Volvo trucks

Most of your rigs have synchronized transmissions. Majority of US trucks are not. Takes a while to learn to shift properly. Some never do. Most are conventional as well instead of cabovers.

 

I don't know of any electrical differences.

Our tractors are usually called full screw, in other words, both axles can drive. The rear axle usually gets the power, unless you lock in the power divider. Then both drives will be powered. We have some heavy haulers that are 4 axle tractors. They mostly have a lift axle just in front of the first drive..
You have what we call a COE, or cabover. They were popular here for awhile, but the fuel mileage really was terrible with most of them. When the fuel crises hit, it pretty much did away with the cabovers. You still see some though.

I think most of your trucks are autoshift, aren't they?

 

It depended on what truck I was driving. The last 1 1/2 years were spent in Freightliner Centuries. I would range from mid 5mpg up to around 7 if I remember correctly. I slipseated, so I drove a variety of trucks. One truck I really liked was a 9400 International, it had the 15 litre Cummins in it. I pretty much stayed around 6.5 to 7.5 mpg on that, again if I remember right, and all had the same transmission, a straight 10.

Now the Volvo was a 780, that was a 2007. That was one nice truck. It had the underpowered Volvo engine, with a 10 speed autoshifter. I got around 6.5 to 7 mpg on that one. But that thing was quiet, and road very nicely.

The best truck for mileage I ever had was a T600 Kenworth. It had the C15 Caterpillar engine, and a 13 speed transmission. Depending on the weather, I could get 7-7.4 mpg out of it . I may add that was above 65 mph for the most part. It was a 70mph truck.

Just what kind of speeds do you guys run? I wouldn't think you've got a lot of semi-flat wide open areas. Or do you?

 

I know a guy with a Pete 362 averaging 5.8 mpg! That is along the same fuel mileage as most big hoods right now.

The fuel crisis isn't what got rid of cabovers.... JB & the pumpkin crew ran cabover up until 7 or 8 years ago. Use to see them jack knifed all the time in the median. We had cabovers because we also had strict lenght restrictions. As they lifted those restrictions, there was not much of a need for the cabovers because people begin buying conventionals.

 

I still see JB's and Pumpkins jack knifed. But yeah, that may have been a part of the loss of popularity. A longer wheelbase does have some advantages.

Now the only cabover I've ever been in, lasted about an hour. That was waaaay back in the 1980's. It was an International Transtar. I didn't like it at all. And all I did was cross town!!!

But, I asked some of the older guys at Schneider why they did away with the COE's, and they all told me it was because of the mileage. Just relayed what I'd been told by the guys that drove them.

Now the newer ones likely do get better mileage, like Mikes as an example. The use of better engine controls has increased the mpg on most trucks across the board, for the most part. Now I'm talking fleet tractors, not an a guy that owns his own.

 

38L/100 km ?






It's quite a large consumption for 40ton truck even in the big mountains here in croatia trucks usually get 30L/100km or 7.8mpg


edit:


Scania has made some tests in the wind tunnel that have proven to COE has less air resistance than conventional


here really is no need for conventionals most coe have engine tunel of max 6inch and some trucks have even flat floor



and all manufacturers offer standing height in highest cabs ,and also some smaller cabs ( man xlx, scania highline,volvo globetrotter, daf space cab)


for example scania offers 7´3" on engine tunel in topline cab