Oso2

Just like every other truck manufacturer. Let's not even mention American cars of the 70's! (Yeah - older is always better - not.)

The short answer is that in order to develop engines you need a global partnership - which means a lot of money. In order to sell trucks you need to sell to fleets; that means being aerodynamically competitive - which means a lot of money. And then there's the traditional business aspects like re-establishing dealerships; and if you want the best people as has been stated, you need to pay more than anyone else. All of which takes.....a lot of money. Short answer: the trucking industry has changed and a solely North American company can't cut it. P.S. Last time I checked, Navistar was looking at some kind of takeover/partnership with Volkswagon.

Sorry guys - but Volvo makes good, durable, well-engineered trucks. I know you don't want to believe that. BTW, chicks dig them too! P.S. Some posters really are afraid of gay people.

And I wish that fuel was unlimited and 10c a gallon, and that diesel engines sprewed out unicorn dust and rainbows out the exhaust - but we all know that's not going to happen. Actually capturing waste heat is a really interesting idea. Everything from light bulbs to engines are inefficient in that most of the energy produced is waste heat. If they can figure out how to recapture that energy it might really improve fuel economy. BTW, I read about a local hotel that captures the waste heat of the water that goes down their drain.

I said they were a tough truck - not the toughest. That sort of thing all depends on how they are spec'd. All the manufacturers can make you a good truck - or a lemon. All Interiors have been plastic for the last 20 years - I think it's time to get over that one. The worst of the self-destructive rattle-bags that I drove were Columbias and T800's. I have seen 20-30 year old Volvo's. As far as collectors go, I don't buy into the cult of Paccar.

What were his exact spec'ing mistakes? I only watch the guy every now and then.

How do they stay afloat? By making very good trucks. Once people get over blind brand loyalty they find that the Volvo has a lot of user-friendly features as well as excellent driver-friendly ergonomics (i.e. when you're slip seating different sized drivers can hop in and get comfortable within a few minutes). The engines are very good and the automated transmission (if you go that route) is the best in the industry. The trucks are very maneuverable and the interiors are very comfortable. Interior quality is far better than a Kenworth t800. I've driven for a number of Volvo and mixed fleets and all the drivers I ever met liked the truck; obviously I'm one of them. Oh - and I've driven old Volvos that have been driven hard and put away wet - they're tough trucks that hang together. And for those reasons I see a lot of them on the roads. I also like Macks, but they feel a lot like a Volvo anyway.

Does this mean that all those flat sided tanks in the 70's also looked dumb? (R-model, Ford Louisville, GMC Astro, etc.)

Choice? I think the word you're looking for is "affordability." We all want 700 ponies and an unlimited account at the Flying J.

Well said. There are plenty of fuel trucks going up and down the road at 63 tons with their 13L Volvo, Mack and Paccar engines - those all top out at 500/1850. A company that I know of had 450/1650 ISX's. It did the job - and the company probably saved $10 grand in extended warranty costs. I could see how you might want a 15L for 75 tons. I wonder if a lot of this has to do with American truckers and their high speed limits of 75mph in places, vs. the slower Canadian limit of 65mph. Many guys will slow down to 55 or 60 just to save fuel. And at 75 tons, I'd be more worried about stopping power.

No updating at all. Unless you count the full makeover (interior and exterior) in 2004 to accommodate epa engines, the updates to their engines as well as the iShift - still the best amt on the market, several aerodynamic improvements to the cab, the introduction of radically downsped engines (a Volvo first), the nice interior makeover of 2012, the introduction of the Blade suspension and the new heavy haul iShift with crawler gears. So apart from that, nothing. I've had the chance to drive a few Volvos; they make a nice truck. Maybe they're not as bad as is commonly thought. P.S. My apologies to Monty Python:

Yeah - but Paccar is the same way. Same engines, and many, many shared parts between the new Petes and KW's.

Every manufacturer makes lemons.

