|
|
Post by bj3976 on Jan 7, 2008 18:42:18 GMT -5
We pluged our new truck into the laptop the other day because we had to reset something in the motor, It's an Oshkosh with just over 12,000 miles we have had it about 7 months or so, The computer says the truck has burned a little over 6,000 gallons of fuel. The new trucks seem to be worse due to the new "low sulfer" fuel. My old truck is a '95 (Oshkosh) and gets about 3 miles per gallon, are any of these rears any better, I know these new Volvo's are said to be the best. Are they any better?
|
|
gant
Junior Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by gant on Jan 7, 2008 19:04:38 GMT -5
volvos are not any better.I have an 05. mine has the digital display that lets you see the MPG, the gallons of fuel used.. and what not.. it averages around 1.8 or so miles a gallon.... the company is going back to buying manual transmissions now.. they just bought three new ones with eaton 8 speeds.. no more allison..
|
|
|
|
Post by Mort on Jan 8, 2008 15:53:19 GMT -5
I don't know about most of them, but the 2006 OshKosh we have with the 425hp Cummins gets around 2.9 on average. Same with the Cat in the 2003 OshKosh, if I remember correctly. That's according to the fuel computer. I saw about 7.5 in constant 60mph driving, though, with the instant economy thing turned on.
|
|
|
|
Post by mixerdave on Jan 8, 2008 17:08:50 GMT -5
Cant comprehend you only get about 3 to the gal, US gals must be smaller than UK gallons, we get about 7 or 8 overall with a 3 axle 6mtr truck, they are all about the same Scania, Volvo, DAF the lot of them. UK price of diesel is around £1.08 per ltr or nearly $10 gallon, too much!
|
|
|
|
Post by bj3976 on Jan 10, 2008 18:48:15 GMT -5
Fronm what I have heard, the trucks in Europe, are more enviromentaly friendly. Your trucks are safer than ours here in the USA. Our bulk driver went to Germany on vacation and he was talking to a truck driver. There police and DOT can plug computers right in at the truck check stations. The trucks keep track of speed, braking, emissions, GPS, and weight. If they are caught speeding even once they can be subject to loss of licence on the spot. The computers can even tell if there is a problem with the trucks or if there is a bulb out. They have had some of this technology for years. The US has just started playing with this stuff in the past year or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by lafargeslave on Mar 26, 2008 18:01:27 GMT -5
only about 2-3 miles per gallon here. didnt matter if it was a 97 mack or a 2005 international. honestly dont see a difference in reliability either. both have their share if breakdowns, particularly the new trucks with electrical problems. 2007 internationals with 1000 hours on them with water pump failures. only real difference is the internationals are faster on the highway (top out at 71mph) and rarely see broken axle shafts on the internationals, macks were easy to break a shaft on uneven terrain and LL gear.
|
|
|
|
Post by concretejoe on Mar 28, 2008 11:55:40 GMT -5
I don't know about miles per gallon. Most of our time is spent on the jobsite or waiting. I know I use about 35 gallons/day on average.(I drive a '94 Advance and they are making me give it up for a brand new Oshkosh this year). Which at $4.00/gallon equals about 2 yards of concrete per day. So the first 2 yards of the day pay for the fuel.
|
|
