A couple of days ago Volvo released the new FH16 700. Volvo released the engine peaking at 700hp and 3150NM with Euro 5 emissions. They clame that it has the same fuel consumption as the 660hp. Engine has been tested for 3 years in Australia, Sweden and Rocky mountains. Here is the pressrelease with video of it: http://www.volvo.com/trucks/global/en-gb/newsmedia/pressreleases/press_article.htm?pubid=5952 Now, who is the next to have the 700 digits...
Its just a big game! For example, look at the agriculture tractor manufactures. If Deere comes out with a 500 HP tractor, in 6 months, Case IH will have one made that has 520 Hp. They play the "whos bigger game" You wait and see....another truck making company will out-do that 700!
Deere9670, you are right about that. But still, its not long ago we where happy with 400-500hp. The F16 was a revolution when it came. We discussed it at work today, having apr 1000nm in our trucks is not funny on the road today.
It used to be the limiting factor was not the engine, but the drivetrain standing up to that much power, I hope they have figured that part out, because all the power in the world is useless if it can't make it to the ground. And yes everyone else will "one up" them on the horsepower claims. Acouple of years ago it was a "torque" contest
Agreed. when CAT came out with the 15.8L 3406E 600 HP it was only available with ONE transmission Eaton 2050Ft lb. rated 18spd. A bad driver can blow a Trans and rear with 200HP. But before these big torque rated drive trains they still had BIG POWER, The thing was drivers had more sense than to be banging gears foot to the floor loaded.
Volvo is just nuts, not that long ago they came out with that 600 odd horse monster for highway trucks. It's nice too that they don't **** and moan like the US companies do about emissions.
700 is supposed to be doable with my little 5.9 in my 1/2 ton dodge. sure would be fun. dont tow with it any way. just a play toy. funds wont let it happen at this point. i submit it aint about needs it is about wants as long as one doesnt tread on the RIGHTS of others.
You may not need 700HP but it is nice to know you got it
You might not need a 700 HP truck but wouldn't it be nice if Volvo would let Mack build a decent Mack again instead of the crap they are turning out now.
Greg, what kind of bad experiences have you had with the newer Macks?
volvo i wonder what has been done to the transmission as it could not handle 660 from what i hear :beatsme
When I was driving dump trucks in the early 80s, I drove one truck with a 238hp Detroit and a Mack with a 237hp Mack, these were straight trucks. The biggest engines from that era were 300hp Cummins in straight trucks. The tractor trailer dumps were running 318hp detroits, 325hp Cats or the Mack V8, I don't know what hp they ran. Amazing what are run today. I'd be interested in the drivetrain repairs to these trucks too.
As a rule of thumb , you need 10hp per tonne to keep up with the traffic . A rigid truck with a 15 tonne GVM needs 150hp . A semi with tri axle trailer with a 42.5 tonne GVM needs 425hp . A B double with a 62 tonne GVM needs 620hp . and now a 700hp Volvo that can keep with the traffic pulling 70 tonnes . Once you get into the 100 tonne plus trucks that we have and need 1000hp plus you need an auxilary trailer mounted engine that is remotely controled to help out .
This is one of our mining roadtrains , it has an all up loaded weight of 340 tonnes and has an auxilary engine mounted on the front trailer . By the way , a 700hp Dodge Ram is nothing like a 700hp truck , torque takes over from here .
Very interesting. How does the drivetrain work for the auxilary engine? First time I have seen that setup.
The engine runs a Hydraulic pump which powers a Hydraulic motor which in turn drives an axle . I'll attach the link so you can have a look . http://www.smithson.com.au/PressRel04.htm
I don't own any of the new Macks and won't. Everybody I know that has the Granites hates them. Don't like the cabs especially among other things. Oh God for the good ol days of the R models, especially the RB's. So, that would leave me to a CL if I wanted a new Mack. But, problem here is you can't get a Mack 427 or 460 in it. Have to settle for a Cummins cause Volvo has decided that the CL's should not be purebred Mack. I know other guys that have had warranty problems dealing with volvo on their newer Macks. Lots of these guys have gone to Pete's or KW's. Local Mack store which got volvo shoved down their throat tells me that they are selling fewer and fewer Macks all of the time. Go into their shop and there are darn near all volvos in there now. How long will it be before volvo just drops the Mack line?:badidea:badidea
Can't wait to see the MP10 version of that motor in the new Mack Titan
Personally I will take a Mack Superliner with an E9 V8 500 HP with an 18 speed behind it befroe the new stuff with the electronic injection etc. etc. etc. etc. Although I have owned Macks for a long time here I don't have much time for the volvoized ones that are coming out now. Lots of guys around here feel the same way and the sales show it too. Used to go into the local Mack store and see the shop all Macks with one or two volvos. Now it is all volvos with one or two Macks. I wonder how long before Mack goes the way of Sterling?
