people getting from their rigid demount wagons with or without trailers?
Thanks
Paul
I would have thought a question like that would need to be based on what type of routes the vehicle is used over, along with the weight of load carried. The make of truck, engine size, gearbox ratios, height of the demount body and if it is a drawbar towing a trailer…too many permutations.
Twoninety88:
I would have thought a question like that would need to be based on what type of routes the vehicle is used over, along with the weight of load carried. The make of truck, engine size, gearbox ratios, height of the demount body and if it is a drawbar towing a trailer…too many permutations.
Fair point … to make it clearer we currently run a 460 hp Volvo FH12 12 speed manual hauling lightweight stuff (mainly Ifor Williams horse boxes, which are bulky but only weigh about a ton each) also we do some hay & straw work which is a bit heavier. Currently, we get x3 horse boxes to a 45ft artic and it’s running at 8.5 mpg (off the dash) seems to me that that is a hell of a lot of diesel for not a lot of weight (loaded we are only at 17t). Admittedly the tractor unit is a 2003 so not very new but even so it seems a big extravagant. Consequently, I was wondering about going to a 310 hp drawbar unit (say a Daf CF 310 hp or Renault Premium 320 hp) & trailer but am not clear what kind of MPG that would likely result in?
Never found dash board readings very accurate, probably better doing it the old fashion way of brimming the tank, say over three occasions & taking the mileage each time and then working out the average mpg.
Diggerlot:
Twoninety88:
I would have thought a question like that would need to be based on what type of routes the vehicle is used over, along with the weight of load carried. The make of truck, engine size, gearbox ratios, height of the demount body and if it is a drawbar towing a trailer…too many permutations.Fair point … to make it clearer we currently run a 460 hp Volvo FH12 12 speed manual hauling lightweight stuff (mainly Ifor Williams horse boxes, which are bulky but only weigh about a ton each) also we do some hay & straw work which is a bit heavier. Currently, we get x3 horse boxes to a 45ft artic and it’s running at 8.5 mpg (off the dash) seems to me that that is a hell of a lot of diesel for not a lot of weight (loaded we are only at 17t). Admittedly the tractor unit is a 2003 so not very new but even so it seems a big extravagant. Consequently, I was wondering about going to a 310 hp drawbar unit (say a Daf CF 310 hp or Renault Premium 320 hp) & trailer but am not clear what kind of MPG that would likely result in?
With those figures I would be looking at something wrong with truck, at top weight a 460fh would be doing 8-9mog. New filters all round, clean out the sender pipe and filter, adjust valve clearance.
Volvos of the early and mid noughties were heavy on fuel, i drove car transporters in those days where the overall bulk of the fleet were 420 Volvos and 420 Scanias, car transporters are heavy on fuel anyway and these where heavily used and abused but the Volvos were averaging 6mpg whilst the Scanias did 7 or more, 1+mpg at those figures is quite a percentage.
Those 420 Scanias of the later noughties were among the most economical and reliable vehicles i’ve ever driven, have actually see over 15mpg out of one on a complete journey but that was exceptionally light load both ways (not even the tare weight of a transporter) even if it did include 2 London drops.
However depending on the terrain and type of running, considering you are also carrying hay and straw if you are getting 8.5 from a Volvo 460 of that vintage you aren’t doing too bad in my humble, if you were on constant motorway running at those weights then i’d be looking for 10mpg.
As always the way those things are driven makes the world of difference, the same lorry over the same journeys can easily be a 2 mpg difference between drivers.
If the current vehicle is reliable (much simpler vehicles from that era, far less to go wrong) it might be just as well to keep the present outfit, maybe have a chat with the driver(s) and see if some better economy might be possible (it always is), if it works out maybe see the driver gets some extra in his pay packet for the fuel savings…note i don’t suggest you have the vehicle de-rated or its max speed reduced, they tried derating the 420 Volvos where i worked at the time which only served to make them even heavier on fuel due to needing lower gears to climb hills etc.
Diggerlot:
Twoninety88:
I would have thought a question like that would need to be based on what type of routes the vehicle is used over, along with the weight of load carried. The make of truck, engine size, gearbox ratios, height of the demount body and if it is a drawbar towing a trailer…too many permutations.Fair point … to make it clearer we currently run a 460 hp Volvo FH12 12 speed manual hauling lightweight stuff (mainly Ifor Williams horse boxes, which are bulky but only weigh about a ton each) also we do some hay & straw work which is a bit heavier. Currently, we get x3 horse boxes to a 45ft artic and it’s running at 8.5 mpg (off the dash) seems to me that that is a hell of a lot of diesel for not a lot of weight (loaded we are only at 17t). Admittedly the tractor unit is a 2003 so not very new but even so it seems a big extravagant. Consequently, I was wondering about going to a 310 hp drawbar unit (say a Daf CF 310 hp or Renault Premium 320 hp) & trailer but am not clear what kind of MPG that would likely result in?
