All things being equal (same truck, driver, trailer, load, route etc) is it feasible that a brand new truck will achieve 0.5mpg better fuel consumption than, say, a 4 year old truck with approx 400k kms on it?
Stan
I would have thought a “run in” motor would be a tad better on fuel than a brand fire new “tight” one IMO
Fly sheet
our 2 yr old 380 g-cabs are achieving 11/12/13 mpg , the new g-400 are 8/9 mpg .
is it the fact they dont ue ad-blue unlike the 380 that do, no idea but id not go down the lines of thinking a new truck gars better m.p.g.these certainly dont
This weeks CM suggests that modern wagons are quite a bit worse than those of 10yrs or so ago because they are strangled by emissions regulations.
hammer:
This weeks CM suggests that modern wagons are quite a bit worse than those of 10yrs or so ago because they are strangled by emissions regulations.
Euro 1 Volvo FH12 7.5mpg 420 40t N995 GLW
Euro 2 Volvo FH12 8.5mpg 420 chipped to 485 40t R38 FFC
Euro 2 Volvo FH12 7.5mpg 460 44t V480 OBA
Euro 3 Volvo FH13 6.5mpg 520 44t
I think these results speak for emissions technology, theyre a rough guide to my last 4 motors. My 350 ■■■■■■■ powered transcon used to smoke like a doley & do 9mpg all day long at 38t we are I think going backwards.
Fly sheet
fly sheet:
hammer:
This weeks CM suggests that modern wagons are quite a bit worse than those of 10yrs or so ago because they are strangled by emissions regulations.Euro 1 Volvo FH12 7.5mpg 420 40t N995 GLW
Euro 2 Volvo FH12 8.5mpg 420 chipped to 485 40t R38 FFC
Euro 2 Volvo FH12 7.5mpg 460 44t V480 OBA
Euro 3 Volvo FH13 6.5mpg 520 44t
I think these results speak for emissions technology, theyre a rough guide to my last 4 motors. My 350 ■■■■■■■ powered transcon used to smoke like a doley & do 9mpg all day long at 38t we are I think going backwards.
Fly sheet
Great post i have to agree with you,a 4 year old would do as well if not better on Derv i think.
Another money-making scheme for the government.
More fuel used = more tax revenue raised
more ‘environmental restrictions’ on engines = more expensive to buy, complex to maintain
I don’t suppose any of the muppets with clipboards who makes these decisions thought that if MPG improves, then CO2 emissions do as well? Each litre of diesel releases X-amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, regardless of how old the engine is. An wagon doing 11mpg is more enviromentally friendly (CO2-speaking) that one doing 8.
Sorry for the delay in replying - computer problems (shouldn’t complain, it is 8 years old!)
My original post was based purely on the financial aspect of a brand new truck helping to pay for itself with better fuel consumption, considering the miles we do. It seems from your replies that it would be quite feasible to achieve this figure , if not a whole lot better, if it were not for the incessant need of our leaders and betters to bang the emissions drum.
hammer seems to sum up my thoughts :-
“An wagon doing 11mpg is more enviromentally friendly (CO2-speaking) that one doing 8.”
Stan
Stanley Knife:
hammer seems to sum up my thoughts :-“An wagon doing 11mpg is more enviromentally friendly (CO2-speaking) that one doing 8.”
Stan
There’s a lot more to emissions than CO2 though, especially with a diesel engine. The Euro4/5/6/whatever regulations are far more concerned with particulates and oxides of Nitrogen than they are CO2. Personally I think this is a good thing as I think all the CO2 nonsense is just an excuse to tax us more to try and solve an impossible problem whereas particulates from diesel engines are proven to do nasty things to your lungs.
Paul
firm i worked for got new scanias and were geting 8.5 to 9 mpg , and 12 months later with around 120,000 km on the clock and doing the same work, they are doing 10.5 to 12 mpg
205:
firm i worked for got new scanias and were geting 8.5 to 9 mpg , and 12 months later with around 120,000 km on the clock and doing the same work, they are doing 10.5 to 12 mpg
Are they still on the original tyres?
renaultman:
205:
firm i worked for got new scanias and were geting 8.5 to 9 mpg , and 12 months later with around 120,000 km on the clock and doing the same work, they are doing 10.5 to 12 mpgAre they still on the original tyres?
yup
205:
renaultman:
205:
firm i worked for got new scanias and were geting 8.5 to 9 mpg , and 12 months later with around 120,000 km on the clock and doing the same work, they are doing 10.5 to 12 mpgAre they still on the original tyres?
yup
I found the economy always improved as the tyres started to wear. Apart from the obvious you’re doing more miles on the clock than you are actually doing. You get the benefits from going slower, less drag etc, and the wagon actually seemed to pull better.
Just my thoughts but it happened many times to me, same as wagons being more economical in summer than winter.
repton:
Stanley Knife:
hammer seems to sum up my thoughts :-“An wagon doing 11mpg is more enviromentally friendly (CO2-speaking) that one doing 8.”
Stan
There’s a lot more to emissions than CO2 though, especially with a diesel engine. The Euro4/5/6/whatever regulations are far more concerned with particulates and oxides of Nitrogen than they are CO2. Personally I think this is a good thing as I think all the CO2 nonsense is just an excuse to tax us more to try and solve an impossible problem whereas particulates from diesel engines are proven to do nasty things to your lungs.
Paul
Agreed
TC
Reports that Euro 6 trucks are going to be ‘significantly worse’ on fuel than previous models. Sounds pretty eco-friendly to me… 
hammer:
Reports that Euro 6 trucks are going to be ‘significantly worse’ on fuel than previous models. Sounds pretty eco-friendly to me…
Good to hear we’re heading the right way then.
Fly sheet
205:
firm i worked for got new scanias and were geting 8.5 to 9 mpg , and 12 months later with around 120,000 km on the clock and doing the same work, they are doing 10.5 to 12 mpg
Running at 44t all day too I bet
repton:
Stanley Knife:
hammer seems to sum up my thoughts :-“An wagon doing 11mpg is more enviromentally friendly (CO2-speaking) that one doing 8.”
Stan
There’s a lot more to emissions than CO2 though, especially with a diesel engine. The Euro4/5/6/whatever regulations are far more concerned with particulates and oxides of Nitrogen than they are CO2. Personally I think this is a good thing as I think all the CO2 nonsense is just an excuse to tax us more to try and solve an impossible problem whereas particulates from diesel engines are proven to do nasty things to your lungs.
Paul
When NOx goes down then particulates go up. That’s why you need to filter particulates and filters make restriction and restriction makes fuel consumption and CO2 go up. This NOx thing is only to prevent fuel consumption going down, making money for oil companies and government.
Yes it is feasible
hammer:
Reports that Euro 6 trucks are going to be ‘significantly worse’ on fuel than previous models. Sounds pretty eco-friendly to me…
Euro6 is the same as the American EPA2010, it needs SCR & DPF (Diesel Particulate Filters) DPF is a total nightmare, Caterpillar pulled out of the truck engine market because they couldn’t make it work, in fact they’re being sued by a number of companies because their CAT engined trucks are always shutting down because of blocked DPFs.
EGR/SCR/DPF are all terrible things to do to a diesel engine, the fundamentals of a diesel are that it needs a good gulp of clean dense cold air in & a nice unrestricted exhaust to breathe out, all this emissions junk just strangles them, an old pre emission engine will always be better on fuel than a new one.