Manybe you dont need 700 horse, but why not.
i must have missed something when did dodge put the cummins in a half ton:beatsme
late 88 early 89 i believe
Jughead probly meant 3/4 ton. They started in the 89 model year but only in 3/4 and 1 ton trucks.
yea i was just busting balls i figured he meant 3/4 ton,pretty sure gm was the only ones who put diesels in there half tons , the mighty 6.5:throwup
How about I can work on an E9 500 HP cause it does not have a #$#$$#@&@@#&&*#@!@#@$$^%^%%%*&() computer on it. Oh ya, one other thing I just love about it. IT IS PAID FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
I have macks, and my grandad had macks for almost 40 years. The only thing mack about these new macks is the part between the mudflaps. I am trying to keep mine machanical. I don't understand how you can justify these emission standards when these new electronic motors burn a 1/3 more fule to do the same work, not to mention you have to be a nasa engineer to change the oil. I can just imagine how well this urea injection will work. Since amonia an metal react so well together. You can only do so much with a diesel, you still need fuel, and air, and you can only get the exhaust gases so hot. I wouldn't have anything else, but I will rebuild an old one before I'll buy a new one. I suppose volvo will do to mack what the did to Clark Michigan, make it comfortable and plastic. If that is what everyone wants enjoy. I am happy with my dinosours. Sorry I spun out of control on that one.
no i know for sure dodge put a cummins in a half ton in the late 80's because one of our contractors has one i tried to buy off of him.
HAHAHAHAHA My buddy has a 06 Duramax thats pushing out just shy of 700hp. Its pretty silly driving a diesel pickup that spins to 5,000 rpm and will break the tires loose at highway speeds.
I believe those were actually Mitsubishi diesels
too much horsepower ? no way. my first truck was a bogie drive international tipper powered by a 120 horsepower perkins, 5 speed box with 3 speed joey box, no air cond, started slowing down when it saw a hill, my latest truck is a mack magnum with a 600 horsepower cummins signature, i have never heard any one complain their truck had too much power, i could handle 700 horsepower.
:ban Hey you four wheelers with your chevys and dodges. You are not in the same building let alone the same class as the big trucks so don't talk about horse power when you aren't trying to move 90,000 to 105,000 gross like the rest of us. As fo you Mackman, YOU HIT THE BLOODY STINKING NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD ALL THE WAY THROUGH. Lots of us guys around here are saying the same thing as you are. I too will keep rebuilding what I have instead of going for the other stuff coming out. As I told the local Mack salesman in 2006 when they though I should think about a new 2006 before the new standards hit, "If I was going to do something I would be talking to the Peterbilt man because there I could get a Cat in a Pete rather than a cummins in a CL. If I were to buy a lowboy tractor today I would be looking for a late Superliner.:Banghead:bash:bash
700 hp for your information i put it in the truck. it was almost a bolt in swap. the 318 was worn out. like i said i dont tow with it i have a 3/4 that i would tow with. the 1/2 ton is a play toy only. i also drove a few 18 wheelers in the late 50s. all i drove were lacking in power unless really worked on. there are truckers and there are so-called truckers. what i did off road with 18 wheelers then about 75% of the so-called truckers today would run for help. a few times with a dozer blade in the side of the box on a hill side to keep the damn thing from rolling. wouldnt, couldnt do it now just to old and or chicken.:drinkup
You are right, it is two totally different leagues. Thats why we have more power to weight ratios than most of the big rigs do. My D-max runs around 500HP and 900 ft lbs of torque in a 7k daily driver. This is a bone stock engine and tranny too. The Cummins in 3/4-1ton dodges are capable of 750-800 HP and over 1k of torque on a stock engine. So when you are pulling a 40k rig up a hill and you watch a 3/4 ton truck towing a combined weight of 20k pass you on a hill like your tied to a tree then you see the power these little trucks do have.
thats what im saying YOU made a 1/2ton cummins pick-up.... i like the idea put a cummins in a reg cab short bed 2wd now thats a little hot rod:drinkup
woodchuck, I didn't say 40,000 pound rig, I said 90k to 105K. Hook that on to your chevy. Oh ya, try and stop if after you get it moving too.
