Why do so many Americans hate European trucks?

Well, the consumption overally was quite high. In summer on same load i got 25l/100 in Volvo (11 mpg US). Since both trucks came out exactly the same on fuel now I blame it on weather and traffic really. Those Euro6 trucks don't like winter.

Gross weight for both trucks was around 32 tons.

Regarding fuel on gross weight .. It really depends as you know it. But the more I load the trucks the better Volvo is (but then, it's 6x2, where daf is 4x2). Back in summer we did some runs with frozen meat. Trucks grossed at 40tons. Volvo 27l/100, Daf around 30.

Life average for Volvos is 27.8l/100, Daf around 29.

 

I assume you can read German, look at the last page of this article. In the yellow diagram at the last page you can see that the DAF indeed was the most economical with fuel, more then 4 litres / 100 km less than the most uneconomical truck. For our American friends, this truck is not even running 1000 rpm @ 52 mph.

http://www.daftrucks.de/~/media/fil...efficient-dutchman-trucker-06-19.pdf?la=de-de

(you may experience a problem loading the article, there's a problem with the https certificate)

 

So if numbers itself aren't good enough for you, should I write article and then you would believe me?

Caesar, I have bills to pay. I'm not doing this for fun, I want to have as much money left in my pocket as possible. Articles won't bring me any money, it's real life numbers that matter to me.

 

Carter,what do drive?
And how heavy?

 

There is a local compagny ,30 truck fleet,used to run Scania,Volvo and Daf.
No own shop so all truck on maintenance contracts.
He stopped buying Scania 4y ago because off too high purchase price.
6 months ago he did full analyses off all Volvo's and Daf's.
Fuel,purchase and selling price ,.....
He stopped buying Volvo because off the purchase price which here is higher then with you.
Per mile or km,Daf's were cheaper.
Just like you he saw no big difference in fuelcost or buildquality between the 2.
Just Volvo's higher price when buying.

Btw you get very cheap DEF/Ad blue. Mine is 0,4€/L and that is cheap here.

 

Adblue is cheap here, you just have to buy couple hundred liters at once.

Actually the facelifted Daf (4x2, 480hp) was the same price as baby axle volvo. Around 87. So baby axle Daf would be more expensive than volvo. As long as Daf don't offer anything cheaper I guess we are staying with Volvo.

 

this is not relevant that much as real test between all trucks at same time, it is often case that same model of truck got different results in this yellow box during two different tests. in real tests they change trailers several times, make more trips change drivers.all trucks got same weather and traffic and other conditions, even fuel temperature was measured...
what i can tell you that new scania got best fuel figures in class for most common models, it get 1.5-3% better of current mb. new mb would be 3(highway)-5(rural)% more economic than current. volvo is well behind of scania in fuel. scania is best on fuel while running light engine loads, empty partially loaded, flat, nobody can match that. on difficult terrain mb is better for about 5%. we had measurements of two trucks identical trailers same weight (40t) experienced drivers(familiar with route) over difficult roads to MNE(some strech with single lane for both direction), and scania was better on flat for about 1L once it get on hills mb had 1.7L lower consumption in this section

 

Cummins Signature Powered Mack Towing a Drop deck Loaded with hay to, 4.6 Metre High. With any average Gross weight of 41 metric Tonne. (usually in the 40-42.5 Tonne Range) very rarely if ever under 40 tonne.

@nevesu please check your inbox, as I've sent you a PM

 

Hmmmmmmm, An Article on a DAF website claiming DAF to be the Best.. Fancy That..