2000-2010 engine comparison

Just to compare some engines here from both personal experiences working in a truck rental and leasing shop, my dad as a OTR trucker and feed back read from others:

Series 60 pre-2002 - Very popular engine in the motor coach application and Class 8 OTR truck segment. The only issues I've heard personally, some have defective wrist pins of some sort that cause the piston to separate and blow a hole in the motor. These got the best fuel mileage, sounded the smoothest and were easiest to work on. One thing about the Series 60, on acceleration you don't tend to hear the motor, when you give it throttle you mostly hear the turbo. This seems to be true for any of the Series 60 line.

Here is a vid, this Series 60 has a hole through the block but still runs!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYWvZpLv2Fc&feature=related The 2003 and newer EGR series 60's start better, he is a pre-emission Series 60 starting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgilX7vY8E&feature=related

Series 60: 2003-2006 - EGR emissions engines. The first year or two there were problems with the EGR cooler failing. Through bad fuel or faulty injectors, injector failure occurred on trucks with low miles. If you ever hear an injector miss on one of these, you can not miss it. Other than that, injectors were fine on these. I just know for unknown reasons, on newer delivered trucks they would have an injector failure. Seemed to be just a fluke.

After a few hundred thousand miles, the heads seemed to crack. This did NOT happen on all trucks, but if a truck was using coolant it was the usual root cause. Some drivers run them too hot. Coolant would disappear. Some had injector o-rings go bad, dumping diesel fuel into the coolant. Fuel mileage is hit or miss, my dad was no so fortunate. These were a great sounding motor with the VGT turbo, very unique. You could hear it coming a mile away and when running right and set at 515 HP with a 10 speed and 3.73's, they moved like a bat outta hell. Many fleets turned down the power. These did burn some oil too. HOW EVER, I had one driver tell me if you keep it a gallon low it doesn't use oil - apparently it gets blown out. There was on truck that would just CONSUME oil even when new, Detroit/Ryder wouldn't do anything. No exaggeration, 16-20 quarts of oil would be added to bring the oil level up, THEN the driver would have a couple gallon jugs that I would fill up. I haven't seen anyone block off their EGR system, but I would predict this would STOP alot of excess heat, raise the fuel mileage and make this FAR superior than what is right now. Series 60 14.0 cold start in 13 degrees Fahrenheit, if you wait till 1:53 you will hear the turbo come alive and spool up as the exhaust clears up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wPgL-wCVJE

Conclusions: These '03-06 engines were hit or miss, but they sounded good and had personality. Here is a clip taken from youtube, this is called un-officially, turbo flutter, must see 20 seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvSV6Xo5Qy8

Series 60 - 2007-2010 - These were actually very good engines. They used a new injection system and got pretty good fuel mileage. DPF issues at least on my dads, were not common. He had a sensor go bad causing it to not regenerate, I believe an EGR valve that was bad for maybe 30k miles without knowing it. Basically, no CEL was set but fuel mileage would go down. When the CEL came on, the EGR valve was replaced and fuel mileage went way up. Jake brakes were very strong. Fuel mileage running an 08 Cascadia, 3.42s and 13 speed OTR 48 states varied, typically 5.5-7 MPG, of course it was not good through hilly/mountainous states or heavy winds.

This engine has 403k miles I believe, it does NOT burn any oil between oil changes which go 25-30k miles. The turbo is quiet from inside and you can not hear it very well. The jakes are quiet, but you can hear them. Even with full highway driving, there are times when you have to do a parked regeneration. It has been very trouble free when compared to the 2003 and 2006 models. Average MPG I'd say at least 6 MPG, but depending on if you were running 80k, your speed, etc. Fuel mileage was best at 75 MPH I believe turning 1,550. This engine was set at 515 HP. When it was turned down to 455 and "Progressive shifting" with RPM limiting to 1,700 RPM vs the 2,100 RPM now, it used MORE fuel and had less power. This truck pulls very strong.

Conclusion, if you want to hear the jake brakes and turbo on a real truck, get the 2006 or older.

CAT C12: These were a favorite of mine:

PROS: Insanely loud jake brakes even with standard fleet muffler. Excellent turbo whistle. Good power as long as they aren't turned down like some fleets. MBM for example, the MAX RPM is 1,600 RPM, these are really turds. Here is a vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyKJ7sqaI-Q

CONS: Terrible fuel mileage, they BURN oil like no other motor. They've come apart destroying the blocks on trucks with less than 500k miles doing regional work with a tanker/PTO set up on daycabs, with 10 speed transmission in Freightliner Columbias.

Conclusion: If you're not paying for fuel, oil or repairs, this motor is for you!

CAT C13: Big yellow lemon

PROS: It's yellow and it starts when you turn the key! They do have some decent pulling power when set right. Mechanically, they don't really have any real problems, they are very reliable. How ever, some people would say that is absurd. I'm no CAT fan, but these engines were trouble free for the most part, see below. When you start the '03-06, you will usually see a puff of blue/gray smoke from the exhaust.

