[allan5oh]

Originally Posted by sodbuster

1 imperial (british) gallon = 1.20095 us gallon. maybe that is way your getting great mileage. :lol:

Nope, US gallons. Up around 10.5 "canadian gallon".

Do you guys want cold hard #'s? I can give them to you.

My speedo/odo reads about .2% higher then actual.

[Maniac]

You still didn't answer the questions I asked.

Type of trailer, commodity, weights, speeds, traffic, idling, ALL these items play a part of MPG

For all we know you could be driving at 45 MPH to get these numbers, with a gross weight of 30,000 pounds or less.

[allan5oh]

[quote="Maniac"]You still didn't answer the questions I asked.

Type of trailer

53 foot van

commodity

various

weights

For which? going through the hills? flat lands? I got upper 8's with LTL ranging from 15-20k

speeds

Always 60 mph

traffic

Low traffic other then minneapolis rush hour. I find driving in traffic I get better fuel mileage.

idling

I avoid idling, but had to do it a few times in minneapolis. My satellite says 10% right now

ALL these items play a part of MPG

But engine efficiency plays a bigger role. If you have to use more fuel to make the same HP, you'll never get ahead.

For all we know you could be driving at 45 MPH to get these numbers, with a gross weight of 30,000 pounds or less.

nope, I wouldn't lie. If you want the numbers(mileages and fuel at the pump) I can gladly provide them.

[mudpuddle]

I think you are the one who isn't grabbing on Allan. I am saying (have been saying all along) that fuel mpg is not the only measure of efficiency. You have to weigh all factors. If I lived where you did and worked in that flat land I would probably be happy with 300hp too. But I live in northern VA and work in the mountains west of here and there is no way I would consider putzing up I68 west bound at 15 mph turning 1900 rpm in straight fifth. That grade alone is 6% and goes for at least 15 miles and you could never get even close to eight mpg consistently working in those conditions. I routinely run that hill over 70,000lbs around fifty mph at 1600 in straight seventh. I am saying to you yes I happily get 6 mpg because I routinely pass small engine trucks on that hill puking their guts out and running hot. Those guys show up at the jobsite to get unloaded just about the time I am heading back to get my next load scooping them for the best paying trips leaving them with the scraps. Come run with me with that tonka toy engine pulling precast concrete in the West Virginia mountains and I may spend ten or twelve thousand more than you on fuel for the year but I will double the difference in revenue.

[allan5oh]

Originally Posted by mudpuddle

I think you are the one who isn't grabbing on Allan. I am saying (have been saying all along) that fuel mpg is not the only measure of efficiency.

If your comparing two of the same trucks doing the same thing, then yes the efficiency will indicate fuel milage directly.

You have to weigh all factors. If I lived where you did and worked in that flat land I would probably be happy with 300hp too. But I live in northern VA and work in the mountains west of here and there is no way I would consider putzing up I68 west bound at 15 mph turning 1900 rpm in straight fifth. That grade alone is 6% and goes for at least 15 miles and you could never get even close to eight mpg consistently working in those conditions. I routinely run that hill over 70,000lbs around fifty mph at 1600 in straight seventh. I am saying to you yes I happily get 6 mpg because I routinely pass small engine trucks on that hill puking their guts out and running hot.

Getting hot? You're making more horsepower, you would be getting hotter then they are, unless there's something wrong with their truck.

Those guys show up at the jobsite to get unloaded just about the time I am heading back to get my next load scooping them for the best paying trips leaving them with the scraps.

Like I said, you have to spec the truck to the application. Mine is specced great for fuel mileage, and does ok for me in the mountains.

Come run with me with that tonka toy engine pulling precast concrete in the West Virginia mountains and I may spend ten or twelve thousand more than you on fuel for the year but I will double the difference in revenue.

Really? How do you know?

[mudpuddle]

You must have little or no experience if you cannot figure out why a truck running at max power max rpm pulling a large hill at 30 mph gets hot while another running at reasonable power levels and speeds ticks along comfortably. You also don't seem to understand why it is more efficient to accept a small loss in mpg but make say nine loads a week rather than six or seven. I know guys who have trucks similar in power to yours trying to do the work I do and I regularly scoop them for at least two or three loads a week because they are so much slower than I can run with my truck. If your average speed were say 45 (that is generous for this area with your trucks horsepower) and my average speed is 55-60 (because it is :wink: ) I don't care if you get nine mpg I will out earn you.

[allan5oh]

Originally Posted by mudpuddle

You must have little or no experience if you cannot figure out why a truck running at max power max rpm pulling a large hill at 30 mph gets hot while another running at reasonable power levels and speeds ticks along comfortably.

Well there's a few variables here, first of all the first truck is moving slower so in fact the flow will be less. However, the second truck is producing more horsepower, so the amount of heat coming down the upper rad hose into the rad will be much higher. Also, the amount of airflow going through the turbo will be higher, heating the air more, so the air/air will have to reject more heat.

