It has been decided. My next truck.

what I know about D16C engine.... it is expencive toy, expencive parts... and it is not so reliable like old good D12....

 

What about head issues, toasted valves?

This engine is powerfull, very good torque at low RPM, but if you do not shift down in time coolant stream is not enought to take heat away.

That's why early D16C were really nightmare for dealers on trucks with manual tranny.

I say the same about D9B (discontinued now).

So newer Volvo engines are not so good.

 

I do think the D12 is a solid engine provided the owner took care of it. As far as the D16 goes, just ask many owners of their horror stories. Now for the D13, I have heard both good and bad. In a year once its all tweaked out, it should be a fine engine.

KH

 

we operate trucks with D13A and D13B. in '09 we got less cyl. head issues.

But engine is not easy to work on. Timing gears are in rear end of engine and there is enforsing steel plate with hidden bots and "suffisticated" assembly procedure using a germetic to get no oil leak. Volvo guys say! it is for noise redusing! BS! may be it is for COE trucks, but we operate FH (no 13 fugure, like we had FH12), but noise is the same! in Conventional truck timing gears are closer to cabine!

and just imagine how it is good to access rear end of engine to pull cyl. head on US Volvo trucks! our mechanics are ready to kill designer and they say they do not know engine better 101 by volvo....

New D11 engine! They say no D9B issues! Yeah! There are other problems! the different!!! Rear end oil leak! why! wrong bolt lenth on many engines! we use longer bolts and problem dissapeares!

D12F 480 HP! nice! new camshaft and calibration. They offer this engine for Renault Magnum and Premium. There are problems we never had with D12D 420 hp... toasted valves syndrome! OMG!

built in 80s-90s Volvos were really tought and reliable trucks, but newer are like a things... yeah! to make money! for Volvo! less reliability and they sell more expencive parts for you!

 

He's not lying, it's entirely possible to get 7mpg out of a W900 we've got 2 that have done it. The driver has more to do with fuel mileage than the truck.

Just my $.02 but just like Mack has been forever, with a Volvo engine your cutting the places to buy parts and get service done dramatically. With a Cummins/Cat I can stop at just about any dealer or parts store and I can get most of the parts I would ever need. A friend of mine drives a Sterling with a Mercedes engine. It sat at the local dealer for 2 weeks waiting on a front main seal. I would just consider this before you buy.

I buy all KW and I'm not a big Cummins fan but I believe I'll steer clear of the new Paccar engine for this reason alone.

 

Have you had a look at a KW T700 ?????

That cab is a "Truck Dwellers" paradise. Designed to live in.,


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

 

If "ANY" of what you just said was true, you might of had a valid point. But, its not. The guys I work with all run 900's and not a one of them gets better than 5mpg. Maybe your confused as to proper procedure for calculating fuel mileage?

Looks better? Maybe, 900's are beautiful trucks, and I certainly wont sit here and start bashing them. However, unfortunately they come in far down the list for purchase consideration for me. Way to cramped for my tastes, extremely narrow cab. I am 6'4" tall, and my knees rub the steering wheel with a seat that wont go back far enough. You cant even fit a cooler between the seats. Where the hell are the functioning cup holders? 4mpg, screw that. You may get 7, but you're not running more than 57mph guaranteed. I run almost exclusively NW and spend most of my days running 72 mph and still averaging in the high 6's, and can easily go to 8 if I back the speed down to 62, and that's hill/mountain country no the flat lands of the Midwest. Besides the fact that when I purchased my truck every Long nosed truck I looked at was at least $20K higher than a comparable freightliner or volvo. An extra $20K for less truck (but it looks better?) nope, not for me no thank ya. I learned a similar lesson about women many years ago. All that glitters it not gold...

A W900L or a 379EXHD will last ten times as long as a Volvo. They are probably the best trucks ever invented. Just look they havent changed much in the last 30 years. Yes he probably does get that good of fuel mileage. I have a W900L and it will get 6 if you drive it right. The number one fuel mileage factor is the man behind the wheel. Some of the guys on our board have had there ECMs flashed and there trucks get around highs 6s and low to mid 7s. You say they have no leg room well im 6'3 and I have plenty in my W900L we have owned 3 volvos 770's and they had no leg room the interior was trash compared to the W900L yes they do not have much room as far as the cab goes because they are an old school design. So hate to break it to ya but you are the one with less truck. Plus the D16 Volvo motor is indeed a boat anchor at that.

 

OM457 and OM460 are good engines.. but not popular! Mercedes make them in Turkey and in Brazil. In Europe they use them on Axor trucktors and Buses. Some parts are easy to find (OM460 share some parts with 501/502 V6/V 8, but to get specific parts is the problem.

In the USA Mercedes do not offer OM502 V8 becouse it is wide and do not fit all the conventional trucks. OM457/460 fit Axor and do not fit Actros (too tall)... So that's why finding parts for L6 mercedes engines is a problem.

 

HAHA I want to see some one Ferris Bueller a truck. Then kick the front bumper till it jumps off the jack and into a ravine out back.