How save fuel at mountain driving

Nope!
That'd be darned near impossible.

It all would depend on the conditions.
Load weight, how the load in the trailer is distributed, severity of the incline, horse power and torque of the engine, type of transmission, final gear ratio, fuel quality, ambient temperature, wind conditions, road conditions, driver's condition, etc.

This may sound strange but, I let the engine "talk" to me. It knows what it needs and what it can and can't do. I just give it what it "asks" for and don't try to rush it's progress.
Granted, that takes experience and practice.

Also, as I'm cresting an incline, my right foot is getting out of it -- backing off -- I notice very little loss of road speed, if any, when doing that, and I let gravity take over going down the other side. Let the speed increase gradually, rather than stay in the throttle over the crest and starting down the backside.
If it's steep enough, I may not apply ANY fuel, just let Mother Nature work her fuel saving magic with gravity.

If you're running a Jake Brake, flip it ON early and build downhill speed slowly -- saves fuel AND brakes.

The same incline could even require a different approach from one time to the next. It all depends.

If you're in a hurry, make up time on the flats, not in the mountains. When you find yourself in the mountains -- RELAX -- take your time -- enjoy the scenery. Especially on I-70 in Colorado betwixt Denver and Utah. It's breathtakingly beautiful up there. Watch for Bald Eagles, too.

I suggest a Big truck truck driver ALWAYS treat the Big truck that they're driving as though THEY owned it. Gently and easy does it. Be smooth and it's easier on the whole drive-train which prevents broken parts -- then and/or in the future. A break down in the mountains is NO fun at all. Snap a U-joint and hang on, bubba! You're in for a ride! Might even be backwards.
HONK -- HONK!!

And DON'T LET OTHER BIG TRUCK TRUCK DRIVERS TELL YOU HOW TO DRIVE THE MOUNTAINS!
Drive them at YOUR OWN comfort level. With experience in mountain driving, your comfort level will probably expand, reducing the "pucker factor" -- but, DON'T get over-confident.
That's a sure fire recipe for disaster.

 

Hey I like that guy Aftershock,,, smart and not ####y,,, nice combonation

 

Aftershock, what do you think from the trucks and engines you have been around, is the best combo for fuel milage,,,not counting euorpean trucks

 

WoW!
Tough question, AZ.
I'll do my best to answer though.

The first Big truck truckin' company I drove for ran cab-over Internationals with 315 HP Cummins engines with 9-speed transmissions. As I'm sure you can imagine, cab-overs aren't very aerodynamic -- they're more like a wall pushing air, and I pulled a lot of heavy loads with that company (Schneider).

I squeezed about 5 to 5.5 MPG out of that combination. Later, as I understand, the company stepped-up the HP to 350, but by then I was doing a dedicated Kraft/General Foods gig out of Anaheim, California -- and we got the 315 HP powered Big trucks.

After Schneider, I drove for a small 'nitch' company doing specialized freight and trade shows for the motorcycle, personal watercraft and outboard motors industry. Our loads were usually pretty light. If we loaded 30,000 pounds it was unusual. Although there were times when I maxed out at 80,000 hauling gaming devices (slot machines) -- and one time a load of duct tape -- those heavy loads were few and far between.

We pulled specially built Kentucky trailers with full length belly boxes and flat floor trailers without a dance floor. Contained within those belly boxes were at LEAST 150 furniture pads, at LEAST 150 motorcycle straps, FULL decking consisting of 3/4 inch, or thicker, plywood, along with other assorted equipment, so we were pretty heavy, trailer wise, from the get-go -- limiting how much weight we could handle. Everything about those trailers were heavy-duty.

While driving for that company, I started out with a couple of former show trucks -- Kenworth W-900's with 400 HP (turned up to around 435 HP) mechanical Cats and 13-speed transmissions and 4:11 final drive ratio.
Again, not the most aerodynamic Big trucks. I averaged around 6 MPG to 6.3 MPG with them.
YuP!
Better mileage with the larger engines. But that could be because of slightly better aerodynamics and lighter loads. Also, I would usually tuck the trailer tandems all the way forward to the belly box, and slide the fifth wheel all the way forward to improve air flow for better aerodynamics.

Reluctantly, I had to turn in the W-900's for a Kenworth T-600 with a 425 HP (four-and-a-quarter) mechanical Cat and a 9-speed transmission -- 4:11 final drive ratio -- which I came to love. MUCH easier to maneuver in tight places.

Pulling the same Kentucky trailers with that combination, my MPG average jumped up to 6.8 to 7.2 MPG. The fleet average was around 4.5MPG to 5 MPG at the time.
That got me noticed by the company owner. Needless to say, he was pleased. On one 500 mile trip on I-5 in California -- with a stout tailwind and running light, I managed a cool 9 MPG!

I was then assigned, by choice, another former show truck, a Freightliner with a 400 HP Cat turned up to 435 HP, and a 13-speed transmission. I'm not sure what the final drive ratio was, but that Big truck topped out at 113 MPH, and another driver had the citation to prove it.

I averaged about the same with the Freightliner as I did with the T-600 KW.

