Kelton
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 573
|
Post by Kelton on Mar 30, 2013 17:45:09 GMT -6
See when the introduced the SCR here it didn't really affect much guys went from 3.8 mpg in a 09 to 4 in a 12. And know they have to pay for DEF ( 1.50$ litter )and here the use about 100 litres per week with the weights and roads we pull on.
|
|
|
Post by Rowboat on Mar 31, 2013 5:51:02 GMT -6
See when the introduced the SCR here it didn't really affect much guys went from 3.8 mpg in a 09 to 4 in a 12. And know they have to pay for DEF ( 1.50$ litter )and here the use about 100 litres per week with the weights and roads we pull on. That sounds a bit excessive. Luke Vernon (youtube vlogger) only used 2/3s a tank of DEF for 30000 km's. Euro 5 Volvo FH16 750 is what he drives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2013 9:07:28 GMT -6
We blocked the egr valve on our signature, got an.error on the computer but it didnt derate and the fuel economy improvrd alot and it runs alot cooler. Pretty much made it a new truck. it actually has better economy than the pre egr engine (same hp identical spec truck). All of the new emission stuff is bypassable. You got an open or shorted voltage code. I had to clear one on a signature becuase some idiot that overhauled it left the egr unplugged. That won't hurt your engine. Its bypassable. To a certain extent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2013 9:08:21 GMT -6
Anyways this argument is stupid. Becuase none of you expect for a few really know what goes on in a new engine and why the technology is there. Your just fans of longhood trucks and the power of older motors. To be honest I know why all the emission components are there and why they need to be there. All I know these new engines bring more problems. Which I and many other tech's around the world will fix. Keep bitching your not solving anything just driving yourselves into a brick wall. Yeah I love older motors like hell. But the new shit is whats here. You can't change anything. Oh and that power complaint versus the 3406E and the new ISX. Its an entire different motor. No matter the same conditions and all. It won't be the same mileage. You have two different fuel systems and such. Give it time and it will improve. If not. Your stuck with it.
|
|
Kelton
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 573
|
Post by Kelton on Mar 31, 2013 10:57:34 GMT -6
Unfortunately you are correct @luis but until it improves the everyday driver still needs to support his family will pick the option that saves him more money and more and more guys are realizing new trucks are not the answer. And if this is what the government is shoving down our throat and we are "stuck with it" I believe these massive company's will get sick of it and will make change. Maybe I am completely wrong but all I know is supporting their family is a drivers first priority. And if they can not do that because of the equipment they are operating things will have to change. Rowboat That is quite excessive but you really cant compare a Canadian truck and Euro truck.
|
|
Quentin
Frequent Flyer
Aussie Master Modder
Posts: 821
|
Post by Quentin on Mar 31, 2013 15:50:50 GMT -6
We blocked the egr valve on our signature, got an.error on the computer but it didnt derate and the fuel economy improvrd alot and it runs alot cooler. Pretty much made it a new truck. it actually has better economy than the pre egr engine (same hp identical spec truck). All of the new emission stuff is bypassable. You got an open or shorted voltage code. I had to clear one on a signature becuase some idiot that overhauled it left the egr unplugged. That won't hurt your engine. Its bypassable. To a certain extent. incorrect egr pressure. i think a lot of people do it here. and btw im not a fan of old motors and big hoods or whatever. the new engine was ok but the fan basically never switched off. dad remade all the shrouding around the engine to give it more airflow which improved it, and then tried to block the egr and like i said it made it a new truck. its been like it for about 4 months now and so far so good. if we ever get a new truck with more emmision equiptment i think we will track down that lot that do the ecms.
|
|
|
Post by Rowboat on Mar 31, 2013 16:26:50 GMT -6
Unfortunately you are correct @luis but until it improves the everyday driver still needs to support his family will pick the option that saves him more money and more and more guys are realizing new trucks are not the answer. And if this is what the government is shoving down our throat and we are "stuck with it" I believe these massive company's will get sick of it and will make change. Maybe I am completely wrong but all I know is supporting their family is a drivers first priority. And if they can not do that because of the equipment they are operating things will have to change. Rowboat That is quite excessive but you really cant compare a Canadian truck and Euro truck. And why not? hell you guys should be able to get better fuel mileage due to the ability to make your trucks more aerodynamic, and one must not forget that EPA has stricter rules than us. Euro 6 is not as clean as what EPA is working up to. Next to that, the new Paccar engine is a DAF engine, no need for that to use more. Saying that you can't compare is an easy way out.
