jakes...... isx vs acert

?...think everyone had already agreed that the ISX has better engine brakes.
Not to sure about the 08 engines but we have just got the NXS Acerts and EGR ISXs and I can tell you the Cummins is the POS of the two, Cat has issues for sure but the ISX... 4 turbos in 300000kms, poor fuel, customer says "it feels sluggish compared to my old one" cummins says "thats how they are, put up with it".
A properly set up Acert will walk past an EGR ISX any day.
I have a customer with a 580 EGR ISX thats done 300000km, he is pulling the ISX out and fitting an Acert engine.

Cat has not left the on highway truck market, they have entered into a deal with Navistar to develope an on highway truck for North America.
In return Navistar get to use Cat dealers to distribute Navistar based (but locally built) class 8 truck outside the US. In Aus we will have a Cat branded Acert powered on highway truck for sale by the end of this year, the first ones have already rolled off the line in Melbourne.

Mack/Volvo have there own engine Freightliner/Western Star own Detroit, Paccar are developing there own engines, if you are a truck manufacturer why would you want to push another manufacturers engine when you can sell your own. Cummins are in a shrinking market, not only that the engine is no longer a bolt in deal, they need to be fully engineered into the rest of the truck, that make its so much more difficult to offer different engine options. If Cummins dont do what Cat did and align themselves with a truck manufacturer then there days in the on highway market are numbered.

BTW how quickly the Cummins camp forget the Signiture disaster, can anyone say "thrown conrod"?

 

i know of a major fleet that uses SCR. when they run low, NOT EMPTY, they get derates so they top em up every other shift.

all the boys out here that trialed them on roadtrain, did not buy. .So that tells me that they arent all they are cracked up to be.

And as a prior owner of a cat and current owner of an ISX SIGNATURE ( thats top of the range incase your unsure) i will say that its a pile of shizenhousen. ultra expensive, noone knows much about them outside of cummins, and generally need to be revved to the moon to make them go well. as opposed to a cat, which is going hard at lower rpms.

The ONLY good thing about it is the Interbrake, but even that sucks because my rockers are worn out internally which causes them to jam in higher temps and pull 2 cyl of jakes on..

This is on a 700K mile old motor that has been rebuilt by cummins.

And before you say jsut replace them, EVERY isx truck i looked at from 500K upwards, had the same issue.

Did they all make the tappety noise i told you about?

 

Do you already have Acert down under? Or, maybe you are even more pointless about latest development in emissions than our folks here?

 

With CA's record on "new "innovations that have mostly turned out to be money wasting dog sheeat I wouldn't be lecturing anyone. The whole state is a a disaster from gov to private sector to emissions. You fools always have to point your little wimpy liberal fingers at someone else and try to assign blame. If instead they would relax some of these foolish regulation that you and those skanks Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstien etc all trumpet and really turn engineers loose they could do wonders. Look at the auto industry. Better mileage. Huge power gains. Don't hear you lecturing about the new cars and p/u s coming out w/ over 3-400 hp stock. Are you even a driver or just a SCR cheerleader. Get out here and see and talk to the poor guys barely getting by sitting on side of road or in shops trying to figure out why their POS new rig has either shut down or runs so poorly they couldn't pull sick lot lizard off a piss pot.
Guys like 550 have taken a flawed design forced upon industry by your ilk and tweaked it to a killer engine. He may have gone a bit over but that should be his choice not some azzwipe bureaucrat who produces nothing but a paper trail and a wasted paycheck for the rest of us. Let the guys at CAT , Cummins etc go to work and they would be getting 8-10 mpg with great power and reliability.
If you just want to talk down to others go huff some more of your miracle elixir.

 

There's really no point arguing with this tard he's got his mind made up as to what works and what's the best. And being he most likely doesn't have to put his money where his mouth is he's not going to change his mind. We've got 6 trucks currently and the last 9 have ALL been Caterpillar. We've heard all the crap about the MBN being junk (currently have one with almost 700k with ZERO issues since it was new, all original except water pump.) have 2 acerts, C13, C15 again heard all the stories which all turned out to be hype. Not saying some are without problems but NOTHING made is always problem free. But idiots like this hear about the bad ones only from a friend of a friend or on the all knowing CB radio and make blanket judgments on the whole brand/model. He will say people like us bought Cat because of brand loyalty or ignorance, and that does happen. However no one does that for the last 20yrs like we have if there were "far superior" products on the market as he believes (we previously always bought Cummins and sadly have had a few Detroits). Cummins does make good stuff, sadly the ISX isn't their best work and I blame the EPA. Is the 6nz more reliable than say a newer acert? Probably, but is that all Caterpillars fault? Did they beg the tree huggers to force them to molest a proven system into something more complicated? NO! Also as much as I hate to let facts get in the way of anyone's opinion, Caterpillar did not stop making engines, in fact the "on-highway" share of their engine business is just a extremely small fraction of what they sold worldwide. I always loved the "cat parts are more expensive" claim. Well so what if they are? What parts are you buying on a regular basis that would make any difference in the total cost of truck ownership? I mean if say for example if an overhaul kit is $2000 more for a Cat over another brand, so what! Sorry if I offend anyone but if your survival is based on $2000 dollars in say 900,000 miles then you shouldn't be an OO. You'd be better suited as a company steering wheel holder.

 

I asked plain question. If they have AcertWunderbar down under. Now, here comes another question.
WTF are you talking about, BigDuker??

 

It's offtopic but on the "cat parts are more expensive" thing I have a buddy who runs a 14L Detroit who always talking about how the turbo he just replaced was way cheaper than what the one on my Cat would be. Or how cheap the new injecctors were. Etc,etc, etc.. yeah well all that stuff is factory original in my 870,000 mile truck yours was overhauled at 350,000 only has 200,000 on the overhaul... I'm not a cat cheerleader or a cummins basher. Any of them will get you home if you maintain and drive them right.

 

You wouldn't understand. It's not in CA "easy speak".

 

Yeah we do have Acert.

Was still perfered by those who needed a strong trouble free ( comparitivley) motor over the ISX.

and knock the thinly veiled insults off, just cause people dont agree with your point of view is no reason to get all snitty.

As a side note, Myself and a few guys put a bid in on a contract that required new trucks abot 9 months ago..

All costings were done, and assuming 100% uptime on the SCR trucks, and allowing for some downtime and repairs on the acert, it stil lcame out ahead in cost analysis. and yes i was using mileage results from the field, not MFG claims..

Fact is that unless you knacker the power output on the motors that have SCR, they still dont achieve the claimed increases in mileage due to the retardeed timing in the new tunes.

Sad reality is, if the EPA hadnt mandated the changes ahead of the natural evolution, we would have better more efficent motors, than what we have now..


The single largest problem is that when calculating emissions, they use a parts per million count, rather than output per litre of fuel burned.

if the adopted the latter measurement, they would realise that the testing criteria is fundamentaly flawed due to the mass increase in consumption the new motors have WHEN they go out of spec..

Regens kill economy..