| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fishhook
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 39
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
We had one in a Sterling ()It had good power....BUT, parts are $$$$, Sterling dealers are a JOKE, you have to go to Detroit Diesel to get anything fixed.Parts are not stocked.If you do get one, keep an eye on the fuel lines, they rub on the block, causing holes in the lines. The truck we had here ,2 times.Another location 6 times!!( horrible design).We cant give them away.I'm not sure if its the Sterling or the Mercedes part that scares people away.Both, I'm thinkin'.
As far as the Jakes, there is a recall on that( at least the older ones). |
|
| Back to top |
|
uncleal13
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 75
Location: Humboldt, SK
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well thanks all for your input.
I took possession of my new 06 Century 450 Mercedes, 18 D/O, 3.58, 11R22.5 on 11 August. Have 9,500 miles on it so far.
Took 46,000 Edmonton to Palm Springs = 5.76 US mpg
15,000 Los Angleles to Cornwall, On = 7.45
5,000 Gatineu, QC to Edmonton, AB = 7.32
36,000 Edmonton to Amarillo, TX = 5.96
It's a bit of a dog on the hills, but with the tall gearing I was expecting that. Especially compared to my last truck with the 565hp ISX & 4.10 rears.
I like the engine brake, nice and quiet. To make it work I have to drop a full gear at highway speeds.
Again thanks for your comments.
Al |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bushpilot
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 5
Location: Whiting, Indiana
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yes, jacobs uses the exhaust valves as part of the engine braking but not the exhaust itself as mercedes does. thier exhaust brake is strictly from the exhaust. it has a butterfly valve on the back side of the turbo. this is why you have to use higher rpm's to get the maximum braking. It is however alot better on the engine than a jacobs engine brake is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
yoopr
Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 12865
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uncleal13 wrote: Well thanks all for your input.
I took possession of my new 06 Century 450 Mercedes, 18 D/O, 3.58, 11R22.5 on 11 August. Have 9,500 miles on it so far.
Took 46,000 Edmonton to Palm Springs = 5.76 US mpg
15,000 Los Angleles to Cornwall, On = 7.45
5,000 Gatineu, QC to Edmonton, AB = 7.32
36,000 Edmonton to Amarillo, TX = 5.96
It's a bit of a dog on the hills, but with the tall gearing I was expecting that. Especially compared to my last truck with the 565hp ISX & 4.10 rears.
I like the engine brake, nice and quiet. To make it work I have to drop a full gear at highway speeds.
Again thanks for your comments.
Al
KM's I hope? :P |
|
| Back to top |
|
uncleal13
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 75
Location: Humboldt, SK
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lbs in the box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Overloaded
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 80
Location: West Virginia
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushpilot wrote: yes, jacobs uses the exhaust valves as part of the engine braking but not the exhaust itself as mercedes does. thier exhaust brake is strictly from the exhaust. it has a butterfly valve on the back side of the turbo. this is why you have to use higher rpm's to get the maximum braking. It is however alot better on the engine than a jacobs engine brake is.
Can you explain how a jake brake harms an engine? I can see no possible way it could. The only thing it does is open the exhaust valves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Windwalker
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
Posts: 3101
Location: Holiday, FL
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uncleal13 wrote: Well thanks all for your input.
I took possession of my new 06 Century 450 Mercedes, 18 D/O, 3.58, 11R22.5 on 11 August. Have 9,500 miles on it so far.
Took 46,000 Edmonton to Palm Springs = 5.76 US mpg
15,000 Los Angleles to Cornwall, On = 7.45
5,000 Gatineu, QC to Edmonton, AB = 7.32
36,000 Edmonton to Amarillo, TX = 5.96
It's a bit of a dog on the hills, but with the tall gearing I was expecting that. Especially compared to my last truck with the 565hp ISX & 4.10 rears.
Since when is 3:58 tall gears? I've got 3:42, and with 35,000 LBs in the box, from WI to CT, averaged 7.16 mph. With 45,000 in the box, I average about 6.5 mpg. Looking at your mpg, I think I'll stick to my N-14. If I have to down shift, it's generally only 1 gear and keep on climbing.
Rocky... I have a problem with your theory of keeping it above the torque range. When climbing a hill, and keeping the engine above 2,100, what happens when the engine starts to drop rpm? You're going to get well into the torque range before you can really downshift. I know a few of the "hills" in your area. With a good load on, you're going to drop 2 and even 3 gears before you get to the top. Do you let it drop to 2,000, then shift down and let it turn at 2,400?????? Or do you drop the speed in "steps"??? I know my mechanic says I can let it crank up to 3,500, but with this type of engine, I NEVER have it cranking over 2,000. NEVER!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Powered by phpBB 2.0.22 © 2001,2002 phpBB Group
|
|
