Why do so many Americans hate European trucks?

Breakdown lane........has camera and weightloop.

 

Next week i will ask my friend with next gen Scania.
He has engine pto for tipper.
I believe he raises at idle.

 

That is a bit different that a full hydraulic system, but even at that we idle up around 1,000 RPM on our Kenworth dump truck, and set the idle at 1000 RPM on our lowboy tractor wet kits.

 

Btw
My friend with the scania passed another type off camera.
Got a (bogus) ticket for not having his annual DOT inspection done.
Turned out the database was not updated when he got his inspection done.
So he didn't have to pay.
But it shows how big brother is watching you.

 

Ah there is a but to that.
The but is that leasing they have 0000$ invested.
Old trucks still have cash in them.
It is not the first time i have seen compagnies doing this.

 

Oh, don't we know. Between UCR filings, HVUT, US DOT #, MC #, Insurance filings for MC#, IRP licensing, IFTA, etc. we know how much Big Brother is watching. I will say though that some of it is much better than the old days; IFTA and IRP for example.

 

You use the term "invested" loosely. I have invested well over $200,000 in rental equipment last year.
But, I get your meaning.

 

Thanks for the explanation. Much appreciated.


Just thinking out loud.....:

If these are typical cycles, and fuel consumptions, how can it be that the "mining truck" has a much lower fuel consumption than an articulated dumper, as we are let to believe?

The engine in the articulated (of similar capacity) may be a bit larger, but not that much.
The larger engine may use a bit more fuel when idling (maybe 0.5 litre per hour extra while idling), but in other conditions the difference is probably quite small, fuel consumption is dictated by the power demand.
The larger engine is less stressed, and can deliver the same performance at a lower engine speed.

GVW of the articulated is higher, but this only effects the fuel consumption when driving, not when idling to get loaded or while being loaded, not when unloading, unless the body is much heavier, which it isn't.

Both have auto/powershift transmissions with torque converter, no real difference here.
Both have planetary reduction axles, no real difference here.

The articulated truck may have all wheel drive, or (as the A60H) automatically switching 6x4-6x6. And it has the drop box which the mining truck does not have (as far as I'm aware).

So the drive-line of the mining truck may be a bit more efficient than the articulated truck.

But the articulated truck has way more load on the drive axles (100% of the gvw when in AWD), which will result in better traction, less wheel slip, and more efficient transfer of the wheel tractive effort in forward motion, when conditions are less than ideal.
This could more than compensate the somewhat lower drive-line efficiency and the extra fuel used because of the higher GVW.

I believe there will be conditions in which the mining truck is more efficient, but there will also be conditions where the articulated truck is more efficient.

If you can use the mining truck in these ideal conditions year round, great.

If you can't, the articulated truck may be the better choice, because of it's versatility.
It can do everything the mining truck does best, maybe a bit less efficient, but it can do it.
But it can do a lot more, things the mining truck can not do, or do them more efficiently.

 

Precisely correct. Actually I think that you will find that the size of the engine and/or horsepower is quite close to the same. The difference in efficiency must be due to parasitic loss in heavier gear train, and probably greater rolling resistance on really favorable surfaces. You are far better than I at calculating such things, but I suspect you are correct.

Other factors that come into account is distance of haul, top speed, and hence cycle times. It is a no brainer if one is hauling 5 miles on good surfaces which would be more efficient, but conversely if the haul is 1,000 ft., footing is poor, and quarters are tight, the outcome will be just as imbalanced in favor of the artics.

Edit to add: I am considering total cost per cubic yard, all equipment included, not just fuel efficiency.

 

I’d be willing to bet it’s the same engine in a Volvo artic truck as in the mine truck.