What kind of engine do you run in your trucks, and what advantages or disadvantages have you experienced. Year, Power etc.
Well, right now most of out fleet is mercedes 4000 series with 1 ISM cummins, and. 1 13L maxxforce international and 2 cat C9s. The international seems to be the best of the lot so far with performance and reliability. The ISM and 1 mbe 4000 have 18 speeds, the rest 8LLs.
What do you think of the cummins, I've heard good and bad about them. I heard that they burn quite a bit of fuel compared to others and that they have turbo problems. I've also heard that they are the best motor out there.
my grandfather liked the dt466 and cummins 350s and 250s he said theyd pull the morgage off the farm
It depends entirely on what you are doing with them and what era of truck you are buying, and what is available at the time for what price.
The ISM doesn't work badN but was sold to us. Under a false premise. Its in a tractor that pulls a Triaxle end dump, and for 430 hp and 1550 torque it doesn't work great, good with a tandem trailer or would be perfect in a tandem. Its not bad on fuel considering what its doing. No real serious issues other than egr cooler (common across the board of newer cummins engines)
I am not buying a truck, i just asked to see what people are running and what they like or dislike about their engines,
We have 3 cat 3406b's and 1 c-15. Don't know what it is about the B model motors but we love'em. Lots of power and runs great but on the 425-450 motors the fuel economy sucks. Haven't gotten much time on the c-15 yet but seems to be a real horse.
When I use to drive for a docking and dredging outfit I had a Kenworth W900 with a CAT 500hp and I loved that motor but when she broke down it was expensive as all hell. With my new job in excavating the owners trucks have L10 cummins in them and I don't have much to complain about those motors. Simple, easy to fix, easy to crank up the HP without spending a **** ton of money. Even my personal semi that I conveted has a L10 engine. Not the biggest powerhouse on the road but it gets you from point A to point B reliably everytime!!!
We have M-11 Cummins in a couple trucks, very easy to work on and have been reliable with plenty of power. Also have Mack E-7 engines that have been very good also.
I have run an N 14 Cummins , other than a set on injectors it pulled everything the company had . Drove it to 650,000 Run an older 855 cummins and no trouble . Run a 8V92 , Under powered but never broke anything but my ear drums . Running a C 13 cat at the moment so far 1 computer , two throttle pedal switches , tad under powered but it is a tractor boom truck weighs 33,000 bobtail . Company has 4 C15s . Lots of things , turbos on 2 , All of them have blowby separators that when they get dirty will blow the dipstick out and oil down everything in sight , Valvetrain parts broken on 2 , If I had a choice I would run another N14 , Decent amount of power . After the factory injectors were replaced it was change the oil at 250 hrs. and stand on it .
Have run Mack Diesels here for a long time. Very good experience with them.
6 cylinder Macks, E7s and ENDTs; and also L10s
we have 7 various VOLVO engines in trucks, graders, excavators and never had any real problems. Economical and Pull like a freight train.
I have a Cummins Big Cam IV was low flo cooling but converted the nasty system ( being nice ) can not type what I think about the lo flo cooling system the only other engine we had was a Cat C15 435 6 NZ would love to have it back was getting a MPG od 6.0 the Big Cam is about 5.234
Any body running 16 litre engines in their trucks?
Nope, I rather buy food than fuel to go faster.
Where I work we have a varity, 2 Mack E-7's 1 mech. 1 Elc. I won't be biast to Mack fans as I am not one hahaha.:my2c 2 Detroit's a 12.7 that works great and a 14L that works good when it wants to. 3 N-14's Love them good power, good milage and not many issues other than normal wear, Then there's a 3406E in need of an overhaul but still runs strong! Just my opinions/experinces.
The engine to run in the U.K. now is the 16 litre V8 Scania motor it knocks out 730 Draft Horse's and pulls like a Loco, on the older style motor the Cummins 855 big cam is some tool, with a jake is best.
Once upon a time, a 7FB-3406B or a 500hp fedral version of a 8V92TTA were my engines of choice. But that was yesterday. Today....thats an entirely different story. Here in the state of confusion, the government , carb, epa, the railroad and every other tree hugging, whale loving, sap sucking hippie and those dip ships who financially support them have made it next to impossible to operate in this god forsaken state. I would prefer.....for things to be like they used to be or for me to go postal on these college educated retards.....but for now, I'm gonna stop before I get banned. Yeah.....this is a really sore subject for me. :thumbdown
Pete, How have you been dealing with the California DPF retrofit requirements. I have not found a fleet guy yet who has done one but they are starting to appear on LTL tractors, garbage trucks etc. around me finally. I need to know what's good, bad, ugly and how they can be financed.
^Birken have you called Cummins, one co I was with had them add the filters to their 06-07 trucks. Pre '03 ISX Cummins & DD ser60 12.7 would be my choice.
The local mechanic works with Cummins when installing them, and they seem like the best deal to me too. I just haven't talked to anyone who has had them installed, from the smaller fleet/short trip angle.
I've got 3 DT466Es, for medium duty engines there is no question.
I think the 8.3 Cummins is right on par, and better once International tried that bad super-EGR mess after 2007.
Ran a 444E in an Intl SA dump that was pretty weak. The pete has an N-14 and my FLD 120 has the 12.7 Detroit. Both tractors are backed by a fuller 10-sp. The N14 seems to have a little more low-end while the Detroit gets better fuel economy and doesn't leak as much oil.