It all depends on the size of the cooling system. If the second truck is a "classic" with a big hood/rad and can reject 3X as much heat as the first truck(say a columbia, those grills are PUNY), then you have a point.

You also don't seem to understand why it is more efficient to accept a small loss in mpg but make say nine loads a week rather than six or seven.

Actually I do understand that VERY well, and I've said 2-3 times already that you need to spec your truck for what you do. You seem happy with your truck, doing what you do, and that's fantastic. But the truth is the majority of truck driving is not done on big mountains. I'm more then willing to give up 10-15 MPH for 15 miles to gain a lot of MPG. Obviously you're not, and that's fine.

I know guys who have trucks similar in power to yours trying to do the work I do and I regularly scoop them for at least two or three loads a week because they are so much slower than I can run with my truck. If your average speed were say 45 (that is generous for this area with your trucks horsepower) and my average speed is 55-60 (because it is :wink: ) I don't care if you get nine mpg I will out earn you.

Possibly, have you done the math? What do you do exactly, short haul? How often do you go up this big 15 mile hill?

Anyways, it's nice that we haven't flamed each other too much. You seem like a smart guy. To be honest, there's not a lot of truck drivers that understand much about engines, how they work, efficiency etc..

[Maniac]

That grade alone is 6% and goes for at least 15 miles and you could never get even close to eight mpg consistently working in those conditions. I routinely run that hill over 70,000lbs

Sometimes I am on I-68 4 times a week, running between Jersey and Nitro WV, I don't think you could get 7 MPG on that road with an empty trailer :lol:

I am ALWAYS maximum legal and sometimes I even go over by a few hundred pounds.

I ran that road when it was 40-48 in the late 70's and early 80's, when the speed limit was 55, and you would struggle to go 45 or 50, and I had a 380 HP Cat back then, which was considered a "big" engine too.

Back then fuel was in the 30 to 40 CENT a gallon range. BUT you could still get around 5 MPG.

I look at it this way, the big engine is a tool to help me do my job, ANYTHING that makes my job easier and quicker I will use to MY advantage, if Allan is happy with his set-up, more power to him.

But I'll bet Allan would get rid of it in a heartbeat if he had to use it the way mudpuddle and I use ours.

The way I look at it fuel is just another of many operating expenses that go with the job, sure I'd would like better MPG, who wouldn't, BUT I won't sacrifice the HP or the comfort for it.

[mudpuddle]

It all comes to this. Efficiency is not solely based on the mpg one gets. Efficiency is the combination of factors mpg, speed vs fuel burn, climbing ability, loads delivered vs costs, revenue vs time. Before I bought my truck I worked for a company with old trucks 350 cummins engines. I did the same loads and area I currently work but with two hundred horsepower less. I can now do at minimum two more loads a week than I did with the smaller powerplant. That truck only managed around 5.5-5.6 mpg (mechanical engine). I now get two or three more loads per week than before (usually 250 miles or less around three $pm remember heavy and over dimension) and actually use less fuel per mile. The only way I can describe the change in revenue and operating cost is my operation got more efficient when I got a bigger engine.

The operation we haul for ships precast concrete for large construction jobs in this area. Our minimum load rate ( even if its 25 miles) is 400.00. Anything over 125 miles is paid per mile. I find that if I can get a load to somewhere west maybe 150-200 miles away I can make that turn and come back often for some kind of short local drop at least twice a week.
That is why I say my truck would be way more efficient than yours on this job. Your truck would be so slow (say going west into WV on I64 or I68) you would spend an entire day to make the first load while I chug back and scoop you for the extra drop. You could get 9 mpg going to Cumberland Md while I get 5. I would make the round trip in about six hours though and you would take at least eight. We both would make 650ish for the Cumberland delivery but when you get back to the yard you're done for the day while I take a load to a jobsite in Lorton VA for another 400. Yes I've done the math, and yes it's definately worth it.

I am sure I would be crying the blues with this setup if I ran in the flat country you live in and I would probably be looking for a flat land setup. I don't particularly like working outside when its 40 below and the wind is blowing so you can look forward to all the work you want in that part of the world with no competition from me. The state tree in ND is the telephone pole for a reason. I believe though if you began to work in the mountains with some steep hills (US30 west going towards Pittsburgh has some with 12% grade) with that engine you would see that mpg isn't the only determination of efficiency.

I do like the fact that we have had a conversation over two pages of posts and not one insult. This must be a record for this message board 8)

[allan5oh]

I was talking more specifically about engine efficiency, not overall business efficiency.

In other words, percentage of BTU's converted to HP.

Your current truck is electronic right? That will be the majority of the difference between yours and that old mechanical.

But like I said, it's pretty obvious with your business, being very specialized and going up and down big hills, it's worth it to have a larger engine. You also command big $/mile.

For the majority of the trucking business, it's not worth it.

That's all I'm saying.