Why do so many Americans hate European trucks?

You don't want that for the Eaton. Like I wrote before, the Traxon is designed for a maximum speed of 55mph, the Eaton must be able to reach 75mph or even higher. If you don't want to run your engine at ridiculous RPM at that speed, then you can't have the same overall ratio in highest gear. So it would be my guess that the lower 16 speeds of the Eaton must be about the same as the 16 speeds of the Traxon.

 

I don't mind about the power graphs, it is easy to calculate them from the torque graphs. Further more the the power graphs are rather inaccurate, because of the scales that are used. Cummins used a very tricky way to make the torque graphs of their Performance engines look better. The RPM scale is not linear, between 950 and 1200 RPM they use a scale of 50 RPM, over 1200 RPM a scale of 100 RPM.

This is the graph I made of the torque curves of the Communs X15P with 605 HP, and the MX-13 with 530 HP:



The red line is the MX-13, the purple line the Cummins. I extrapolated the Cummins torque curve to 900 RPM. You can clearly see That the MX-13 is far more powerful at low RPM. Furthermore the maximum torque of the MX-13 is available over a far wider range, just as was reported by NA drivers in this forum.

 

Paccar doesn’t use smoke and mirrors to cover up their crappy products...?

 

And that my friend is why I did not go that way, and did not want to use my own interpretation of unknown and/or inaccurate data.

According to Paccar, the 9 liter ISL (PX9) already has 500 @ 700 rpm


You can't honestly believe the X15 is only 500 lb-ft @ 900, as it is in your chart, or do you?

 

Please explain what you mean. I don't understand.

 

I made a small error in the graph, it would be about 700 lb-ft.



And yes, it is very low. The reason is very simple. Compare the Efficiency engines with the Performance engines, and you will see that the Performance engines are a kind of 'race' engines, so low torque at low RPM. The Efficiency engines are much better in that respect.

 

Sorry, but I'm afraid your assumptions are not correct, even after your correction.

700 @ 900 rpm? So the engine looses 300 lb-ft from 600 to 900 rpm?


Well, to be honest, it does not say 600 rpm for the Clutch Engagement Torque, could be 650 as well, or even 700. But I don't think that it really matters.

 

I will try to explain it. DAF trucks are designed that in top gear and a speed of 50mph (80km/h) the engine runs at 1000 RPM. Suppose you would be able to reach a speed of 75 mph, then the engine would run at 1500 RPM, and that is too high. Suppose the top gear is the direct gear, what would happen if you gave an overdrive of 0.73, as with the Eaton? The engine would run at 1100 RPM, as you might wish.

Because the speed range with a US truck is much wider, an 18 speed gearbox with a bigger ratio spread is better suited for that speed range.

 

It's very simple, take the graph from the Cummins site and extrapolate it yourself to 900 RPM. Unless they made a mistake with the graph, you will end up at 700 lb-ft.

 

it is not problem to get 600hp from 13l engine at all.
however it is very questionable how long intervals engine could withstand at max power as it is expected, and how long it will last. racetruck is no problem, expected service of engine dont have to be 1.6mil km as on normal mx.....and engine load is low.
when you use 600hp engine you expect it can do that half of day (heavy haulage for example)

all euro manufacturers use low rev philosofy.
looking at specific fuel consumption curves make clear conclusion that high end 13L engine offers much worst (+ at least 10g/kwh) characteric than equally powerful 16L engine.
many people proved that 16L is better in fuel than equally powerful 13L , other people proved that 13L is better in fuel.

with euro 6 exhaust temp become quite serious and i'am not sure anymore what is better. i think that depends a lot from brand to brand and applications.

anyway my opinion is that i would avoid anything about 500+hp both 13 and 16L.
13L overforced and very questionable durability and fuel economy, 16L too weak for added money maintanance costs.
I would opt for either 13L 480hp, or 16L 560-580hp but nothing in between. many brands had problems in this power range.

comparing numbers make no sense, hard to compare engines with different volume. anyway how you can know specific fuel consumption curves, these days manufacturers hide this like snake its legs. some 25years ago it was pride of manufacturers today nobody can see it.
i can tell you that in every last generation of engine in 47x family curve was changed dramatically both numbers and its shape it is not linear or exponentional like it used to be in past, today this can be very strange curve even with right angle consumption raise. engine can use more fuel in lower rpm than sweet spot, but very sharply rise toward lower rpm