Getting it moving and keeping it moving is no problem but your correct stopping is the issue. The 550hp Heavy haul program in the kenworth does alright by me. 700Hp would be nice depending on how efficiantly it uses the torque.
There is also a big difference between rated HP and max HP. The 550 horse Cat in my lowbed will push out 550 horse all day long, and still be running years from now. It is designed for it, These little truck diesels can make big numbers, for a short time, but if you push them hard, they will be melted down in no time. They are only capable of pushing around 200 horsepower sustained without damage.
Jerry, You got it on the nose there too. Two totally different machines. Maybe that explains the reason you can almost stick the whole little chevy or dodge engine into one cylinder of your Cat.
I must admit these pickups with screwed up Diesels show some impressive figures . But don't confuse a 700hp Cummins in a Dodge Ram with the 700hp Volvo that this thread is about , with it's 2,323lbft of torque . Because that's what 3150NM is . This truck would have no trouble pulling 100 tons at highway speed from one side of the US to the other and then reload and do it again going home , that's the difference .
And go 500,000+ miles before showing any signs of wear.....
I had heard that cat is loving this emission bologna so much they are getting out of the vocational truck market.
you want me to believe you have a bone stock Alison holding 550? :roll
Lets get this thread back on track and bicker about pickups on that other forum. Thanks
Well Done Volvo. :notworthy 700hp from a 16ltr straight 6 and still flying in the face of EU. Ide Like to see a few of the Major Player meet them standards and last more than a few month. Imagine what they could squeeze out of it if they didnt have to worry about Reliablity? I for one have the up-most respect for them. They just set the standard Year in .. Year out. I wonder if its an option on a 4x2? EDIT: Do you need 700HP in your truck? Hell yeah. EDIT: Yeah it come's in 4x2. Play the Game I scored 154887
i have a 600 horsepower cummins in my mack, would i like 700, of course, never heard any one complain their truck had too much power.
700hp Volvo single drive , she could lite em up with a load on . HooYah .
yeah, i was really surprised to see they make it in a 4x2, it would definately need traction control, i have to be careful in the mack on wet roads turning corners in lower gears, fairly easy to make wheelspin which is scary.
its the Bzzzzzzzzzit...BANG! Clunk Clunk Clunk bit that gets me
That is one very good looking truck, and with 700HP! whoah, what a package!
LOL!!! What an accurate description! That's the only downside to power, you have to know how to apply it without breaking something. I was sitting next to a truck pulling an overseas container in traffic on the Jersey side of the GWB, every time he would start from a stop the tractor would start hopping like mad, that trailer must have been heavy!! Finally one time the front wheel came up about a foot off the ground and BANG!! CLUNk...CLunk...clunk... no more movement.
You'll need 500 horse of that to haul the fule it will burn, and the other 200 to pull the payment book!
fortunately i have not had the bang or the clunks yet, it does not feel nice when it breaks traction and then grips and the whole truck bounces, cant be good for the drive line, i try hard not to do it.
When driven right, big power will match up to an economy engine, because it does not have to work as hard. The bigger the load, the better that comparison gets. Just making a legal load, the big powerplant does OK, but get up to 150K and higher, the more power and the better mileage you can get. Also, Volvo is known for fuel efficiency, so I would bet it does OK in that department. As for the drivetrain, the right components help, and if you have enough power to pull a grade without shifting as much, then you take that shock out of the system as well. I see trucks with 9 speeds, and they struggle if loaded heavy. The low gear is still too tall, and the splits between gears are just too much, especially with road gears in the rear ends. In an 18 speed with 2 speed rears, 240K gets rolling without any drama like hopping, tires lifting, clutches slipping, or anything else. Just ease out on the clutch, then roll on the power, and shift.
