Darwin's rule for trucks
 

Big trucks evolved from V-8s to the L-6. Not because of the size of the package but because of the Hp to displacement ratio. The larger older style trucks like the Peterbilt 379, Kenworth W900, Freightliner Classic XL and the now defunct cab overs went through the evolution. Those older designed trucks have plenty of room for a V type engine but go with the L-6 because they are more power efficient. As for light trucks what about all them Dodge and Ford pickups with Cummins L-6s?:p

29Firefox when was the last time you saw a real time drag racer using a buzz box Nissan engine?I think they are suited to that pathetic "drifting".Cubic inches always wins when comparing apples with apples.Stirling hit the nail on the head.

Well... not here in Europe ,when the power goes up all the big trucks go to V8 engine,s

Mercedes benz V8 16 litre 551 hp and 2600 nm or 1925 lbs/ftmax

Scania V8 16,4 L 620 hp 2600nm or 1925 lbs/ft max

MAN 16 L 680 hp 2700 nm or 2000 lbs/ft max

out of the box power

those are three popular trucks overhere .the MAN is the most powerfull engine ,next year Scania comes with a 700 hp V8

I work on these truck every day,one guy has a Scania V8 he weight empty 65 ton ,fully loaded 175 ton ( with a 110 ton dragline on the back 110 ft long total) and he kick azz with that thing

I can,t post here ,if I could, I would post a pic of that monster truck combo

The line 6 ,s are for light duty (thats what the truckdrivers use to say here )

Don't tell 29Firefox, stirling, but those MAN and Scania V8s have a better horsepower to displacement ratio than the I6, 14.9l Cummins ISX 565.

I agree with all about the Man's and Scania's having greater HP.

No more BS, I'm too tired, was striper fishing all moring in NE winds in the cold here in NJ!

Why do the V-8's in the truck market here in the US seem not to do as well as the I-6 in terms of durability?

Do you think it is purely the fact that the I-6 are less hp/cui? I've seen some of the Scania's here and they can touch the I-6's but why, on paper the V-8's should kick BUTT!

I will tell you Cummins (903's), DD (8-92), Mack and Cat (3408) all tried V-8 diesels in over the road (OTR) trucks with little success. Aside from the weight factor these engimes just did not hold up well to all the shifting and the non-stop miles. The complaint we heard even from the manufactuers was the cranks could not cope with it???

Trucking (OTR) here in the US I think can only be compared to maybe trucking in AUS & Can. The European market does not have the no-stop long haul that we have here.

In the late 70's when we started trucking our first trucks were the 8-92's and then we changed to 855's and 3406's. We never got the miles (BOH) out of the 8-92 we could with the I-6's.

Our business was different than most, we were the first carrier to run deferred air frieght from coast to coast - 50 hr service JFK-LAX then back again. Our trucks in the course of 50 hours running went from chilly NY, snowny PA, 100 deg desert and into LAX and this was twice per week.

My involvement with Cummins started from the fact that we were the highest milage per year fleet running in the US, our trucks ran from 220,000 - 260,000 per year and as a fleet that was unrivaled. So, we got many thing to test before they came out and also could help design many things with Eaton, Rockwell, Spicer based simply from the point that we torn it up faster than anyone else.

I'll throw another infamous or two V-8's into the mix which will only help the V-8 for boats arguement(can't believe I'm saying this)

Remember the GM Toroflow!!!! It came out as a truck engine for the car carrier companies and almost put several of them out of business. Big law suits against GM!!! That engine was marinized (low HP of course) and they are still running today!!!

Also the GM 8.3 V-8, not bad short haul engine, sucked as an OTR but still many of those in boats running today, over 20 years old!!!!

This all goes back to original arguments I have with some of you about diesels in boats. When steady state in a cruiser the engines last but when in an aggressive race type boats where your throttleing the entire time will the V-8 vs I-6 make any difference?

Thanks,
Joe Gere

You've lost me, Joe. What difference are you looking to be made?

The question is, our experience here in the US with big V-8 diesels is they don't hold up to a lot of rapid load changing. From what I have seen here the European V-8 diesels don't do much better either (trucking). Do you think that is maybe why with offshore racing diesels the I-6 seem to have done better than the V?

Isotta's and Boudlin (maybe spelled wrong) used the V configuration but could not run as good or long as a Seatek.

Is the I-6 better suited for lots of rapid load changes better than a V-8?

Is the I-6 going to last longer between overhauls than a V-8 in running hours due in part to have more bearings per cylinder?

Good questions. How about a few more back at ya?

Were either of the two "good V8s" you mentioned above used successfully in what you would consider to be rapid load changing applications? I'm just trying to figure out whether the problem is inherent to all V8s, or just to certain problematic V8s.