I've been around both the '03-06 and 07-10 DPF engines. I drove a 2008 C13 with a B500 Allison in a motor coach around town since new. Even with ONLY city driving, it had excellent power, it didn't to my knowledge use any oil, it got the same fuel mileage as its sister coach with a 2008 ISM and Allison B500, which was about 4.5 MPG. Myself when I drove, it was full throttle every where I went. That C13 would beat anything off the line, the way it was programmed. FYI: When you have an automatic transmission, most are torque limited when starting off, once you hit 2nd gear full power is enabled.


CONS: Excessive oil consumption, sounds nothing like a diesel engine. The turbo's doesn't really sound like turbos, the fuel mileage is not that great either. For example, a Freightliner Columbia 2005 models daycab with twin screw, 10 speed eaton fuller and 3.90 axle ratio hauling a 53' van in Florida would only achieve 4.5 MPG. Some motors would burn excessive coolant. If you put ear plugs in my ear, I could tell just by the smell of the exhaust if it was a C13 motor. It has a very distinct odor and exhaust color:


CAT C13: Sweet smelling exhaust, no black smoke only gray/bluish smoke
Series 60 EGR: Diesel smelling exhaust, most 03-06 are clean but when you see huge puffs of black smoke, you know it.
ISM: Diesel smelling exhaust, I don't any smoke from 03-06. If any, its a minor puff of LIGHT black on take off.



CAT C15 non-ACERT:

PROS: Excellent power! In contrast, if you had a Freightliner Columbia condo, Eaton 10 speed, 3.73 rear twin screw, one truck has a 430 C15 and the other a 515 HP Detroit, power wise they were as strong. How ever, the Detroit got the better fuel mileage. I don't care for the sound at idle. But accelerating, they have good response and turbo noise. Jakes are good, but not as loud as the C12. No stories of these engines coming apart. I talked to a driver in a single screw KW T-600 hauling furniture with a 2002 C15 at 430 HP and 10 speed, when he got in a 2006 Columbia with 515 Detroit and 10 speed with 3.73's and twin screw, his words compared to his CAT, the Series 60 pulled up the hills without any struggle and got 6.5 MPG with a 14.0 Series 60.

CONS: Terrible fuel mileage. They burned oil, but when they the mileage started getting high and they wore out, no exaggeration, you could put 2-4 gallons of oil when a truck came across the fuel island at the truck rental facility. How ever, it is unknown when the last time they had their oil topped off, or if some of these drivers check the oil. I think some drivers don't open their hood. Even in lower mileage trucks the drivers would love them, but comment on the poor fuel mileage and excessive oil consumption. Some reported actuator problems, but I haven't seen any.

C15 ACERT:

PROS: Two turbos....

CONS: IF you talk to two different people, you will get two different answers. Some say they pull good, some say they don't. The 03-06 motors seemed to burn ALOT of oil and again fuel mileage was not that great. I can't comment on the 07+ fuel economy or oil consumption, but I believe they were greatly improved.

Cummins N14:

PROS: This motor had a mean lope at idle. Whether you put it in neutral and let the clutch out, or you put it in gear and let the clutch out, they sounded mean. Fuel mileage for these was pretty good, 6 MPG or better. I know an injector tip failed on one unit causing piston damage. The Cummins N14 has 3 heads, so they just rebuilt one head, which I believe involved replacing 2 liners, pistons, etc. I don't know anything about the internals of an N14, but I do know they had the melted piston as a souvenir/discussion piece in the shop.

CONS: After higher mileage, they tended to burn coolant. The jake brakes were not very strong and at 430 HP, 10 speed and 3.73 axle ratio in either a daycab or sleeper configuration, these motors were not very powerful. They were comparable to a Mack E7.

Conclusion: Good motor, I'd much rather take this over any CAT. These are very reliable and get far superior fuel economy.

N14 sample Vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TXr6yblwkw

Cummins ISM pre-2002:

PROS: Good fuel mileage.

CONS: This engine was a turd. The jake brakes were very weak. Valve cover gaskets liked to leak. The engine sounded like crap, it had a lame droning noise to it, you really can't hear the turbos on these just a 'droning' noise when you accelerate. This engine is a turd. In a motor coach example with a 2000 ISM and a B500 Allison, on the Florida turn pike doing 70 MPH you would lose speeds on certain hills. With a Series 60 or C13, you would not lose any speed at all.

ISM '03-06 - '07-10

PROS: Sounded better than a C13, reliable with few issues.

CONS: fuel mileage wasn't that great, injector failure was common and some, NOT all liked to use oil. Any driver would tell you, the C13 would pull alot harder than one of these. Jakes were not very strong. BUT, you do get better turbo noise. The '07-10 pretty much the same.