Yeah Big Power can help alot, You could Block change no problem in the right Condition with all that torque. I think the 700bhp come's with the Volvo I-shift auto only. 600 - 660hp's come with a Manual shift. Scania Are currently Testing a 700hp version of the 164 V8 Engine and Jerry already have a 680hp V8 running around. All EURO 5 ...
:ban Another volvo great idea. Shove a slush box transmission down your throat if you want the 700 HP rather than an 18 speed. The swedes never have been to good at offering what people want. "You only think you know what you want, but we know what you need." Off to the Pete store I guess.
It might also be that the Swedes have worked that there is an awful lot of truck drivers out there without much experience in dealing with big power and big loads. It just might be that the auto-box looks after the driveline a little more like the owner of the truck would want it!.
Squizzy has a good point there. Myself, if I am driving, want the 18 speed with 2 speed rears. My hired help???? bring on the juice box. Besides, like everything else, the modern automatics are nothing like the old ones that created the bad impression.
Squizzy has found the cause for the I-shift. You just go to 1000rpm's and then your up to max torque... Imagine letting out the clutch pedal just abit rough... When Scania came with the V8 back in the 70-80's they where known to twist the driveaxles.. Only Sisu sells 600hp+ trucks with a manual clutch here around. MAN,Scania, Volvo, Merc, they all got automated boxes/chlutces.:cool2 I mean i read somewhere that the electronic brain redused torque on the engine when engaging the clutch.. And that the trucks has sensors registering weight, angle and stuff to get the right gear/torque/clutchhandling when starting. And of course, special drivline programs after what use the truck will do.(long haulage, distribution or construction program) I had my rumpsteak in a 620 Sisu and it had so much torque on the low side, it didnt mater if you started in high series...(empty)
The I Shift is JUNK. my drinking buddy bought 6 of them for his fleet for the same reasons mentioned above. Keep his drivers from tearing stuff up to bad. Every single one has had to be towed in for repairs. Most of them were NO start conditions because a sensor failed and the truck thought it was in gear and wouldn't start. One broke down on the highway during rush hour and the F.S.P. pushed it to the side of the road while it still had air. That journey of maybe 1000' was enough to cook the transmission. His exact words were atleast when one of his "all stars" blew a transmission the truck was actually running when the did it. Hes going back to Eaton manuals.
All I have to say is....that truck on the main post is awesome.
I don't know of any new drivers with no experience being trusted by anyone with over size and over weight. To much can happen to quick and cause a lot of damage to cargo, truck and everything around it. There are a lot of cases of truck and equipment manufacturers not consulting with the customers as to what they want, like and need. Volvo is one of the best at going their own way. I just spent two days at Caterpillar in Peoria. Cat asked a question in regards to how many of us had been contacted by our dealer or Cat directly for input into product design and development. Not one answer in the affirmative. The Cat representative went on to say that up to now they have been terrible about it and intended to change it. I have also had truck dealers tell me flat out when specing a truck "You only think you know what you want. We know what you need." Manufacturers have got to learn to listen to their customers. This shove the slush box down your throat is just another example of the previous quote.
nice truck
When i grow up , i want a Volvo just like that one . Well , maybe with some more wheels . If that tranny is similar to the automated gearbox in my TGA M.A.N. , it would be awsome . It's a pleasure not having to constantly use the left leg to change gears . It will even skip shift if the load is rolling easily , it will sense how far the loud pedal is down and how quickly it is accelerating and skip 2 , 3 or 4 gears , nearly without you being aware .
does your's change gear by itself reg ? with mine you have to change gears although you dont need to use the clutch.
In response to your post, #63... Iron Horse (Reg)... :thumbsup :thumbsup OCR...
Our TGA's are fully auto. Tipmatic box. Does everything, just turn the nob on the floor to the type of driving u want. U have a creep mode and a drive mode. If u want to do it manually u switch it to manual, just press the knobs on the stearing wheel to change gears. A realy, realy, nice truck to spend the day in. But i think the stereo system in our Scania 124 is bether than in the TGA.
Use the clutch here to start out in the bottom hole. After That don't need it. My 10, 15 and 18 speed slide into the next hole without the clutch so no left foot needed.
