Why do so many Americans hate European trucks?

I do understand the bridge laws.

The maximum length of a EU semi is 16.5 m, or 54 feet. That is not so far of that 51 feet. If you would use a standard US box trailer with a standard EU tractor, then there would be an 'extra' gap of 27 inch between the cab and the front of the trailer, due to the different king pin position. Take that 27 inch, add another 23 inch to the chassis, add the the 32 inch of the sleeper of the Euro cab, and suddenly you have an 82 inch sleeper behind the cab by just adding 23 inch to the chassis, and the gap between cab and trailer is minimized and closed by wind fenders for better aerodynamics.

It's not as bad as it seems, and of course using three axle trailers (almost standard in Europe) would also solve the problem.

• Daily maintenance for the engine (oil check etc.) can be done on the front of the cab. If you have to raise the cab for repairs, then the whole drive train is accessible, incl. the gearbox.
• That Canadian driver I quoted preferred the comfort of the cab over, so the idea that an EU can has a less comfortable ride could be wrong to say the least.
• Driver access can not be compared with old US cab overs, totally different. I don't think there is much difference.

 

By the way, thank you all (incl. Mack) for the meaningful exchange of information and ideas!

 

The problem is we have trailers less then 40 ft long for certain aplications .
You can't limit a truck to just pull a 53 ft van .
To be practicable it needs to be able to pull any trailer .
When these laws went into effect , some guys stretched the frames on their cabovers .
Why buy a new cabover , that was designed to keep the overall length of the combination vehicle below a certain size , and then add to the frame length causing a big gap between truck and trailer .

 

and thank you for not calling someone's posts stupid for a whole day.

 

Getting the truck one needs is just silly , correct ?

 

Another reason is speed . You would need to redo gearing to keep engine rpm in its sweet spot or suffer huge fuel mileage losses . Or accept the two markets evolved down two different paths .

 

So focusing on making the truck as short as possible , in this market is a waste . And making drastic changes , making everything outdated overnight is insane .

 

This thing is not problem we have ratio of 2.278 daf even 2.05

 

One thing I've always found strange are these 2.XX rear axle ratios with direct drive transmissions. To me that means you'd have a lot of stress on the powertrain vs a truck running say 4.10's with an 18 double over.

 

The strait through path of power on a direct drive transmission is supposed to be 6% more economical , but your right more stress on u-joints and axel components and crappy hill climbing