what kind of mpg do you get?

04 KW W900 C15 CAT Flatbed trailer total 31280 empty. I get 7.5 on the flats empty, 4.8 fully loaded in the hills to 5.5 on the flats. 10K or more pounds is all the same, my truck doesnt care...

 

I'm averaging about 4.0mpg with a 2007 Pete 379, 625 cat, 18spd, 3.58 rears pulling a tri-axle reefer Vancouver-Calgary usually, grossing between 80,000lbs and 100,000lbs.

I got almost the same pulling 5-axle super Bs grossing as high as 140,000lbs on the same routes.

I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on selling this truck to buy a Volvo, but if I can get better numbers out of this one I'll keep it.

 

last 10 years- 6.0-7.9 m.p.g. 95' intl coe det ser 60 11.1 350 horse. wt. 47000-49000 lbs.ave. headwind, is biggest factor on my m.p.g. very rarely idle. i even shut off when fueling. 1.3 mil & still going. no inframe or overhaul yet.

 

2000 kw w-900 n-14 cummins 550 hp dry-van usally 80,000 gross avg 5 mpg have no wind faring on top so trailer catches alot of wind

 

Turn off the engine.
Drivers should avoid excessive warm-up times when starting the truck, even for a short time. Look for other times when drivers have a habit of idling.
Use shore power when it’s available.
Many inverters and auxiliary power units come with a plug-in option that converts incoming current to DC to charge the batteries, using AC to power climate-control units and/or in-cab accessories. The truckstop electrification movement to help eliminate idling has gained steam in the last year, with plug-in options available at many more parking spaces.
Avoid revving the engine between shifts.
Ease into each new gear, and don’t be in a hurry to climb through them.
Run in your engine’s sweet spot.
Once you reach cruising speed, operating in the peak torque zone gives you optimum horsepower so that the engine runs most efficiently. It takes only about 200 horsepower to maintain 65 mph.
Minimize air-conditioning use.
Running the A/C delivers a 2/10- to 4/10-mpg hit.
Anticipate traffic lights.
If you can approach slowly and avoid a complete stop, it saves fuel and reduces equipment wear.
Maintain an extended following distance.
It helps to prevent unnecessary acceleration due to frequent braking.
Lower your average highway speed.
Every mph over 55 equals a 0.1-mpg drop in fuel economy.
Don’t punch the throttle.
Gradually put your foot into it, pretending there’s an egg between the pedal and the floorboard. Use smooth, steady accelerator inputs to avoid fuel burn spikes.

​

 

ill bite on this topic, as i just had this conversation last time i was in the office while getting my truck serviced and we looked looked at some of the ifta reports to compare some different trucks in the fleet

all the trucks we looked at were 379 petes and a couple of the new 388's

now what we do is haul water in the oil feilds lots of idle time running a pto powered pump witch consumes 2-2.5 gallons per hour per the computer displays as iv notied

we also haul very heavy 7-8 axle t/t combinations almost never grossing less than 90k and up to 120k when loaded

lots of back roads hill and gravel roads. lots of stop and go

all trucks we looked at are rated higher than 500 hp with 18 speeds most geared in 3.55-3.73's

first truck ill give info on is my old truck that i had been in for over a year before they gave me a bran new 388
2006 379 pete (the one in my sig picture) 280" wheel base 63" mid roof sleeper 565hp isx 3.55 rears 18 speed ifta fuel millage 3.86mpg

second one is the truck im in now
2013 pete 388 isx 535 hp 3.70's 18 speed 290" wheel base 48inch flat top sleeper ifta fuel millage 3.92 (all though i do seem to be doing better on fuel as the motor breaks in a bit)

third truck driven by a fairly conservative driver
2007 pete 379 (dont know what rears it has for sure i would guess something like 3.36's very long legged truck) 600hp cat with a 18 speed 72 inch mid roof sleeper. 2.8mpg

4th truck
2004 379 3.55 rears 550hp 6nz cat 63" mid roof i would guess about a 270" wb as it was just a touch shorter than my old truck 13speed 2.4mpg

5th truck
another 2013 388 290" wb 535isx 63" flat top drivin by a lead footed driver 2.9mpg

6th truck
2007 cat 550hp 3.36 rears 13 speed 280 wb 63" midroof 2.3mpg

7th truck
2013 388 63" flat top 475isx 290wb 3.70 rears 18 speed 3.6mpg

then on the truck that i own althoguh i havent run the truck a whole lot so not a super good long term average but hauled some gravel loads with it its a short wheel base truck1995 48" flat top fld120 detroit loaded around 88k most the loads iv hauled with also got some bobtail millage in the mix and i come up with a average of 7.1mpg so far checked a single tank bobtail trip in it and come up with 10.1mpg bobtail. a single day of wokring it checking 1 individual fill up i came up with 5.2

i wish i would have thought when i was in the office to look at the ifta report on the only truck we got in the company fleet that has a detroit 60series mabye next time im in there all ask about it.


keep in mind too that these fuel millage numbers are going to be quite low compaired to what the same trucks would get otr and the nature of the work tends to bring fuel millage way down. but still a interesting compairsion of different motors vrs fuel economy but you can also see that the driver of the truck makes a big difference too

 

Here's some food for thought.

I did the exact same run for 2 years, same weights and same roads, 2500 miles a week. My old FLD with a 12.7 Detroit managed 8.5mpg for an annual. I traded that in on a C13 387 and it went down to 6.2mpg. I then got rid of that truck and got a WS Lowmax w/C15 and I got it to 6.8mpg. Now with all the engine work and modifications I've done, I bet I could clear 7.5mpg with my WS. But it will never be as good as that FLD with the 12.7

 

Quick question, if you are hauling heavy loads (44k lbs), would you get better fuel mileage with a 12.7 or a 14 liter? I keep thinking that even though the 12.7 is a smaller engine and therefore a little more fuel efficient, pulling a heavy load will cause it to have to work harder to keep up with a heavy load and thus use more fuel than an engine that could pull it easier. Am I right about this, or am I wrong?

I had been thinking of getting a 2002 FL with a 12.7 Detroit, but am not sure it would be worth it if I were pulling heavy loads.

Thanks

 

12.7 is better in every way. 02 is before the emmision crap. it will do so much better i.m.o.

 

Yes, the 12.7 is a much better engine. The 14L was a EGR motor and has many issues with the emissions equipment and got terrible fuel mileage. And pulling 44k is NOT hauling heavy. I pulled 60k with my old 12.7 @ 470hp and had not a single issue