My thoughts exactly!:thumbsup
Fully automated Pete , mine is the same as MKTEF's truck's . Just a knob on the park brake consul , no clutch pedal at all . To the other chaps , i was refering to the syncro box i used to drive . Don't try shifting one of those with no clutch $$$$$$$$$ . On edit , MKTEF , someone had just fitted a new Kenwood CD player so Jimmy Barnes is all good .
I hate synchronized transmissions. My boom truck has a 5+2 spicier and I just shift it like the 18spd. clutch only start out then float gears from there on out when it finally shats the bed im swapping an overdrive Trans in there anyway. Dad bought a peterbilt 330 autoshift 10spd, with a CAT 3126 that was uprated to the "fire service programing" to pull his big horse trailer. That worked well but I had a hell of a time remembering to push the clutch peddle in when rolling to a stop sign. You would forget all about the clutch especially after a couple of hours on the highway without shifting
Ahh... with all this talk of twisted drivetrains, slushboxes... where's Hermann Lemp? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Lemp
No need for twisted drivetrains if you know what you are doing.
Having driven dumps from 290, 315, 350, 400 Cummins; Macks 238 to E700 427; DD 6V71 and 8V71 and the 4 stroke DD; and CAT's form C12 to C16 300 to 500 HP, do I NEED 700 HP. No I don't, but would I want 700HP! OHHHH Heck yea! Higher HP don't make me go any faster than (in OH) 55 MPH! But my 0 to speed times would be shorter! I'd have the torque to keep up with traffic in city driving with close to of a full load! Less itme getting to speed, less time on the job, same amount of work done per tirp!
Ive gone off everything at the moment , it seems i earn a grand and spend two on repairs . I'm thinking of becoming an Avon lady .
Well they do have those snazzy pink Cadillacs. ointhead
i know what you mean although i am having a good run lately with breakdowns/repairs, i probably should not say that, dunno about the avon lady stuff, take a deep breath.
That's Mary Kay......get with the program:wink2
Hey Jughead I used to drive an East Quad with a KW 600 daycab doing basement foundations for a now gone excavation outfit here in NE Ohio! These were regular road tractors with C14 Cats and 10 speed road rangers air on air! Do the words "been there done that" once but never again sound familuar? Many times I had to get out and shake the $#!& out my britches! Then there is the mill and fill of paving. Mill a 24" wide lot about 1000' long and have to back down to the paver with the right side in the slot and then raise the bed! You'd be supprised how much seat the rectum can consume!
Today Volvo announced and showed their new FH 16 with 750Ps. 3550 NM max torque. 2400Nm at 900 rpm, 3550 at 1050rpm. Euro 5 emissions and a EEV version is also available. For total weights up to 250t, 500'pounds. Pics and artice from here: http://www.tungt.no/transportmagasinet/article700033.ece Pics is Copyright Magnus Pajert. That 2 axle truck with 750hp will be funny on winter roads.. Maybe there will be more pics later.. I'm planning a trip to the show
Volvo owns Mack and Renault. I have always wounder why Mack and Renault not can get Volvos engines. I know nothing about the engines as is used by Mack and Renault but perhaps they use Volvos engines but in a lover HP-segment because Volvo not will have intern competition. However may I beleive the tree makes chare the cost of development of new engines instead for all run their own race. Regards Lars-Gunnar
I cant agree there Squizzy246B! We have a gross weight of 60 ton legally here in Sweden and a lot of our truckers is driving such combinations. They can’t get their commercial operators licence if they not can handle truck and trailer with manual gearbox. Big power have we had since Volvos first developed F16 as had 570 hk and lot of truckers had them. Since have vi had 500 – 600 and 660 -750 today. I can’t se any wrong with that because such power demonstrably is in need. I read a firm down under has chosen two tri axle Volvo FH16 660 hk to pull four trailers. The chief said: If they not broke down within 40 days I will buy ten more and they have exceeded that rule with ease. That firm have had USA-trucks but said their engines had some issues. So now he is more for Volvo trucks than USA-trucks. Regards Lars-Gunnar
not 4 trailers mate..........john kelly at hha stated that if they could stand up too heavy haulage pulling modular floats he would consider buying another one. he has no issues with his usa engined trucks at all...in reality it all seems to be all bs its all about price the malvo was cheaper than a simialar speced kenworth............if you knew anything about the company you would no he owns a fleet of old macks and kenworths basically only in the last 4 years have they started too buy new trucks......as for 700 hp from a volvo or scania you can keep it ....they still wont or ever will keep up with a 500 v8 mack motor with 9% on the pump......and this i no for fact it aint real american torque in these new euro junk engines.........we been runnin with a 660 for a few months now..... same weight ,same loads ,pulling roadtrains in west aus and my old macks kill it .fuel is not much different and this is 25 years in developement difference. so keep the euro crap..........overpriced poofters trucks.