Years ago the opposite would be true for just about any other brand of engine
I operated a Drott excavator in the 80's that had a Detroit and it was a screamin' powerful engine but you sure hated working on it because you knew that everything under it would be covered in black nasty oil.
There's a few cats around new glasgow/antigonish, but most people are happy with the 550 and never went with the C-16. They are a strong runner though.
Same here. We know that we will eventually be forced to spend money on these DPF's but for now, we have been able to buy some time (2 years) by putting these on out trucks. I don't know the exact details on how these things work but it has to do with mileage, credits and so on. IOW, much like the new log book regulations, this is another way of making liars out of otherwise honest people.
Better than the Volvo?
We have had them all. I would have to say in the older trucks you can't beat the Cat's for power but, my personal favorite in the 2000 year model range is the 12.7L Detroit. Not the most powerful engine out there but, it was reliable as hell and got better fuel mileage than any of the other trucks. Infact it was getting 6mpg pulling a 50Ton lowboy. In the newer trucks the Cummins ISX is hard to beat. No real major problems and with the proper gearing blows the Cat's out of the water for fuel mileage. The new Mack and Volvo engines have way too many problems to even consider one of them. Though the old E7 Mack engines were tough.
Hi Nickbowers, I am a fairly lucky dog getting the chance to pilot all sorts of iron, the 750 HP Volvo is 1 banger that I have not managed to get the feel of, the biggest Volvo I have tried was the FH16 chipped up to 680 HP, the 16 litre motor was a power house without question but the down side was all those oil filters and all that oil needed to give them fresh soup, lucky for me doing the service work I soon swapped the oil changing job to the VDS3 spec oil, the comments on the new I-shift are very good and Volvo need a pat on the back for their effort is the common word, but this is something I have not tried as the FH16 was a stick job custom build (Holland bolted chassis) so my comments are only of what I know regards the Scania 730's (fitted with 3 peddles) they pull a heavy load easily and fast, I love Volvo kit in construction iron but I dont get any seat time in Volvo trucks.
I just don't get it. This 2005 T800 will probably be put up for sale as it is too new for us to use. Thats right. in order for us to keep this truck with 390,000 original miles, we need to by 2014 spend $20,000.00 on some exhaust crap that is supposed to make this a better world for everyone to live in. Power is by Cummins ISX 565, 18sp, 20k front, 46k rears. This 1994 Ford L9000 is what will end up replacing the T800. Yep...the reason....we don't need to spend a damned thing on any smog crap....in fact, I can and will end up bombing the 3406E in this 94 L9000 to make a runner out of it. We will change the front to 20K and have it certified and add lowbed ramps. Other than that, its good to go. And yes, 89,000 original miles. :beatsme:beatsme We picked this one up at a military auction a few years back with about 50,000 miles. Power is a 3406E@435hp, 13sp, 16K front, 46K rears and no smog crap!
Pete, I see CA is really screwing truck owners over. The 1994 will have to get a new emission engine installed in 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/documents/multirule.pdf
Could you Glider a 2012 truck with a 1994-1995 engine and still get away with no emissions until 2016? The article Lee-online posted only states that the emissions must be compatible with the engine year. Are many people Glidering trucks down there?
I have an '07 Pete 379 with a Cat C15 in it. I recently had it turned up from 475 to 575, and the torque from 1850 to 2150. 604,000 miles on it, and have never had any issues with it.
those 8.3 cummins seem pretty rare around here at least, for medium duty trucks it's almost always either got a little cat 3126 or a 466E it seems...
Those 3126/C7 engines are hated among those who actually keep track of their breakdowns, and also those who have to drive them. One thing I discovered, ours has 300 horsepower listed on the nameplate but if you make a pull for very long up a steep hill on a hot day it derates the engine to keep exhaust gas temperature under control but Cat doesn't send you any money when this happens for lack of performance as advertised....this is when working without mechanical or electronic failures which I won't go into now. On the other hand Cummins support has been great. They covered us for a major failure that was technically outside warranty with only a little prodding.
Just wait....they will find you. They find everyone.
Roll over Pete might have to stick his hand out for a grant.
] Um.....I don't know if that is likely to happen?
So they finally caught up with ya Seriously if some government agency told me I have to spend up big to modify my truck to meet new emission rules but is willing to give me money towards complying, I would be straight down there to fill out the paperwork. This is not welfare or a hand out but sharing the cost of trying to clean up the air. The worrying thing is that governments have a habit of learning from one another, one of them brings in some crappy law, the citizens don't revolt and other governments follow suit. I am thinking this upgrade scheme is going to mean older trucks will be pretty much worthless, spose they'll go over the border somewhere. What about historic trucks? Will there be exemptions? Lastly how will you cool down the turbo when you are picking up the kids from school?
I prefer Dodge engine as its displacement is large enough and its sub systems can bear high temperature.
im running the c15 cat right now it has 625 hp coupled with a eaton fuller 8LL or 18spd stuffed in a tri axel pete for heavy haul. in my opinion the twin turbo design is a waste of engineering they do better with bigger singel turbo more like the 3406. the other thing is peterbuilt fell short when they tried to keep that thing bolted up under the hood motor mounts are always backing out turbos nuts backing off. but it does pull alot of weight gross usually around 180'000 lbs