2011-13 T660 VS W900 Fuel economy

Discussion in 'Experienced Truckers' Advice' started by Little Gear Grinder, Jun 7, 2012.

  1. snowwy

    snowwy Road Train Member

    19,720
    12,268
    Jul 6, 2009
    0
    proposed or not. won't be long before it's a mandate. if it isn't already.

    next you'll be telling me to stop watching the news on tv. and pay strict attention to the forums.
    i don't think the radio is gonna talk about false garbage. which is what you see on the forums some times.

    but since your a student. you must be one of them smarter then the vets and knows it all
     
  2. Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  3. last 1

    last 1 Medium Load Member

    439
    184
    Nov 29, 2009
    0
    Ok why doesn't your mileage matter in just UT or CA? I doubt they are going to ban all older truck engines, California can't even get there own crap together right now (how long has all this DPF talk been going on and keep getting pushed back) but you think EVERY state is going to follow suit in the next 5 to 10 years max?:biggrin_25521: If the day ever comes that I can not drive my 2000 truck with its 2000 engine than I guess I just fully retire instead of being just semi retired.
     
    t800kwopper Thanks this.
  4. TheRoadWarrior

    TheRoadWarrior rocking-n-rollin again

    1,058
    3,153
    Dec 6, 2011
    South West
    0
    That dpf retrofit would cost O/O and companies tons. just as bad as the low resistant tires and the aero skirts on trailers. Do u know how many of those skirts ive seen crunched up already.
     
  5. Jfaulk99

    Jfaulk99 Road Train Member

    2,914
    1,648
    May 16, 2009
    Couch
    0
    Yep, student! Hoping to haul my 2nd load in a week or so!:biggrin_25525::biggrin_2559:

    You didn't even read the actual proposed mandate did you? I even did the leg work for you and posted a link to it. Lazy truckers.
     
    last 1 Thanks this.
  6. snowwy

    snowwy Road Train Member

    19,720
    12,268
    Jul 6, 2009
    0
    california has always set the example for emissions. and other states have always followed.

    the only thing NOT followed is the speed limits.

    california had pcv's back in 62. the others followed in 68. then came the egr to which cali then wanted advanced timing plugged off on distributors. and speeds reduced to 55. with no vehicles pulling trailers. they were the first to introduce the emissions testing.

    this is all on cars.
     
  7. Little Gear Grinder

    Little Gear Grinder Light Load Member

    85
    31
    Oct 11, 2010
    NB Canada
    0
    When it comes to emmisions I almost think why bother I mean u have 1/3 of the world doing there part to save it then you have the rest that just straight up can't afford to keep up with it all and just don't care. I'm talking about the middle east, Africa, India, china places like that you know the places buying our old engines and running them. In the long run I'm pretty sire they cancel out any of the good we do trying to "save" the world.
     
  8. fland

    fland Light Load Member

    204
    99
    Jul 18, 2012
    Mayfield NB
    0
    Be sure they find a way to make it even harder on you (and me)...

    In Holland there are several city's you're not allowed to go to if not Euro 4 or better. In Germany there's a road-tax, so called MAUT. The newer the truck, the less tax you pay...

    Can't afford to drive an old truck anymore...

    Things might have changed, haven't been there in a while...
     
  9. daf105paccar

    daf105paccar Road Train Member

    6,564
    7,290
    Apr 15, 2012
    0
    Actually,in the rest off the world things are changing.
    Aldough they will not ban older engines,i was amased at how many countries are imposing new rules on trucks.
    Granted,it isn't as fast as the West but still they are changing.(i think there's a world map on the Scania website showing the changes)
    Pretty soon only the poorest African nations will not have emission rules.
     
  10. Hurst

    Hurst Registered Member

    6,618
    12,265
    Aug 24, 2011
    Tampa, Fl
    0

    We just got a 2013 386 with the Paccar motor. The T660 has a slightly larger sleeper at 72" though not visibly noticeable between the two. The 386 feels just as roomy as a T660 sleeper. The top bunk has no window or ventilation in the 386. Also the 386 we have has no side doors on the sleeper like our T660's do. I do like the fridge location in the 386 better than on the floor in my T660. Dumbest place ever to put a fridge.

