Why do so many Americans hate European trucks?

My freightliner meets EU cab certification too.

But T600 for example not.

People say that daimer made tought cab on freightliners for unification with COE Argosy, becouse cabover design needs tought cab for safety.

 

The DAF XF Euro 6 cab was first shown to the public in 2012, and that was still a prototype. The cab went into production in April 2013. The K200 went into production in 2011. So it is absolutely impossible that Kenworth Australia used XF Euro 6 cabs for tests before they developed the the K200 cab.

However it is possible (and likely) that they used the predecessor of this cab, the XF105 cab. That cab is still being used by DAF Australia (no euro 6 in Australia) and by Kenworth US on the K500:



That leaves us with the question why and for which market the Kenworth with the XF Euro 6 cab was build.

 

One of the key things is for the crash to not get to the cab. The Tracy Morgan vehicles.

 

SDaniel, I see, but COE cabin has very tougth substructure.

Look for US and EU truck crash statistics and u can see that driving COE is not suicide now.

 

Is this down to gearing or are there other issues.
Aerodynamics on a modern COE is apparently better than on a conventional.
This however may be up to certain speeds , I will see if I can find any info.
What is your opinion.

 

Wind tunnel results show that?

 

Build the cab as strong as you want . The truck I drive passes the EU standards , and has one heck of a crumple zone to boot. My last company we had a very bad front end collision. Car hit the truck head on at 80mph. Truck was running 63. Like hitting a brick wall at 143 mph Busted the block , destroyed everything in front of the firewall. Doors still opened. Frame in front of the fifth wheel bowed up about 18 inches. If had not had that crumple zone there would been 4 instead 3 dead.

 

The gearing is optimized for the maximum speed in Europe (90kmh), so if you go much faster the engine will run at a very high rpm level. As you know there is a certain rpm bandwidth where the fuel consumption is at its best, Go (way) over it, and the fuel consumption will rise dramatically.

And indeed the cab may have been designed for optimal aerodynamics at 90kmh. I don't know that, but it is possible. Ships may have a bulbous bow, you may have seen this. Those bows can save a lot of fuel, but they only work at the designed speed. Go faster, or slower, and it doesn't work. Same principle may apply to cabs too, but I don't know for sure.

There's also the matter of tyres. I looked at Michelin truck tires, and they have a J (100kmh), K (110kmh), L (120kmh), or M (130kmh) rating. Most of them K or L, so that is a maximum allowable speed of 68 and 75mph.

 

the crumple zone won't help you in the case of frontal collision with another truck,the engine will end up in the cab anyway

 

What exactly do they show?
What I was referring to was aerodynamic efficiency at different speeds.
A W900 is probably as aerodynamically efficient a Porsche at 5mph .
A slippery cab over according to many reports is more aerodynamically efficient than a slippery conventional.
Apparently because of a conventional's need to cut the air at the front end than again at the windshield causing a double disturbance.
What I was wondering is weather there is a tipping point speed where this inefficiency is overcome by the advantage of a more wedge like shape as apposed to a COE.
All this was in response to what Pablo had said regarding EU trucks giving poor fuel mileage when operated at higher speeds.
I fully understand drive line gearing but was wondering about the aerodynamics.