2050lbs of torque

I was talking with a Volvo dealer guy about specs for a truck that would pull a reefer with an average gross exceeding 70K lbs, and seasonally going to West Coast over the Rockies with that weight. He said that D13 455HP with ECO tourqe(?), i-shift and 3.08 rear ends would do the job. I asked about 500HP he said that it was only ECM setting. I was a little surprised. I knew that you could bump the HP via ECM a little but not by as much as 100HP.... I thought that much more real HP needed bigger engine - generally speaking. I checked the specs for the ECO torque, and the brochure says that with engines advertised as 455HP the peak is 1750 lb-ft@1050rpm and with 500HP the peak is 1850 lb - ft@1100rpm. Do you think the difference is significant for 75K lbs or more reefer loads?

Edit:
I also checked other threads on the ECO torque, looks like it has not earned much appreciation yet. I am curious, if fuel savings are that good to justify the awkwardness you may feel while driving - I imagine there is one when the computer decides what torque is used at various situations

 

The hill flatener X15 will cost you $7,000 over the next lower hp/torque settings.......

 

By my standards that is a very light load, and doesn't need bigger power. I do not mean that in a condescending way either, its just not 7 or 8 axles, here where we also allow more weight per axles. Less stress on the other parts as well, not just the engine, but ultimately it is your call.
Me personally I would buy it with the lower power output.

 

Where's the fun in less power?

 

Depending on who pays the bills I guess. I pay the bills can you tell lol

 

I pay all the bills and 550 horse just ain't enough I think 650 would do it, I mean I can't possibly do worse for fuel mileage than I have been lately.

 

I drive an old kenworth with 475 hp kitty, about 60% of the time, and it gets me everywhere i need to go. Although i admit the much newer Mack I drive some with 505 hp does pull nicely. 30 years ago I pulled super B train with a 350 hp Cummins, so at well over 140k lbs it did seem gutless for sure with only 350 what felt like small horses. So 140k lbs with 505 feels good.

 

Realistically you guys with new fuel sippers do you get 8.0+ across the entire life of the engine with stupid high 3.08 or 3.21 rears. All that newfangled tech just to get 1 more mpg and all the headaches to go with it.

7.5 with a 93 E-7 and 3.91 rears on lo-pro 22.5 with .62 od 1400@65 I'll do 8 running light and I'm always in the mountains. Or the 99 with tall 24.5 and 4.42 getting 6.8

 

I'll run 62-63 with the 99. That puts me at 1550-1575. On the 93 after changing the trans to a double over and putting bigger turbo/injectors the fuel milage improved by about 1.25mpg

No idea how much power its throwing out deff not 2050. Maybe 1750-1900 only a dyno will tell. The 99 has 1660 and the 93 won't have to drop a gear where the other does

EDIT. I'm in the 99 most of the time and I'd love to cruise 70-72 but my dad would kick me in my nuts lol for throwing fuel out the stacks.

 

I am consistently at 80 thousand pulling tanks with me Western Star with a pre emission Factory rebuilt Detroit 12.7 and just a 10 speed.

I think it pulls fine 95 percent of the time, the limits of the 10 speed hurts more than anything .