bryan, your a bit tough on the euro stuff, i like us and euro, i currently have a mack with a 620 signature and a scania with a quad axle float with 500 hp with an aftermarket computer that gives it 600 hp, scania much nicer to drive although i dont like the synchro box, much prefer the 18 speed, also have a 460 hp MAN, has been a reliable truck.
bryanparsissons you are right. I did write 4 trailers but it should be 3 so my deepest execute to you. I had 3 in my brain but my fingers wrote four. I think you australian pete is more near the truth. There is nothing wrong with USA-trucks or Australian made Kenworth. And I will never call USA-trucks for junk as many in USA and perhaps Australia call Volvos products. It is always easier talk about things and not has a clue of what they talk about. Have all as write a message in this forum got the possibility drive every truck and then grade them? I don’t think so. I myself is not a driver and can only get any information from newspapers as test-drive them. It is good if we all can talk to each other in a friendly manner and feel truck makers have their advantage or disadvantage or play under equal circumstances. I have seen both Volvo and Mack in heavy haulage helping each other pull and push heavy gods trough You Tube I think it tell us something. I also know Kenworth is in favour towards Peterbilt. I have a feeling International is out of the Australian market.
euro trucks what's the deal with the man's, scania's. volvos, mb's, daf. how are the transmissions set up? i never did get to see how they worked. but they don't have the standard stickshift like our kenworth's, macks, petes and such. is it an automated gearbox with a selecter to go up and down? a 625 red top cummins is all the power needed even here in the mountains. i have a buddy that does heavy haul and he swears by that motor. i have a red top 444 in one of my trucks that is an 86 and my buddies with brand new trucks with 475 cats can't run away from me. not to say anything about my brand being better the other's just interested in the discussion. regards, cd
CD i can fill out some... Transmissions and axles is choosen by the usage of the trucks. But, the biggest ones have just one transmission and a number of axle setups. A look at the numbers gives u a clue of why. 3550 Nm at 1050 rpm, thats "Fast idle", let a clutch out and u got problems in the drivetrain. All the highest rated euro trucks have no clutchpedal. Everything is automated. No stickshifts either. Many have a system redusing power at "take off". Gears can be selected manualy too, or held in one gear. Volvo got unsyncronised gearboxes, i've tested 100' punds on a semi in a sandpit. Started in the bottom of a hill, the 700 Volvo geared up the whole way up. The shifts where just a dip in the rpm. Theese engines will come your way too... The US ultrashift is now rated for 700hp...
biggest reason for going with euro trucks is the euro 5 emmissions, kenworth and mack are getting left behind and i know kenworth wont give you over 525Hp due to heat disapation (or lack of) with their EGR if you want to go over 160T GCM when for less $$ you can get a Scania for up to 730Hp and 200T rated with alot more comfort.. there will be x3 in WAz early next year Volvo would be the same i would guess, but in the Scania you dont get full power unless your in the top 4 gears, rumer has it there's numbers like 850Hp+ ready to go from Scania on their dyno too On other euro 5 related news, i heard that CAT have only sold 78 of their 500 2010 plated trucks (which they imported to beat emission laws) which they have brought into Australia with not alot of people wanting to touch them i think they might need to paint them lemon yellow
One brand I work with is Scania. They have a transmission system called Opticruise. Basically it is a "manual" transmission with an electronically-controlled conventional dry clutch and but no shift lever. On the steering column directly under the steering wheel is a rotary switch a bit like a multiple speed windshield wiper control marked "R, N, H, & D" (Reverse, Neutral, Hill, & Drive). On our trucks we have an optional clutch pedal because we do lots of low-speed manoeuvring, but you can also have them without a clutch pedal if you want. Most on-highway trunking operations opt for that arrangement, we keep the clutch pedal as I said before because of all the manoeuvring we do. That control lever also works the transmission retarder, a 400HP hydraulic unit mounted on the back of the transmission. No Jake Brake needed. It has 5 positions, #5 will just about stand the truck on its head. Basically you take off by putting your foot on the brake, engage "D" (if you want to go forward), release the park brake, the clutch takes up and you let your foot off the brake. As you speed up the operation of clutch, dipping the throttle, and shifting the transmission is all electronic. All the smoothness of an automatic in an "automatically-controlled manual" if you will. The thing that always strikes me when driving European truck compared to a Mack, Kenworth, whatever is how quiet they are in the cab. I think a lot of flak comes the way of European trucks, often caused by lack of knowledge. However the strange thing is that I've worked all over the world and I see all the major Euro brands in large quantities everywhere I go. Which brand is most sold in which country often depends on the service support from the dealer, In one country it might be Merc, another it might be Volvo. The only places outside the US I've ever seen American brand trucks in any quantity is Central America, the Caribbean, and the north coast of S. America (never been to Australia though). That has to tell you something.