You must be kidding. This must be a troll post because there is no way that ANY manufacturer would remove the manual option. BTW, Volvo hates Mack so much that they've kept the brand for 17 years now.

I don't know of any highway truck that offers a 20K front axle. Most top out around 14-16k. But yes, the lack of a big sleeper on the granite is inexcusable. The KW T880 now has a 75" mid-roof; Coronados have good sleepers and the VNX has a 60" midroof.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here: I think you overestimate the importance of the 15L. The Mack 13L has 505hp/1860lbs available - but the Detroit 15L only offers 500hp/1750lbs. If you want that 1850lbs you need a DD16 - a heavier, more expensive proposition. So already the Volvo/Mack looks pretty competitive. Cheaper, lighter and more fuel-efficient - what's not to love? Here's the other thing: 500/1850 is far more juice than most operations require. Around here most bulk, fuel and steel operations using Macks and Volvos spec 13L engines to move 139,000lbs (63.5k kgs). I'm sure Paccar sells a lot of 13L motors as well. Another thing I learned: no matter what the make, a lot of these heavy haulers are only set to 450/470/1650lbs. So who really needs that 16L? People moving serious weight (far more than 80,000lbs) over serious hills like the Rockies. That's not a lot of sales.

Yeah, but it was pretty funny given all the "Volvo hates Mack" talk on here.

I saw a Challenger truck that looked like that a month or two ago. At first I thought it was a Volvo(?)

So, not knowing how many trucks you see per month, it's hard to gauge what 2-3 means. Would you rate their reliability as good?

Yeah - and Volvo isn't the only one to hide information either. But here you are - these are from 2009. I have my doubts about the advertised maximum GVW of 132,000lbs, as they've been used up here in Canada for years on Super-B's (Max GVW of 139,000lbs). Overdrive is a .78 ratio, btw. http://productinfo.vtc.volvo.se/files/pdf/lo/ATO3112C_Eng_01_953845.pdf http://productinfo.vtc.volvo.se/files/pdf/hi/ATO2512C_Eng_01_953831.pdf http://productinfo.vtc.volvo.se/files/pdf/lo/AT2512C_Eng_01_953804.pdf

I've heard the opposite: that the iShift and mDrive are reliable, trouble free pieces of equipment. I've never heard of an overhaul at 500k, and I've certainly never heard of anyone yanking them out prematurely. They're built to take 750hp engines and 140T loads overseas. They're not going to self-destruct just because they're used in the USA.

Useless? Please - the man is running 140 tonnes (300,000lbs). I think the mDrive in econo mode can handle American loads of 80k and under. I've never seen an HD button. Hauling heavier loads of 125k I just switched between econo and performance. I'd generally leave it on econo unless I was starting on a steep hill or something. But the econo mode would move the truck, no doubt about it.

Hardly. Wing plows can be used in all but the tightest of spots. They aren't good for old, pre-automobile neighbourhoods - that I'll grant you. But just lift the wing! Everywhere else, they work well. Come up to Eastern Canada - pretty much every snowplow has a wing (Although big cities like Toronto tend to use front end-loaders with plows for the tight areas, btw).

It's a scraper. The front plow is designed to ride on top of hard surfaces and not take out things like curbs, speed bumps and the like. The bottom plow is like a grader blade. It will dig in and either remove or scarify any ice surface (i.e. to make the surface rough and provide traction).

Americans floor me every time. There is NO wing plow on that truck! The State spends all that money on a hurkin' big Mack with a 450hp engine, and then fails to spec a wing plow, thus making it half as effective as a regular plow. BTW, a friend of mine owned a couple of Ontario Ministry of Transportation snow plows. They were tiny trucks compared to this: two single axle Fords - an L-9000 with an L10 Cummins and a L-8000 with a 225hp 3208 Cat. Both had wings. P.S. Upstate New York has some nice plow trucks. I'm sure other parts of the States do too.