|
|
Kelton
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 573
|
Post by Kelton on Mar 31, 2013 17:39:17 GMT -6
You can't compare because we have different trailer combinations, roads, applications,trucks,engines, transmissions..The Paccar engine is quite rare you usually a Cummins or Detroit actually in fact I have never seen a MX. Although honestly i don't know overly a lot about euro trucking so maybe it is more similar then I think. The 100 liters per week came from a Peterbilt 388 pulling super b's(9 axle combination) that are grossed out at 63 500 kgs pulling 5-8% grades all day up and down. Aerodynamics do not really make a difference when you are doing that. From what I have seen of Euro trucking its not quite similar.
|
|
|
Post by Rowboat on Mar 31, 2013 18:28:06 GMT -6
Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, Austria... all countries with the same grades. Denmark is considering raising they're max weight from 60 to 70000kg's, and most of Europe is already allowed to carry 60000kg's, except for France I believe. I don't see much difference. Paccar is a DAF engine, Volvo uses their European engines and Detroit is basicly a Mercedes nowadays, at least, it probably will in the near future with that EPA deadline closing in. We also have double trailers in Scandinavia, Holland and Germany and England are still testing them. Heck, they're even considering allowing bigger cabs in Euro parliament in Brussels too. The whole idea being that truck manufacturers will attach a short nose to the cab to improve aerodynamics and to enlarge the crunch zone. If they're considering it I surely believe aerodynamics do make a difference.
|
|
Kelton
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 573
|
Post by Kelton on Mar 31, 2013 18:50:10 GMT -6
Learn something new everyday.We could argue about this until we are blue in our faces but I don't have the answer why you guys have better fuel economy then us but I know over here the emissions stuff isn't working for the majority of guys. All the numbers I have said are real numbers and drivers are not happy about the money they are losing. Not only is it because of the fuel economy or DEF fluid it is down time too due complications with the scr and egr systems. How long are those grades though? Here we have grades that can 9% and 10 kms long or worse, I didn't realize Europe was so similar I thought it was more like the USA.
|
|
HighRoller
Frequent Flyer
Fag Roller the best you got?
Posts: 806
|
Post by HighRoller on Mar 31, 2013 19:08:47 GMT -6
Cali has already done away with the older trucks...they have to be up to epa standards to run...So all states will be doing this. Alot of ports also have age limits on the trucks as well...only a matter of time before they make it where you cant run a older truck. You watch.
|
|
Adam
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 552
|
Post by Adam on Mar 31, 2013 19:21:11 GMT -6
Cali has already done away with the older trucks...they have to be up to epa standards to run...So all states will be doing this. Alot of ports also have age limits on the trucks as well...only amatter of time before they make it where you cant run a older truck. You watch. Do you live in California? Saying that they've already done away with older trucks is untrue. Yes they're fazing them out, but it's not completely done yet.
|
|
|
Post by James60470 on Mar 31, 2013 21:54:46 GMT -6
next year you cant go in the state of California with a pre-05 truck period.
|
|
Adam
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 552
|
Post by Adam on Apr 1, 2013 0:34:39 GMT -6
next year you cant go in the state of California with a pre-05 truck period. Here are the requirements to end this once and for all. Pre-1994 No requirements until 2015, then 2010 engine
1994-1995 No requirements until 2016, then 2010 engine 1996-1999 PM filter from 2012 to 2020, then 2010 engine 2000-2004 PM filter from 2013 to 2021, then 2010 engine 2005-2006 PM filter from 2014 to 2022, then 2010 engine 2007-2009 No requirements until 2023, then 2010 engine 2010 Meets final requirements
|
|
|
Post by -=Bora=- on Apr 1, 2013 0:46:35 GMT -6
next year you cant go in the state of California with a pre-05 truck period. Here are the requirements to end this once and for all. Pre-1994 No requirements until 2015, then 2010 engine
1994-1995 No requirements until 2016, then 2010 engine 1996-1999 PM filter from 2012 to 2020, then 2010 engine 2000-2004 PM filter from 2013 to 2021, then 2010 engine 2005-2006 PM filter from 2014 to 2022, then 2010 engine 2007-2009 No requirements until 2023, then 2010 engine 2010 Meets final requirements Thanks for the info Adam! Now I don't really see why Cali is such a big problem to alot of people I mean you got PLENTY of time to outphase older trucks, at the time you must do something the truck will be no less than 10 years old, if you can't setup your finances to write off the truck within 10 years you really got NOTHING to do in the trucking buisness IMO.