horsepower i never heard any one complain they had too much power.
It is possible to have both Scania 730bhp and Volvo 750bhp in standard stick shift style G/boxs, it would be common to see lower power engines in these trucks set to pull top weight loads, that is all up weight of 150 ton U.K. often a lock up torque converter is used within the driveline above 150ton, Scania have been fitting Hydraulic retarders into their transmissions since the 3 series with great effect, Mack used to offer the V8 Scania engine as a choice option in the U.S. this was in the early power form of about 350bhp, it was big power then, the 730 is best descibed as like driving an 855 Cummins x 4, as they are slow reving engine making superb power low down in the rev band, plus the fact they are great to drive, these trucks are often doing massive distance , a local Co' to me have trucks heading nearly into China, india, and every place in between, with a bit more drama than just getting over the Alps ahead of them, 12 to 16 week 1 load trips are not uncommon,.
We could have had standard stick shifts in our Scanias but chose not to. We're "only" running 470 BHP but that's in a 6x4 rear dump configuration.
I would rather drive a 1988 dodge with a cummins diesel than that ugly thing you can put 12000 horsepower in that plastic lump of crap and ill stick with my classic xl with a c16
I'd have a big power unit all day long.... Loads of power means making a job easier. Say I'm pulling a 50ton excavator, on a 3axle low loader, grossing 100ton. a 3406 powered foden with reductions and and eaton box will be working hard up and down hills. Working hard equals wear and fuel. Your new FH16 750 will make light work of it. Less wear, less fuel. More productivity. More in the bank. And that's why we're here.
I guess you don't like European trucks, I own 2 macks, a scania and a MAN, they all have their good and bad points, euro trucks are definitely quitter and more comfortable though.
We frown on this type of comment here at HEF, much like calling someones machine a "boat anchor". There's only two ways a person could use this type of language, 1) by personal experience, or 2) by opinion. Obviously, we have to discount #2 as it is just that, opinion. As for #1, one could make the argument that a Case 580K phase 1 is a "lump of crap" because they have a propensity for tranny and rear differential problems. But a lot of ordinary folks have this very machine, have invested in purchasing, operating, and maintaining the machine. In such a case it's disrespectful to call their machine a "lump of crap". We here at HEF prefer to work with each other, assist each other, even if we're working on a "boat anchor".
I have personally worked on and drove in a wide rage of trucks being a diesel mechanic. The oldest was a 1976 pete with a 5 and 4 trans, the most recent was a 2014 Volvo. I feel much safer going on trips in the older trucks because you can fix them with basic tools and common sense. The newer, after 2008, are chalenging and expensive to diagnose to repair. The emission systems are unreliable at best and have bankrupted some smaller carriers. I am currently building my next service truck and it will have a 3406e cat engine, 18 sp Eaton, 46 Rockwell diff's and an spl 190 drive line. The reason for the older technology, RELIABILITY.
No argument from me wrench, I cut my teeth on a 1962 White 4000 with a C160 Cummins, naturally aspirated, with a 5 x 4 Fuller Quadraplex, the essence of simplicity.
my first truck was a 1968 international acco 5x4 gearbox, 120 HP perkins, bogie drive with hydraulic brakes, it sure was simple, it was also slow, rough, hot (no aircond), I do prefer 600 HP with air cond and air seat etc.