The Isotta and other V diesels that didn't work as well as I6s in race boats, did they all fail in the same way, or were there multiple failure modes?

I don't see any reasonable or inexpensive way of making comparison tests between specific V8 models and specific I6 models (especially not when some of the models aren't even yet available in marinized form), let alone of making a reasonable comparison between all V8s and all I6s. Do you see any reasonable way of generating hard comparison data, or are the only recourses going to be to anecdotes and to caveats in the nature of, "I don't know if that Duramax is gonna work out for you, but I'll be interested to hear what you think of it five years after installing it"?

Most trucks are not having one driver overhere but two,while one is sleeping the other can drive the truck, a lot are flower transporters that bring flowers from Netherland to Italy ,France ,U.K,Spain etc so can be up to 1800 miles &1800 back,most do 180.000-200.000 mls a year.

Funny that you mentioned Isotta Fraschini,I have one overhere , its a ID 38 6V SS Isotta Fraschini V6 9,7 Litre 450 hp at 3100 rpm, its a twin turbo ,twin intercooler,year 1986

I don,t have a boat for the engine yet ,I am trying to find a 26 ft hull , I saw a video from Apache /Aronow some time ago ,and there were 3 Isotta,s in the back ,exactly the same engine,s ,does anybody know anything about that ?

I spoke to a guy in the UK ,and he said those Isotta,s were doing around 850 hp in the late eighties ,with bigger turbo,s and pumpsettings ,and injectors .

This engine has a HUGE bosch line fuelpump mounted in the center between the cilinderheads.

Joe ,can this pump modified to support the fuel for that horsepower ?

Depending on the project the number of gears will change. Gas or diesel or turbine or elecectric. Ratios and props are still down to testing and data and experience. We have run 6-speeds in the boats and I know we can and will run more. We will look at the installation and application and determine what will fit and what will be the best all around set-up. In the end it is down to what the customer wants.

The different speeds allows the motor to react better in different conditions. The throttle response is greatly improved.

pat W

I guess you've never lined up against one of the many Supra single turbo I6 powered pro street cars making 2000hp and running 6 second quarters... :D:D

Njawb - I have no way to get hard data, I won't lie to you.

The two good V-8's in truck operations failed horriably with a standard trans. The 8.3 DD did well with an automatic trans in a truck, shifting gears killed it - why - I don't know????

The Toroflows I think were just a bad design, again in a truck no-good yet as a higher horse marine engine they were pretty good.

Isotta vs I-6, can't tell you why they failed, just they did, the engines had problems. They may have not been real "engine" porblems as much as accessories like turbos or pumps????

I wish I had real data to give you other than what the end results were, which I know are in-conclusive???

I was wrong and your right stirling the Isottas were V-6, I may have implied V-8. And yes, they were 800 plus Hp, from what I was told basically a stock engine with big fuel & turbos.

I don't know the pump number but you can do alot with the Bosch pumps.

I don't know of a hard way for us to prove this either way.

I will throw in one more big V-8 that you guys should know which again was a disappointment the Perkins or Rolls Royce V-8!!!! Big iron, no power and didn't run long between overhauls, again why???? On paper another great engine that should have set the world on fire, but why not?

How bout those 500CI hemis making 7000hp. Hum... 2000hp doesn't seem so much now.




Darrell.

:angry-smiley-038: :cool-smiley-027:

Roflmao
 

With 2-1/2 times the displacement and a TBO of one full power pass. The Hemi is more powerful.:p

More ROFLMAO
 

Lot's big flashy Euro trash horse power numbers. Aka " metric Horse Power". A Cat C-15 15L will put out 625 hp @ 2050 ftlbs and thats "SAE Net Horse power" (J1349). Thats "as installed" horse power not "stripped down Euro dyno mule" horse power. Thats 745.7 Watt mechanical horsepower not 735.5 Watt metric horsepower. Thats with MANY documented cases of "Million Miles TBO" never heard of Euro trash engines doing that! Now if the Europeans would dyno their engines "As installed" and use real "Mechanical Horsepower" ratings I would quit calling them "Euro Trash" :Whatever:

180,000 to 200,000 miles per year thats a solo driver here in the U.S. Teams can run over 500,000 miles in a year.:p

So what?
 

Agreed in the American truck market the ISX & ISM series engines are the bottom of the heap. CAT C-15s and Detroit Series 60s way out sell the Cummins. One question? Why did you choose the weakest engine on the American market to pick on?:Whatever:

Back to that stone age!
 

