Bad news for manual lovers

Myth. I have not seen a single "real truck driver" that could downshift using less fuel than a Volvo iShift. Any "skilled truck driver" spends a fair amount of time down shifting, and revving that engine to get the RPM's up uses a lot of fuel.

Something else the iShift does that "skilled truck drivers" don't is disengage the clutch and coast at every single opportunity to do so that doesn't slow the truck down. Many times it will only maintain speed for a few seconds, and you'd blow your knee out in months trying to keep up with an iShift on that count alone.

As far as being proactive on upcoming hills, that's a non-issue since iShift drivers can still adjust for changes in terrain just like any "skilled truck driver".

Besides that, Volvo has been setting the standard in aerodynamics since '01, when they were the only trucks on the market that didn't look like an Atari 2600 graphic.

Folks grasping at straws to defend their outdated equipment.

 

Real truck drivers drive trucks without power steering. Real truck drivers use a hand crank to start their engines. Jeff Foxworthy could do an hour on "you might be a real trucker if....."

 

Hey, you my like you iShift and that is fine with me. The iShift is just a computer controlled manual and anything a computer can do a driver can too. I doubt you or anyone else has measured the exact fuel a "real truck driver" vs a computer in a downshift.

There is nothing preventing me from disengaging the clutch at any time so no point there.

The fact is all the automated transmission do not claim efficiency based on transmission design or behavior. If they don't I don't know why you are? They base their efficiency claims on fleet behavior; in that a automated transmission can shift better then the worst drivers and therefore fleet efficiency can increase. It is a sales gimmick that is all.

It is the issue. Since a automatic is at best only as mechanically efficient as a manual, how and when a driver decides to shift determines the ultimate efficiency. As such, a driver with more information and knowledge or road conditions can make better choices. The driver can read the road, the traffic, the load, and the route and make more informed decisions. That is information the automatic does not have.

Listen, I like the Volvo. I am not a Volvo hater. I do however hate the Crapcadia and by various sources the Crapcadia is more aerodynamic.

disagree. Basic engineering.

 

Fortycalglock said all that needs to be said...

 

Why do you hate the Cascadia? It might not be the best looking truck on the market but it is a darn well engineered machine. The interior ergonomics are far better than the Century/Columbia. Not to mention it is better built and quieter.

 

New debate!

.44 magnum packs a lot more power, and with the right pistol it has a similar recoil.

Granted, the "right pistol" would be a heavy beast with a long barrel, but still... You'd have to be a "real shooter" to use one of those. 40 cal is for sissy youngbloods that don't know how to load a six gun.

 

Just curious... are you a career Freightshaker driver?

If so, get into something that has a touch of quality to it for a bit.

 

LOL, no I drove Volvos too and loved them.

 

You make me laugh,,,thanks uhhum....I will have me a .44 magnum soon but right now my XDS .45 will do just fine. My .40 S&W Glock want to be is at home...

 

BTW,,,nothing wrong with Freight-Shakers....they are cheap, parts are easy to find and can get good fuel mileage when coupled with a Detroit engine....roger