|
|
Adam
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 552
|
Post by Adam on Apr 1, 2013 1:10:58 GMT -6
Here are the requirements to end this once and for all. Pre-1994 No requirements until 2015, then 2010 engine
1994-1995 No requirements until 2016, then 2010 engine 1996-1999 PM filter from 2012 to 2020, then 2010 engine 2000-2004 PM filter from 2013 to 2021, then 2010 engine 2005-2006 PM filter from 2014 to 2022, then 2010 engine 2007-2009 No requirements until 2023, then 2010 engine 2010 Meets final requirements Thanks for the info Adam! Now I don't really see why Cali is such a big problem to alot of people I mean you got PLENTY of time to outphase older trucks, at the time you must do something the truck will be no less than 10 years old, if you can't setup your finances to write off the truck within 10 years you really got NOTHING to do in the trucking buisness IMO. No problem Claus. The only problem I have is that there are no modern coes to take the place of the current ones. I'm not saying this because I think they look better, but because they have a purpose with specific types of transportation out here. Now we have to replace small bunk coes with day cab conventionals to keep the same or close to the same wb. Other than that I really don't have a problem with the whole thing. I actually like some of the newer trucks (mostly the 384 and 388) and wouldn't mind owning/driving either one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Rowboat on Apr 1, 2013 4:49:30 GMT -6
Learn something new everyday.We could argue about this until we are blue in our faces but I don't have the answer why you guys have better fuel economy then us but I know over here the emissions stuff isn't working for the majority of guys. All the numbers I have said are real numbers and drivers are not happy about the money they are losing. Not only is it because of the fuel economy or DEF fluid it is down time too due complications with the scr and egr systems. How long are those grades though? Here we have grades that can 9% and 10 kms long or worse, I didn't realize Europe was so similar I thought it was more like the USA. You're right about that. I think a lot of O/O's here are losing money because of the same reasons too. Quite frankly I hate DEF, some sort of chemical that you have to pay for to stop all the other chemicals coming out of your exhaust. Those grades kind of depend on where you're driving, the highways usually are flattened out a bit to avoid slow trucks going up hills, some of them are up to 10% though, but if you have a customer in one of the mountain villages, you could be doing well over 10% grades for an unlimited amount of km's.
|
|
359er
Gold Certificate Member
The TMS Bed Bug
#RadOutGranma
Posts: 3,177
|
Post by 359er on Apr 1, 2013 16:05:50 GMT -6
See, the only experience I've heard from with Cali and older trucks are when Estes bought 1,500 new Internationals to spread through the fleet, they ended up having to send all their new trucks to California and then they wouldn't even let Estes drive them out, they had to be loaded on drop decks. Not sure if they ran into a pissed off DOT officer or what, but I know that for a fact because they were going to haul loads out with them and why in god's name would you not? You're losing money... Some mechanic may be able to answer this, but if you really wanted to keep your cabover or 379, 359, T6, etc, is there a way you could buy a new engine and have the truck fitted with it? It doesn't say 2010+ truck, only ENGINE. So, would there be a way around that for drivers that really like their trucks? Also, Personally, I don't care for DEF. I see it as a waste of money and power, but it's also in its early stages...With time the engines and power will evolve. Cummins is selling either an LNG or CNG engine, and a lot of Love's have those....Honestly, I wouldn't mind running that either, it's less than half the cost of diesel. But with time, they'll find ways to improve the power that comes with DEF. Personally, I'm a Cat guy, but Cummins is a good motor too and however, Cat will always be my favorite, but we may not be able to run them unless they start production again (which I've heard from my grandfather on my dad's side who works for Cat, they were tooling up to build again before the 2012 election).
