TS7 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Did they burn any of them no issue trucks in France over the weekend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jeff M Posted December 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 13, 2018 I occasionally drive a tandem axle dump with a C10 Cat @370 hp, 8LL. I think it's a perfect setup. I just don't get why people think they need 500 + hp in a dump truck. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjc transport Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Jeff M said: I occasionally drive a tandem axle dump with a C10 Cat @370 hp, 8LL. I think it's a perfect setup. I just don't get why people think they need 500 + hp in a dump truck. put 25 ton in the box and try keeping up with highway speeds in mountains and you will understand why 370HP and an 8ll in not a good combo. you will be doing 20mph on the shoulder while everyone is winging past you at 55-60 mph. Quote when you are up to your armpits in alligators, it is hard to remember you only came in to drain the swamp.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxidyne Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 Not even figuring for increased aerodynamic resistance with speed, You'll need 2.75 to 3 times as much power to move the same load uphill at 55-60 vs. 20 MPH. TJC Transport, do you really expect us to believe that those trucks have 1017.5 to 1110 horsepower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outbehindthebarn Posted December 14, 2018 Share Posted December 14, 2018 On 12/13/2018 at 3:13 PM, Maxidyne said: Not even figuring for increased aerodynamic resistance with speed, You'll need 2.75 to 3 times as much power to move the same load uphill at 55-60 vs. 20 MPH. TJC Transport, do you really expect us to believe that those trucks have 1017.5 to 1110 horsepower? One think I've never been able to understand is horsepower ratings... I used to drive a truck with 400 cummins same weight same hills as the E7-427hp that replaced it... what a joke. Either that 400 was actually a 600(which it wasn't) or the horsepower ratings on the newer electronic trucks was wildly exaggerated. Quote Fun is what they fine you for!My name is Bob Buckman sir,. . . and I hate truckers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff M Posted December 14, 2018 Share Posted December 14, 2018 On 12/13/2018 at 8:26 AM, tjc transport said: put 25 ton in the box and try keeping up with highway speeds in mountains and you will understand why 370HP and an 8ll in not a good combo. you will be doing 20mph on the shoulder while everyone is winging past you at 55-60 mph. No, I was talking about a ten wheeler with 15 tons on board. You can't haul 25 on that type of truck around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekennedy21 Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 you guys are getting to caught up on HP and not talking about torque. You can get a Cat c10 or c13 to make fairly impressive hp ratings. Even the mack e7 motors, but when it gets down to it, the old saying stands true. There is no replacement fo displacement. Compare them to a 3406, c15 or ISX and they get smoked in the hills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaican Bulldog Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 On 12/10/2018 at 12:48 PM, kscarbel2 said: A unique case, the C15 was available on CAT trucks in Australia because the country is Euro 5. But they are heading to Euro 6 and indeed many truckmakers are now selling Euro 6 product there anyway, including Scania. China is Euro 6 in the major cities and heading for nationwide soon. They're using Euro 6 tech to reach Euro 5, so the nationwide jump to Euro 6 will be a blink. The EU of course is Euro 6, where the trucks generally speaking have no issues. Remember EPA2007 and all the EGR issues? American Macks had windshield washer reservoirs melting under the hood. EPA2007 was the equivalent of Euro 5. EU operators had a choice of SCR or EGR. The Scania and MAN EGR trucks had no issues. These are interesting contrast and points. Why did the more reliable European systems take so long to make it NA versions of engines if the technology existed? If the Euro 6 was cleaner etc does that mean to they would not have met or exceeded the EPA2007 criteria? I wish Scania had bought Mack instead of Volvo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojazzn Posted December 16, 2018 Author Share Posted December 16, 2018 The truck with a half filled fuel tank weights 23,080lbs, axel ratio 5.25/213 wheel base i think it can handle 17ton loads. Trying to keep price down and get a foot in the door without buying a beater. Thanks for responses, all are matters of consideration. 370 hp 6speed auto 20000fawr, 46000rawr 66000 gvwr 16' dump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjh Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 On 12/14/2018 at 7:14 PM, Jamaican Bulldog said: These are interesting contrast and points. Why did the more reliable European systems take so long to make it NA versions of engines if the technology existed? If the Euro 6 was cleaner etc does that mean to they would not have met or exceeded the EPA2007 criteria? I wish Scania had bought Mack instead of Volvo. AMEN BRO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.