Cummins ISX: I don't have much experience with these. The drivers I spoke to enjoyed the power they had. After reading around on the forums, you will notice many people having trouble with theirs.


Volvo D12: Besides burning alot of oil, I have no experience with these.

International MaxxForce Class 8 engines: No experience, but everyone will tell you their pretty much CAT motors painted silver.

Mack E7 - Pre 2002:

PROS: These were pretty reliable engines, they didn't use much oil. It was rare to add oil. They sound good at idle, nice turbo whistle, loud jakes.

CONS: Problems with cam shafts. These engines were TURDS. Not only were they turds, they got TERRIBLE fuel mileage. With a single axle day cab and 10 speed in Florida making deliveries to Auto Parts store throughout the state, they got 4.5 5.0 MPG average. Although this has nothing to do with the engine, these were probably had the worst ride of any trucks you could find. 1 in 10 drivers would praise the truck, the other 9 would swear at it and tell you what a piece of poo it was.

Mack Motors : 2003-2006 Not sure what they called these, but I do know they had MUCH better power than the E7, fuel economy was improved but nothing to write about. Some fleets use them, but I think they just get a special deal on them. It's interesting that Mack started offering Cummins engines in their trucks, we can all speculate why.

Newer Mack engines 2007 and up: I've not heard many good things. They get HORRID fuel mileage and have to regenerate alot. I was under the impression Volvo and Mack are in a partnership, but Mack motors I'd pass on.

The Detroit Diesel DD13/DD15, no experience with these yet. But it seems the Series 60 has been the best so far in reliability of the 2007 to 2010 engines. Regardless of what Detroit Diesel says, I think the Series 60 still gets better fuel mileage in real world conditions than the DD13/DD15. If any of you look at the DD13/DD15 and new 2010 Cummins ISX they look like a disaster to work on and very $$$ just by looking at all those fancy fuel lines! I wouldn't know what to recommend for a 2010 engine.

If I were to recommend an engine to you, I would recommend the Series 60. I've been fair and tried not give any bias, for the most part these were very trouble free engines. Lets face it, all the '03 and newer emissions engines have their problems. Without a doubt, if you have to choose an 2007-2010 engine, the Series 60 is in my opinion your best bet. The '03-06 had their problems, but the 2007-2010 had excellent power, reliability and fuel economy and in my dads case, didn't burn a drop of oil in 400k miles.

Just some background on me. I have a Class A with passenger endorsement and more. I've worked in a truck rental and leasing shop for two years and saw pretty much every truck, engine and transmission you can think of. I've driven most of them short distances and see problems good and bad first hand. I drove motor coaches for a year and half, the majority of the fleet were pre-2002 Series 60 with a Allison B500 automatics, the other half was CAT C13 ACERTS with ZF-Astronics, 2 with the CAT CX31 automatics and one with a B500 Allison. There were a hand with Pre-2002 ISM Cummins and B500's, these actually got the BEST fuel mileage in the fleet.

I welcome your comments and views, good and bad.

 

If the turbo wasn't lasting that long, maybe there was a restriction in the line? Was is a re manufactured turbo? Who manufactured the turbo? People here have commented that one brand is far superior than others in the Series 60. I believe Holsett was recomended, while either Garret or Borg Worner were frowned upon.

Those fuel mileage numbers are believable and impressive. A driver I knew was a O/O with a pre-emission Freightliner Century, it had a Series 60 and an auto-shift transmission. Needless to say, grossing 80k with a van trailer he claimed to get 8-9 MPG, which is better than what most get.

It seems there are not alot of people with Series 60's on these forums. I would like to speak and hear from those that have had their trucks tuned. I've driven a 12.7 Series 60 with a 9 speed in a single screw Freightliner Columbia day cab. This little piggy looked like a regular Freightshaker, but it had a marine ECM! Holy #### that thing would move! For those that don't know the specifics about a marine ECM, a standard road ECM for a Series 60 will not exceed fuel past 2,100 RPM's. The marine ECM is governed at 2,400 RPM's. It also disables alot of stuff that relate to emissions, since on marine applications they are not subject to the same regulations as on highway(road ECM) trucks. Back to the story, when you got on the throttle the turbo spooled INSTANTLY and you were basically banging through the gears wishing you had more than just 9, the truck pulled so strong compared to the other weak trucks.

The FLD 120 series and the Classic Freightliners are truly classic trucks, it's a shame they don't make them any more. People whine about the plastic inside, but I loved the basic wooden/plastic old school interior, the leather/vinyl button upholstery on the doors and around the truck, the shape of the hood and the look. Looking at a Freightliner Cascadia or just sitting in one, its not an enjoyable feeling.

For those that are saying how far superior MB and Volvo's are, any new truck new even on pick up trucks start good with the electronic controls and common rail fuel system. The fuel mixture on today's engine that is sprayed inside the combustion chamber is very fine and accurate. The 2007-2010 Series 60 starts without a hiccup compared to the 2006 and prior.