|
|
|
Post by seriousmods on Apr 1, 2013 16:28:37 GMT -6
Well, from what I have heard, the CARB standards do require some changes as of the beginning of the year, namely tires and trailer skirts for 53 footers. Am I wrong about that?
|
|
Kelton
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 573
|
Post by Kelton on Apr 1, 2013 16:56:20 GMT -6
Rowboat Yeah it does seem a little stupid to use hazardous chemical to change another hazardous chemical into a different form. Dilution is the solution to pollution haha is what a buddy told me the other day and it seems pretty true. I heard from a sales man that in the coming years trucks will have to have LRR tires,set idle time,set speed and other one that I can not recall. All of these will be set in the factory and "won't" be able to changed. Anybody got any info on this? 359er I understand what you are saying but honestly I rather see an old 359 parked then have that old 425 changed to a engine with emissions.
|
|
Adam
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 552
|
Post by Adam on Apr 1, 2013 21:51:44 GMT -6
Well, from what I have heard, the CARB standards do require some changes as of the beginning of the year, namely tires and trailer skirts for 53 footers. Am I wrong about that? Honestly alot of the carb bs has to do with how big your fleet is and some other factors.
|
|
Adam
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 552
|
Post by Adam on Apr 1, 2013 21:58:54 GMT -6
See, the only experience I've heard from with Cali and older trucks are when Estes bought 1,500 new Internationals to spread through the fleet, they ended up having to send all their new trucks to California and then they wouldn't even let Estes drive them out, they had to be loaded on drop decks. Not sure if they ran into a pissed off DOT officer or what, but I know that for a fact because they were going to haul loads out with them and why in god's name would you not? You're losing money... Some mechanic may be able to answer this, but if you really wanted to keep your cabover or 379, 359, T6, etc, is there a way you could buy a new engine and have the truck fitted with it? It doesn't say 2010+ truck, only ENGINE. So, would there be a way around that for drivers that really like their trucks? Also, Personally, I don't care for DEF. I see it as a waste of money and power, but it's also in its early stages...With time the engines and power will evolve. Cummins is selling either an LNG or CNG engine, and a lot of Love's have those....Honestly, I wouldn't mind running that either, it's less than half the cost of diesel. But with time, they'll find ways to improve the power that comes with DEF. Personally, I'm a Cat guy, but Cummins is a good motor too and however, Cat will always be my favorite, but we may not be able to run them unless they start production again (which I've heard from my grandfather on my dad's side who works for Cat, they were tooling up to build again before the 2012 election). Sorry for the double post, I couldn't figure out how to copy the quote thingy on this new forum About this story about Estes. I'm not calling you a lier or anything but I don't believe this. They could of ran into a asshole DOT officer, but thats bs they had to ship their old trucks out of the state on trailers. I know guys that run older trucks to Oregon and Nevada few times a week and they have no problems at all.
|
|
|
Post by seriousmods on Apr 1, 2013 22:10:39 GMT -6
Adam, ok, cause some of r.modjeski's recent pictures and videos show older trucks, and I was wondering how they got away with that. good to know.
|
|
|
Post by -=Bora=- on Apr 1, 2013 22:39:27 GMT -6
Rowboat Yeah it does seem a little stupid to use hazardous chemical to change another hazardous chemical into a different form.. You need to go look up what DEF actually is, calling it a hazardous chemical is overkill..!! I'll clear it up for you tho, DEF/AdBlue is urea mixed with water to turn it into liquid form, 32.5% urea and 67.5% water, nothing more, nothing less. Urea is a main ingredience in most fertilizers too
|
|
|
Post by Rowboat on Apr 2, 2013 4:16:58 GMT -6
Rowboat Yeah it does seem a little stupid to use hazardous chemical to change another hazardous chemical into a different form.. You need to go look up what DEF actually is, calling it a hazardous chemical is overkill..!! I'll clear it up for you tho, DEF/AdBlue is urea mixed with water to turn it into liquid form, 32.5% urea and 67.5% water, nothing more, nothing less. Urea is a main ingredience in most fertilizers too Oooh, ok, I didn't know that. Is Urea irritating to the skin though? I've heard some complain about that?
Never mind, I found it. Not irritating at all. Even used in dermatology some times.
|
|