Why do so many Americans hate European trucks?

Very unlikely. A car will hit the engine block of a COE, below the space where the driver is. It may dislocate the cab, but the cab is designed to be dislocated in such an event.

Look at these pictures of a collision that involved 5 trucks, some vans and passenger cars:





Was the driver of this truck killed? No, according to the news message one truck driver had minor injuries and could be treated at the spot.

 

I agree with you, that could be the weak spot of a conventional. I get the impression that the engine is mounted higher in a conventional frame, compared with a 'real' COE frame. So with a COE, engine block (below the driver space) and cab work together to withstand the collision. With a conventional the engine block is in front of the cab, and it is pushed inside the cab where the driver is.

 

Daniel,i used to think like you.
But over time it has become clear that we were wrong.
Recently i saw tests comparing a 60's Volvo car (which to USA standards is a small car) , a 60' s iconic USA big fin car and a modern EU small car.(they could have used a small USA car also,i don't think that would have made much difference)
You would think the BIGGER car gives you the most chances off survival.........................it doesn't.
In fact it did very poorly.
The Volvo did ok but no way near todays standards.
The modern small car was miles ahead in safety.

Development has come a long way thru lots off research.

So yes ,a 359 Pete or a W900 KW are not the safest trucks because their design is old.(same can be said off EU COE's that were designed at the same time.)

 

The driver of this truck of ours had a sore hand.
Not broken or anything just sore and he carried on working that same day.

 

It should also be noted that the "higher EU standards" are in fact not really EU but Scandinavian.
Had it not been for Volvo and Scania,a lot more drivers would have died.

 

Don't think so. Looking at the web address on the cab, it was an Lithuanian truck. It would have taken him some time to get home.

 

I've read or heard different places 55 mph is the optimum efficiency speed. For every 1 mph faster than 55 mph .1 of mpg is lost. I have actually tested this before with my own truck on runs that I have done and found it to be true.

At speeds of 55 mph or slower aerodynamics don't really matter so much. So a W900L might not be as aerodynamic as a Porsche or whatever unsightly Euro truck but at 55 mph or slower it really doesn't make much difference.

It's no surprise that Euro trucks with speed limiters so slow get great fuel economy. American companies that govern trucks to 62 mph also get great fuel economy. With the right gear set most likely a Euro truck would get about the same mpg's as any American truck running 65, 70 or 75 mph.

 

Yes, cab design saves more lives than its size.

Modern cabovers and some conventionals (like Volvo) let cabin move back in collision to use gap between cab and trailer, but.... you can say it increases g forces on occupants bodyes. Yes, I agree, but human body easily takes heavy overload, but in milliseconds.

Yes, longer g-force overloads are heavy to hold, I used to try about 5g in sports plane, it is not easy to keep control and complite sharp turn, but i'm not a professional pilot.

 

Like I stated the truck I drive passes your standards. So a crumple zone in front of the cabin hurts safety ? And the example I used, if the crash destroyed the block what was it going to do to the cab if it ever got to it? Remember cab strength is the same.

 

Was not talking about that picture.
I posted a photo of one of my trucks but each time it just disparages when my message comes up.