Hey Joe,

Remember what that Chinese Dude said about " If you sit beside the river long enough you will see the bodies of your enemies float by". If you sit in these blog threads long enough you will see old technology come around again on a new engine. Detroit has gone and robbed technology from the Curtis Wright R3350-TC for their new DD15 engine. Get this Detroit is claiming they can scavenge 50 hp using turbo compounding. Wonder if we could just stuff a Napier Nomad in a Big Truck:p

Ed

29 firefox,

I enjoy everyone's remarks on here, yours as well. I even say some outlandish things from time to time!

500,000 a miles a year, can't be done. In a perfect world a OTR can avergae about 45 mph, that takes into account fuel stops, drivers eating, maintenance, loading and unloading.

@168 hrs per week that is 393 miles a year (perfect world), factor in logs and a little more than half that is all you can actually put on a truck. Even in the old days, 300,000 was monumental and could only be done by certain teams never a company effort.

I think we all got off track here including me and need to remember this is a boat forum and we should be discussing boating issues.

We're all just talking to talk at this point, one of us (me included) or a group of us should get off our a**es and start kicking some gas engine butt like we know we can!!!

Let's take a vote!!

What engine would we start with if we could put a project together today?

I'll start a new thread for this.

Have it your way, then: The MAN 16l V8 has a better horsepower to displacement ratio than the Cummins ISX, CAT C-15, or Detroit Diesel Series 60. :Whatever:

More BS again ,the modern engines are all dyno,d as complete engine,s ,and measured as CORRECTED horsepower not uncorrected ....

I have no idea as to where you heard this ,but thats from the stone age ..

There are a lot guys driving a Mack ,Kenworth ,peterbilt ,etc overhere ,these guys have multiple trucks combo,s ,when they go to Italy with 50 ton , and have to climb steep hills ,the US trucks can,t keep up with the Scania,s and MAN,s ,never ever ,only on top speed they win because the euro trucks are limited at slightly less than 60 mph.
Thats from guys that have both the US and Euro trucks ,seen it myself .....drove them all ...but you won,t believe that ......I work on these trucks every day,but I guess you know better..

I don,t call the US engines trash because it isn,t so ,you should be ashamed yourself ,US people love the Mercedes BMW and Porsche ,Audi ,Lamborghini,Ferrari ,etc ,,I,ve never heard anybody calls them trash,, but I guess if you can,t win a discussion ,you throw in all you can .....right ?

Times are a changing
 

Joe,
Thats back in the day logging figures. The industry is an evolving thing. They have tons of new technology. Regulations have changed. Modes of operations have changed. Things like weigh on the fly and Pre Pass. Paperless logs. Secure internet posting of cargo manifests. Interstate internet hook ups between scale houses. Satellite communication with the trucks. Companies know where the truck is and what it's doing and if necessary the dispatcher can shut a truck down from his computer at headquarters. Changes to the hours of service rules. Operations wise Team drivers maximized. They do a FULL 100% drop & hook. Solo drivers and Shag drivers handle the load and unload. Back under the old 10 & 8 rules with a 65 mph governed truck As a solo drives the max I could run in a "day" (24 hrs one log page) was 760+ miles. When they went to 11 & 10 I was able to start hitting 840+ miles in a day. Plus they shaved 14 hours off the reset after a 5 day flame out. I got off the road when they banned splits. Also stuff like when the truck maintenance getting done while the driver is sleeping. Back in the day a solo could log a million miles in 7 to 8 years now they do it in 4 to 5 years. Teams? Their trucks are turned up higher they are operationally treated special and they are maximized as much as possible. My best year solo I did 265,700.:p

And I drive currently a MAN...
Thats the same truck maker that built the Very first diesels ever and many U-boats had them too.

Now regarding the claims of how much a US trucker makes I have to take Firefoxes claims with a load of salt and the miles would be 5 times more than I do at 60hrs weeks working 5 days a week.
Now you had to talk about gross pay and as a O/O which equals to about 60-70thou at the bottom line max.
I know a few Truckers overthere as O/O and they cry out currently when they hear what I make as an employee...

BS all the way...
And my friend has a 470hp Dodge Ram 5.9...
And my dyno works too...

blah blah blah.. and the Audi diesel V12 won the LeMans24Hr OVERALL.
Now that was flat out all the way from the start with 200+mph tops...
It can take a pleasure boating task with no sweat. But cummins struggles after 500 hp... and can´t last a 24 hrs race even on land.

I do. I haul those mothers constantly...what do you like to know about them ?

Never on both counts...The Banks sidwinder would never Finish the races the Audi can put up with.
Happen to have a friend deeply connected with the current Rally side of Audi Motorsport and I´m a diehard GM nut but the fact is the Duramax isn´t all that great...