A horse box on the back of a flatbed is going to be quite tall and they’re not going to be aerodynamic either. Personally I would say 8.5 mpg average for the types of work you do is pretty normal if a lot of it is rural and/or towny driving (ie. as opposed to cruise control motorway long distance). If you’re up hill and down dale a lot then you can’t make mpg comparisons to those who spend 90% of their time cruising along motorways at 56 in 12th. By downrating the engine or getting a lower power output truck you won’t have achieve anything positive imo as all that will happen is the engine will have to be worked harder to get the same results.
In your shoes I would stick with what you’ve got but focus my attention of ensuring the truck and trailer is running right. Eg. are all the tyre pressures good? When were they last checked? (tyre pressures thread: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=89338&hilit=tyre+pressures). Is the truck running at the right temperature and the temp gauge needle sitting bang in the middle of the dial? We recently discovered on our DAF that the tyre pressures on the unit and trailer were all between 10-45 (!) psi under pressure on some tyres and a faulty thermostat also causing the engine to constantly overfuel (never got out of the blue on the gauge) were wreaking havoc on the mpg. Also look at how the driver drives it. A lot of the old school drivers still think that the best way of driving modern trucks is to thrash every gear to 2.5k when given a manual box.
dave docwra:
Never found dash board readings very accurate, probably better doing it the old fashion way of brimming the tank, say over three occasions & taking the mileage each time and then working out the average mpg.
Our yard pump shows it when filling up a truck , works out the MPG from the Kms we put in to activate the pump
Sent from my truck
Mick Bracewell:
Diggerlot:
Twoninety88:
I would have thought a question like that would need to be based on what type of routes the vehicle is used over, along with the weight of load carried. The make of truck, engine size, gearbox ratios, height of the demount body and if it is a drawbar towing a trailer…too many permutations.Fair point … to make it clearer we currently run a 460 hp Volvo FH12 12 speed manual hauling lightweight stuff (mainly Ifor Williams horse boxes, which are bulky but only weigh about a ton each) also we do some hay & straw work which is a bit heavier. Currently, we get x3 horse boxes to a 45ft artic and it’s running at 8.5 mpg (off the dash) seems to me that that is a hell of a lot of diesel for not a lot of weight (loaded we are only at 17t). Admittedly the tractor unit is a 2003 so not very new but even so it seems a big extravagant. Consequently, I was wondering about going to a 310 hp drawbar unit (say a Daf CF 310 hp or Renault Premium 320 hp) & trailer but am not clear what kind of MPG that would likely result in?
A horse box on the back of a flatbed is going to be quite tall and they’re not going to be aerodynamic either. Personally I would say 8.5 mpg average for the types of work you do is pretty normal if a lot of it is rural and/or towny driving (ie. as opposed to cruise control motorway long distance). If you’re up hill and down dale a lot then you can’t make mpg comparisons to those who spend 90% of their time cruising along motorways at 56 in 12th. By downrating the engine or getting a lower power output truck you won’t have achieve anything positive imo as all that will happen is the engine will have to be worked harder to get the same results.
A lot of the old school drivers still think that the best way of driving modern trucks is to thrash every gear to 2.5k when given a manual box.
Came from a different school to the ones i know, if anything old school drivers keep the revs lower than otherwise, you are describing typical tear arse haven’t a minute to live bods stitched into perma hivis vests who thrash every vehicle mercilessly and drive constantly on the brakes, and due to ‘‘one size fits all based on the lowest possible bar’’ methods of management the real drivers are now demoted to being steering wheel operatives alongside the idiots who couldn’t drive a proper lorry to save their miserable skins.
Ok understood but back to my original questions if I can’t expect that much better from the artic … then what would be average MPG for an 18t rigid with a similar bulky but lightweight load?
Diggerlot:
Ok understood but back to my original questions if I can’t expect that much better from the artic … then what would be average MPG for an 18t rigid with a similar bulky but lightweight load?
Much the same. The end weight and shape of the combination is near enough the same. The only difference is that with a rigid you’ll probably be 100hp less which will likely see the driver keeping the revs higher in order to maintain momentum on the hills = more fuel used to compensate. I think you’d be making a big mistake and will regret going down that road personally. How heavy is a full load of wet straw and hay bales? Every W&G combination I see pulling them is a 26t unit and tri-axle trailer. You’re on about an 18 tonner for the prime mover. If your hay and straw bales are more than about 9.5 tonne then you’ll be illegal.
Stick with your unit. It’s a known quantity and you know its history and condition. To replace it with a W&G you’re buying unknowns and if they have underlying issues not apparent at inspection then it would cost you far more in repairs and downtime than your 8.5 mpg ‘known’ artic is costing you in fuel.
At the end of the day it’s your choice but don’t be surprised if your driver walks when you take his 460 away and present him with a 320 Renault rigid.
Diggerlot:
Ok understood but back to my original questions if I can’t expect that much better from the artic … then what would be average MPG for an 18t rigid with a similar bulky but lightweight load?
checked fuel receipts for the last couple of weeks, as I always brim tank and miles are recorded. My (04) six wheeler rigid carries 10-12ft wide loads solid in shape that are lightweight but obviously are as aerodynamic as a concrete block. It averages about 10mpg which does sound awful, but probably expected really given the loads moved and also doing mixed work of local runs and long distance.