[ARCHIVED] SCS General Discussion Thread

[parasaurolophus67]

honestly I have a feeling they won't add it.

[F4R35]

I can reverse my Scania up to 80 km with my 8 reverse gears ! Can your Volvo do that ? :p

[parasaurolophus67]

50km/h.. *sob*

[rookie_one]

I doubt they can push that L6 too high, at least Scania has a V8, what is Volvo going to do, put another turbocharger?

Not that I give a duck, I’m part of the 2500 Nm gang.

I thought that only the 750HP variant had a double turbocharger and that the other variants of the D16 only had a single turbo

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Volvo managed to push it higher, to be fair it's not the first time that a I6 platform had the same potential if not more than a V8 platform(Case in point in the car world : the notorious 2JZ-GTE from Toyota was well known for being able to produce ludicrous amount of power with the stock internal. It produced ~320 HP stock in north america, but a lot of tuner manage to push it to above 600 HP and keep it reliable on the stock internals just by changing the piping, turbocompressors, and computer....while a lot of V8 turbo that came out of the factory couldn't even endure that on stock internals).

While you have less cylinders, the inline-6 platform does have a few advantages that help it a lot, mainly the fact that a Inline 6 is naturally balanced unlike a V8

[leo.arevalo12ss]

How come European trucks can go up to 700hp+ while north american trucks can only go up to 605?

[pigbrother]

I thought that only the 750HP variant had a double turbocharger and that the other variants of the D16 only had a single turbo

That’s what I know too. The third turbocharger was a joke because, honestly, I think the demand for the top tier engines is not very high and it’s just a bragging contest.

How come European trucks can go up to 700hp+ while north american trucks can only go up to 605?

I might open a can of worms, but... most likely we know how to do them better. 30 years ago was not unusual to see american engines like Cummins or Caterpillar on some European trucks because not all the manufacturers were able to design top power products. Nowadays, I can’t really think about anyone using in Eurole, save for the common Paccar MX.

[flight50]

North America can but if they don't see it necessary, there is no point. Majority of the US are fleets for OTR. Larger engines and more power comes at a cost. Iirc, Australia also has higher power engines. The market here for high power is not really on public roads so there is a very small market for them. Outside of heavy haul, freight is just hauled differently here. If it works, don't fix it.

[plykkegaard]

Its an old debate
Which is the better: Horse power or torque

[SmokeyWolf]

Most owner operators run higher power trucks. We know how to drive our trucks and get better fuel mileage than the mega fleets. Why struggle to pull mountains and work the truck harder when you don't have to.

Lower RPMs doesn't always equate to better fuel mileage.

@plykkegaard both are important.

[rookie_one]

@flight50 The higher displacement is actually quite common, when we know that Cummins still sell more X15 than X12 for OTR usage.

The main difference is that unlike europeans, for some reason I don't understand, the americans are still not willing to go to a lower displacement engine for the same power en-masse, which is just plain too weird for me to understand

@plykkegaard not even that, we actually have 15-liters engines from Cummins that still have as little as 1650 ft-lbs (2237 nm) in single-torque variants, or 1450 ft-lbs (1966 nm) on the lower curve of the multi-torque variants, both starting at 400 HP (and we used to have lower than that, cummins actually sold the EPA07 ISX with 385 HP variant at 1450 ft-lbs of torque available as the lowest horsepower variant possible)

This is actually quite low for engines of these displacements