[QUOTE=HabanaJoe;2532034]The question is, our experience here in the US with big V-8 diesels is they don't hold up to a lot of rapid load changing. QUOTE]

I'm sorry, Joe, but that doesn't make a bit of sense to me. What in the world does load changing have to do with engine durability based on cylinder configuration? It just sounds like a bunch of poorly designed engines.

Michael

First things first

firefox - I like you, we talk on here have some fun, but your miles that a truck can run are just not possible ie:
24 hr/day x 365 days = 8760 hrs

500,000 mi divided by 8760 hrs = 57 miles per hours average speed.

I'm trying not to be insulting here but there is no way anyone can look at that and say it's possible.

Michael1 - let me explain myself about the V8 remark. In the olden days as someone pointed out that I am part of, we had 3 V8 engines for class 8 trucks. The Cummins 903, Detroit 8V92 and Cat 3408 and for whatever reason the bottom ends on these engines would not last as long as an in-line 6. It was always explained as simply the I-6 has more bearing surface for the same Hp, and the shifting is what tears up the bottom ends, hence I-6 bottom end lasted longer.

Was that the case as to why??? Could it be the advancements in bearings and oiling (such as low pressure, high flow) were coming to the I-6 engines and V's got nothing and were allowed to die a natural death???

Ask any old timer like myself who had trucks in the late 70's and early 80's about V-8's and they tell you the bottom ends don't last. Again, I don't for sure why, just know they sucked.

For you doubting Thomases, I attached a my first peice of press ever. Look at the bottom it talks about classes starting in 1983. If you can read it I all ready had 350 trucks and trailers by that time, I started the business in 1979 running all team trucks from NY to LA and back. I may not be able to give you exact reasons as to why the V-8's were bad, but I know they cost me money and couldn't stay together.

we need a light engine like yanmar or cat and multiple gear tranny 2-3 speeds ZF or Weissman and should get decent reliable results.....

I agree..problem with Yanmar..they are too smokey..especially in reverse...The 480 Cummins is heavier and will work if they can put a few more horses behind it like they are talking about to 600hp. Multiple tranny's are great..but why dont we see them in applications???????Still 5 years out or behind the times with technology...and it also doesn't help that diesel is 40 cents a gallon more at this point.

55 cents more in bum-puk Illinois.

80 cents in NJ

Then and now
 

Joe,

As I explained the industry has evolved a long way. Lets get the speed thing out in the open. In todays OTR industry its all efficiency. The "Log" speed is the actual average speed. Then there is the governed speed how fast the truck is set to run flat out. If a driver keep his truck's log speed within 10 mph of the trucks governed speed he won't be working for any "A" class trucking company very long. If a team can't get their log speed within 5 mph of their governed speed same thing. The company I drove for, solo's without a million miler safety award were governed @ 65 mph. Million milers, teams and some special accounts were governed @ 75 mph. There are teams that do the NY to LA run in less than 4-1/2 days on a regular basis. Back in your day that was the holy grail. In today's world it business as usual. When I was running solo I had 48 hrs home time a month. The company was cool with 60 hrs but I live in Kalifornia and had bills to pay and they didn't get paid with the truck standing still. However if I wanted to take more than 96 hours off the company's policy was clean your truck out. The biggest present day joke in the industry is the only thing "air" about air freight is the the air ride suspension on the trailer. :signs069:

Ouch
 

Saw $4.78 a gal for #2 yesterday:traurig001:

guys,what are we talking about,oil prices or diesel configurations,anyway if you want to get into that how about burning 35-45gph vs 70-80gph,and 3000hrs vs 500 max with lots of problems in between........you do the math then.

Pennies on the mile
 

Read all my posts did I mention one word about how much a driver makes? You hit it right on the head a US driver has to run max miles just to make a living. Thats why I'm wrenching and not driving:p

get back on topic U guys..or start you're own thread.

Scania had a Similar problem with the 143 model..the ones before it was good and all after it.
Nowadays MAN has a 680hp Truck V8, Mercedes has a V8 in the Actros and Scania is well known as the best of the best and was before Euro5 emission at 620 hp.
Even Cat has to agree.
The Scania V8 is a 800hp version as a Marine engine..used to be 850/1100hp and 100c.i less than the old 3408 Cat.
I know the US V8 diesels have been quite troublesome-..except the Two Strokes.

Oh boy...I see a lot of problems in that and how to improve the business..but lets just say with that you just wrote you ain´t gonna solve any efficieny or employment shortages,, You just run the guys and the equipment to the ground.
I have 48hrs at home every week and still earn about double and our companies somehow can afford it.
now if that same thinking you wrote goes on in the US marine industry no wonder they are in a problem too while trying to figure out diesels and highperformance boating.
Now Europeans do it constantly already..the key is Surface drives high Rpm Diesels and multigearboxes...
Enter Pat Weissman.