    As for the T660 studio,.. we have 5 of them and while the extra cabinet space is nice,.. the bottom bunk is a fold up couch that splits in the middle. With out a 4 - 6 inch foam mattress top, its probably the most uncomfortable sleep I've ever had to deal with. The crease is irritating and the mattress padding leaves much to be desired.

    The new 386 have an air/leaf front spring set up, that while nice on smooth pavement is a little rough on bad roads. I think its because of the light weight that causes the jarring ride on rough surfaces. My T660 is much smoother on rough roads.

    My T660 is a heavy beast compared to our 386. IIRC the 386 weighs in at barely 18,000 full of fuel. Thats with twin 100 gal tanks and the smaller 430hp Paccar. It does get great fuel mileage though. Not so great when pulling up long hills with a load. And all of our trucks have 13 or 18 spds in them. Both our 386 and my T660 are 18 speeds. My T660 is an 08 with the C15 CAT. At 78k gross I'll never drop below 45mph crossing Donner or the Cabbage in either direction. l also have an APU and inverter set up with the "Clean Power" system. Battery pack under the sleeper for stand alone Heat and AC as well as 5000 watt inverter with 4 outlets. My truck weighs in at over 23,000 and typically will scale out at 12,000 on the steers when full of full of fuel (Twin 150 gal tanks) and an empty trailer. With 43900 on the box I would be over gross when full of fuel. Always have to watch fuel when going to get a load. Always fuel up after getting loaded. The 386 we have can take 45k in the box easily with out fear of being over gross. For anyone that has ever had to get loaded with beer out of Miller/Coors Golden Co will understand what I mean. I know to never have more than 1/2 tank fuel when going there.

    I typically scale anything over 38k in the box just for peace of mind to make sure I am good on my axles. Also,.. I ALWAYs have to ask to be loaded with a single pallet in the nose (When possible) and preferably 1 - 2 - 1 when possible so not to be over on my drives. I'm almost always running with my tandems in the 4th or 5th hole. Very rare to get a load where I can put them in the 7th hole. Thats the pitfalls with a truck set up like this.

    EDIT:
    Oh and despite the weight and the C15 CAT, I do manage to average 6 - 6.23 MPG when loaded near gross. Have done 6.5 - 6.7 on a few runs grossing between 76k - 78k. I can do 1300 - 1400 miles easily between fill ups when full of fuel. Still have 300 miles before empty when fuel light comes on at 1/8 tank. Not as good as the 6.5 - 7.5 mpg the Paccar we have sees. But not too shabby for a CAT. This one is a freak. We have two 379's that might get 4.5 on a good day. 3 other T660's with the C15 that are struggling to see 5.5 mpg. Even the T660's we have with the ISX Cummins motors struggle to see 6 mpg. I personally think its their driving style. The torq of the C15 is incredibly addictive and guys with a heavy foot will probably not see the same mileage that I get.

    Hurst
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2012
    fland Thanks this.
  11. fland

    fland Light Load Member

    204
    99
    Jul 18, 2012
    Mayfield NB
    0
    This thread is getting more and more interesting..!!


    Thanks for the input..!!

    Talking about fuel-mileage. The company i drive for has got a couple of KW T660's and 386 Petes. They both have the same set up, ISX 450 engines with smart-torque. What is it, 1550 / 1750..?? The Kenworths are some with and some without DEF, the Petes are all DEF trucks. Only difference between the trucks is the rears. The 660's got 3.70's and the petes have got 3.55's.

    The Kenworths average between 5.5 and 6 mpg, mostly closer to the 5.5. The first Pete did 6.5 mpg or better. Good reason to buy a couple more. The next Pete is now the best truck in the fleet. It averaged 7.2 over the first six months this year. Last two Petes do just above 6 mpg but they've not that many miles on them...

    There's some cascadia's with DD15's doing 5.7 - 6.2 mpg. A prostar with high torque ISX doing 5.2 . A Prostar with MaxxForce doing 5.4 mpg.

    These two 386 petes, no matter who drives them, always good fuel mileage..!!I had one of them for a week doing triaxle. Grossweights the whole time around 100,000 lbs, hardly any empty miles. It did 5.9 mpg, with normal work it would have been 6.2 or better. I don't know what is the smart thing to do. Smaller engines should do better but these ISX's are doing a great job (in the Peterbilts)...
     
  • Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.