KCLeblanc:
WhiteWhiteWhite:
The driver had just run a trailer to another driver in Cirencester aI drive down Tetbury way quite often, the number of coffin dodgers round there who should have hung up their driving gloves a long time ago is staggering.
So go on then show us your Volvos.
I’d be interested to know proper tank to tank fuel figures, 30 day and lifetime averages for example.
Computer readouts from the truck are very unreliable and about as much use as mud flaps on a tortoise.
You say between 7 and 8 mpg, well there is quite a difference between 7.1 and 7.9mpg, yet they are both between 7 and 8 mpg, that could be thousands of pounds worth of difference over the year.
Do you do any accurate fuel consumption monitoring, or just rely on the truck computers?
I’m not having a pop, I’m just interested in stuff like that and I believe that if you’re going to quote fuel figures then they need to be accurate.
Just by the computer …
Do u run nothing but topnotch motors? Iv never had my own lorry in a firm and certainly never sat at the wheel of a Bentley of the truck world
22 trucks.
3 New Shape Volvos. 2 plain Spec 500’s and 1 FH16 750
6 DAF’s… Fairly plain to be honest.
The rest are V8 Scania’s…
I would have thought a computer is a lot more accurate that trying to work it out with pen and paper from figures given by the computer
nickyboy:
I would have thought a computer is a lot more accurate that trying to work it out with pen and paper from figures given by the computer
I agree…
I would be happy to go by this…
Volvo have invested millions in there Dynafleet system. I would like to believe it is more accurate than pen/paper/calculator
WWW
Are they your trucks www or do u work there?
Mattwoodtransport:
Are they your trucks www or do u work there?
Pretty sure from reading past post that they’re his trucks.
Ray is my old man…
I am transport manager. National & International CPC holder. Shareholder.
Been running the show for the last 12 years. Ray is the boss but day to day running is my responsibility
WWW
I have calculated a couple of times the fuel usage. From fill up to next fill up and it’s been 99% spot on, the difference has been how much you got in the tank. Even the amount of liters used according to the computer has been spot on.
On the summer a tuned r620 6x2 with 25,25m 20t load out, 37t load home ( =gross weight 59t) 34,1l/100km. Almost the same route with a crappy 480 41l/100km, it’s just too week and have to work so much harder in the hills, instead of going up the hill at 70km/h + you are crawling up in 40km/h.
Winter on the other hand the same route got no problem having 10l higher consumption, different fuel, winter tires, snow and so on
I have no experience with the new Volvo’s, but Scania’s computer can be recalibrated.
We compare liters used on computer and in real life .
We have a 480 that was about 8 % wrong (in scanias advantage 
) and a new 500 that is very accurate (on average 2 liter out on 1300 liters used).
The 500 has a far better economy than the 480.
We always check for a few months when we have a new motor in.
nickyboy:
I would have thought a computer is a lot more accurate that trying to work it out with pen and paper from figures given by the computer
if you can’t be certain of the computers accuracy, then the “pen and paper” method is the only way to go but certainly not calculating from the figures given by the computer but from full tank to full tank. having said that, the newer trucks do give pretty accurate numbers from the computer anyway, so no need for a “tank to tank” calculation. the only disparity would be the fuel used by the nightheater.
newmercman:
I’d be interested to know proper tank to tank fuel figures, 30 day and lifetime averages for example.Computer readouts from the truck are very unreliable and about as much use as mud flaps on a tortoise.
You say between 7 and 8 mpg, well there is quite a difference between 7.1 and 7.9mpg, yet they are both between 7 and 8 mpg, that could be thousands of pounds worth of difference over the year.
Do you do any accurate fuel consumption monitoring, or just rely on the truck computers?
I’m not having a pop, I’m just interested in stuff like that and I believe that if you’re going to quote fuel figures then they need to be accurate.
I thought everyone understood the most accurate way to work out fuel figures was by filling up neck to neck using a calibrated fuel pump then a calculator and a pen and paper!
I don’t know anyone that would rely on an on board computer for accurate figures, Volvo may well have spent millions on this on board system, I can’t argue with that as they’ve also spent millions building a truck using some of the cheapest parts known to man!
Not really a issue for us anyway… If we were that worried about fuel figures we wouldn’t have bought half the trucks we have !!
We have just had a 560 stralis brand new , it’s been on a combination of fridge work, concrete panels and livestock double decker and is averaging 8.2 mpg and it isn’t run in properly yet!!! We had a Volvo 460 on demo for a week and it only ave 7.5 and it didn’t do half the ■■■■ runs our Iveco has done eg lambs from Aberystwyth to Scotland ! We have a Scania 500 that is on a fridge mainly and that ave 10.3mpg two years old . Early days with the hi way stralis but it seems a very good motor and is nice to drive
Now I know those trailers! Always seem attached to some pretty sweet gear.
nickyboy:
I would have thought a computer is a lot more accurate that trying to work it out with pen and paper from figures given by the computer
You don’t work it out from the figures on the computer!
It’s simple maths, you start with a full tank take the mileage, when you fill the tank again you take the mileage, subtract the previous mileage and then divide that by the amount of fuel it took to do those miles.
That is the accurate method of recording fuel consumption, but there are a bunch of apps available that will work it all out for you, they give you a tank to tank figure, 30/60/90day averages and lifetime mpg.
They are a very useful tool, you can tell a lot about a lorry’s health (and how it’s being driven) by watching fuel consumption. You can also run different routes and compare mpg between the two, sometimes the quickest way isn’t the most cost effective.
newmercman:
nickyboy:
I would have thought a computer is a lot more accurate that trying to work it out with pen and paper from figures given by the computer
You don’t work it out from the figures on the computer!
It’s simple maths, you start with a full tank take the mileage, when you fill the tank again you take the mileage, subtract the previous mileage and then divide that by the amount of fuel it took to do those miles.
That is the accurate method of recording fuel consumption, but there are a bunch of apps available that will work it all out for you, they give you a tank to tank figure, 30/60/90day averages and lifetime mpg.
They are a very useful tool, you can tell a lot about a lorry’s health (and how it’s being driven) by watching fuel consumption. You can also run different routes and compare mpg between the two, sometimes the quickest way isn’t the most cost effective.[/quote
We use tomtom onboard for day to day week to week. Then also have renaults own diagnostic program fitted to check. They are spot on, never differ. One old boy who has worked for us for years still also checks the km’s and fuel usage and his always varies from the computer read outs. Since we have installed it the consumption has dropped by about 6 percent…
I’m confused, you say the on board stuff is spot on, then say that the old boy that does it on fuel used and miles driven has figures that don’t match.
If that’s the case then the on board stuff is wrong!
I know computers have moved on a bit in the last few years, but I’ve used some serious bits of kit for measuring mpg when I was testing for TRUCK mag and the gadgets we had were far superior to the ECU readings that any on board tools use for information. We used to have a fail safe check and that was to fill the tank using a piece of bent coat hanger as a fill to mark and always stopped at exactly the same position on the same fuel pump. The figures we got from that were dead accurate and they always differed from the electronic readouts, so those were the ones that got printed in the magazine.
On a Trans euro test the vehicles were all fitted with special tanks, these were removed to measure how much fuel had been used, the readings were always calculated at the same temperature and fuel use was measured in the weight difference of the full tank to what it weighed after it had done the testing that day. That is absolutely accurate to the milliliter and it always came up with a different figure to the computer readings.