I've driven a few O/O's Big trucks with bigger HP. One in particular was a Freightliner Classic -- brand new -- with a 500 HP Detroit and an 18-speed transmission. After driving it for about a week or two using the cruise control a lot, just to get a MPG average using cruise, I refrained from using the cruise and just pedaled it. Using the cruise around 80% of the time, I averaged around 5.4 to 5.5 MPG. Using my right foot about 80% of the time gained me around four tenths of a mile per gallon.

The Big truck's owner told me I was driving it wrong and proceeded to demonstrate the "proper" way to drive it on a team run we did across country and back. The results were, with him using the cruise control for MAXIMUM MPG, he averaged around 5.2 to 5.4 MPG, while I maintained around 5.8 MPG to 5.9 MPG using my right foot, and around 5.5 using the cruise control. When the owner used his right foot, his MPG dropped to 4.8 to 5.0 MPG.

Keep in mind though, that was a brand new motor -- and the MPG numbers improved as the engine got some break-in time on it. But the owner never could squeeze the MPG out of that Big truck that I did. As a result, I found I was in demand by the other O/O's in the company to drive THEIR Big trucks.

AfterShock is my name and squeezin' fuel is my game.

Engine manufacturer is more personal preference, I think. And I'd venture to say many Big truck truck drivers wouldn't even notice a difference. Or care.

Personally, I prefer Cats, then Cummins and finally Detroit. Others swear by Detroit or Cummins. I also prefer a 13-speed transmission especially for mountain driving and driving in heavy traffic. Eighteen speeds is overkill, IMO -- as I never find the need to split the low range, but they're sometimes necessary for their strength when running the high horsepower/big torque engines.
However, I'd split the low range, sometimes, just because I could, not because there was actually a need to do so. More like playing with the equipment and practicing in case a situation arose where I needed to do that. And, SOMEtimes, to show off my hot knife through butter smooth shifting abilities.

The two areas I needed vast improvement in when I first started driving Big trucks was shifting and backing. I was bound and determined to learn to shift as smoothly as a tanker-yanker, and I did that.

I learned to back when I picked up and returned railroad trailers to the rail yards. Even if you scrape trailers there, it's almost impossible to find the scrape you've made because those trailers and containers are so beat-up.
However, to my credit, I can honestly say I NEVER damaged the railroad equipment. I came close a BUNCH of times though. But I always seemed to know when I was getting close and I got out and LOOKED before proceeding.

As a result, I went from dreading ANY backing situation, and sweat bullets on the difficult backing, to considering the difficult backing situations a challenge and actually welcomed them.

When I accomplished the difficult ones, I'd get out of the Big truck and strut my stuff. Then, there were days when it was a simple back into a dock -- and I couldn't get 'er done without several pull-ups and/or repositioning. When that happened, I'd jump right outta that Big truck and yell,
"I handled THAT just like a rookie, didn't I?"
Usually, anyone who witnessed me, agreed.
HeY!
That's Big truck truckin'.
Some daze ya kin,...................
Some daze ya kain't.
Developing a sense of humor can and will getcha through daze like that. And, as an added bonus, a good sense of humor just MIGHT getcha a free cup-0-coffee from another Big truck truck driver who's been there -- done that.

Shux Howdy!
If y'all can't laugh at yourself --- who CAN y'all laugh at?

Did my long-winded post help you any, AZ?
I always say, If I can't dazzle y'all with brilliance, I'll baffle y'all with bovine excrement.

It's twue!
It's twue!

 

thanks Aftershock for the info; it seems that it is about an even playing feild for fuel consumption between the trucks that have been manafactured in the last 8 or so years?

 

From a tankeryanker at 80k perspective,

Uphill speed seems to be a key ingredient to getting max uphill fuel mileage.
The more ground you cover for a given amount of fuel, the better the economy will be.

I always tried to get a run at the hills to allow momentum to help me beat gravity.
Of course this only gets you so far, then you're back to the grind of creeping uphill.

Once into the hill, I tried to pick a gear that gave me the best speed without hitting full tilt on the turbo boost gauge.

I see no point in maxing out the boost in a particular gear if it isn't going to produce any more speed than a next lower gear running less boost. The more boost you call for, the more fuel you are calling for.

Running less boost means less heat from the motor & it's not sucking up fuel for no reason.

This is where bigger motors shine.

Bigger motors have more torque available before having to get into the turbo than smaller motors.

The faster you can get to the top means spending less time grinding away in fuel sucking mode.

I had a few 475 cats under me. The 525 cats always got better fuel economy by about 1 or 2 mpg in the hills.

In another company I had a few Mack E427's under me.
When left to factory spec I could get considerably better fuel economy than the same company's 350 Macks.

All of this in the hills out west.
Always sitting at 79,900 or better.

The best running trucks I drove were T600's with big Detroits in them. Super tens in each.

My next choice would be the Mack ch600 with a E427 & a super ten.

I much prefer a 13 speed but...you use what ya get.

 

Full boost with the lowest rpm you can get by with (=highest gear) ,,,ease on the pedal while coming to the crest and let the momentum take over the top.
Key is to use the engines torque,,not Hp (=torque/time).
Well with 140tonlbs totals thats how it has to be done...
Doesn´t matter if it´s a tanker or Van.
If it overheats it´s not alright.

 

EXACTLY!

And a much simpler (better) explanation than mine.

Thanx Mickey!