auto shift tractors

I'm pretty sure the hill pulling and fuel mileage has more to do the trucks horsepower, think about it 600hp vs 300hp, a truck with 600hp will have no problem getting up to speed with a load, and can climb a mountain without skipping a beat, while a 300hp truck (like the one I drive) will struggle and fight and strain the engine to get going after a stop, hell even going downhill it struggles at times.. and while that truck running at full power has made it to the top of the hill with no problem taking just a couple minuets, the less powered truck is going 30mph with the engine screaming in 7th gear taking 3 times as much time.. so who's really using less fuel. And if autos are amazing and efficient why are the guys like USX who dove head first into the auto market completely abandoned them after realizing they wernt worth the hassle?

 

And shockingly I have 1.4 million miles driving autoshifts (two different Macks), 3,000 miles driving a Mack M-drive, and after today 500 miles driving a Pete with an Eaton/Fuller 10 spd Ultrashift Plus 2 pedal. 85% of these miles are in the mountains of Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Utah and the flats of the same as well as Tx, NM, Ks, Ne, SD, ND typically grossing between 70,000 and 80,000 lbs, in rain, snow, sleet, hail, wind, ice and at least one bout of pestilence, and I'm still alive to talk about it. I've yet to have the the trans fail and send me sailing off a mountain, I've yet to have it fail and send me careening backwards down a hill or forwards down a hill.

Oh well, guess I'll just go back to figuring out what I'm doing wrong.

BTW, as I've said before, for those who think auto's are so terrible and horrible, would you be willing to drive a "real truck" for the rest of your career? You know, spring ride suspension, no A/C, minimal working heater, solid mount seat, no power steering, 5 + 4 twin stick, a coffin sleeper?

 

used to drive a 2000 Mach CH with an MP7 engine, 355 hp, Eaton/Fuller 10 spd autoshift. Ran Denver to Grand Junction and back constantly for many years. Twin 110 tanks, 512 miles round trip, would burn between 1/2 and 3/4 in fuel, grossing between 74,500 and 78,900 WB and empty EB. MY current ride, '09 CXU, 450 hp MP-8 with same trans burns almost the same amount of fuel on the same run. The only difference, my new truck will make the WB run in 4.5 hrs whereas the old truck would take 5.25 hours.


Maybe because USX didn't bother to properly train drivers how to drive the trucks, or hold the drivers responsible for being idiots behind the wheel. Maybe the combination they had wasn't right, maybe the year/make of truck had something to do with it. Anyone knowing Mack knows the worst years for Mack trucks equipped with autoshifts were 2003 thru 2005 MY, first generation emissions and computer systems that caused massive headaches with the engines and trans. Freightshakers weren't much better.

 

I have no troubles in the mountains, going up or going down. I have taken Donners, Parleys, White bird, Cabbage, the Grapevine and others without ever touching my brake.

 

Please tell us how you come to this conclusion

 

I was wondering the same thing.

 

really? go read my review of a '12 Mack CXU with an M-drive trans running the mountains of SW Colorado
http://www.thetruckersreport.com/tr...eelers/157871-truck-review-12-mack-cxu-w.html

 

chinatown, larry here had volvo 1 time gave up couldnt even get dealer to work on with any speed want 23 days to replace clutch

 

I have never had this problem and I am almost always 70,000-79,500 lbs

 

Bobtail Member [HR][/HR] Member SinceNov 2012Trucker?Student