[Alvie]

I had peterbilt with c13 with 430 horse 1650 torque truck 19500 lbs trailer 30000 lbs had meritor freedom in it drove truck and trailer 500,000 miles top speed 80 mph to 55mph on highway the best I ever got was 11 mpg the worst I got was 6mpg never had truck in shop for one thing in 8 years but to service it the best thing I have ever owened that motor and trans where a great combo people say they have had problems with that trans but I never did I think it’s the driver.The only thing that would go wrong on truck was back sleeper air bags would get hole in them just about every 3 years I would put two new ones on every 3 years because they are in the sun always.also had the C7,C9,and a 3116 drove about the same miles on all of them the best was the C13 not enough torque on the others .did test on C13 raised it to 475 horse 1650 torque mpg went down bye as much as 2 mpg went back to 430 horse to 1650 that was the best ,horse power burns fuel torque moves the load

[Archived]

Peter,

It’s too bad the EPA drove CAT out of the over-the-road market. Until I had 2008 C-9 powered coach I had thought CAT was a very dependable power plant. Although I didn’t have the problems most had with their C-9s mine wasn’t problem free. So far the EPA’s unreasonable requirements have driven CAT and Detroit out of the over-the-road market and Navistar may soon follow.

[Archived]

I’m not saying I agree with the EPA, but those of us that are gearheads and like to learn about exotic cars and how much horsepower engineers can wring out of small engines have to appreciate it was the EPA that forced the manufacturers to get us where we are today.

Who would have believed not too many years ago we could have a 2 liter (about 122 cu. in.) engine that could put out almost 200 HP, yet still deliver 35 MPG, and be so docile a soccer mom would have it in her family SUV?

It is very possible today to greatly exceed 100 HP per liter on family cars, something thought impossible 20 years ago, and still be environmentally friendly.

And the engines still have pistons and cylinders and valves and crankshafts, etc. But they also have variable valve timing and a lot of other exotic features to meet both the EPA goals and be user friendly providing both performance and power.

I suspect in a few decades our diesel engines will evolve to both meet the standards and deliver the economy and performance we all want. And I also suspect all of the external emissions hardware will no longer be needed.

Or maybe I am dreaming.

[Peter]

I agree it is sad cat was good motor we just bought two 150 horse power four wheel drive tractors for the ranch they all have the regen on them how dumb is that u can not idle them it must idle at 1800 rpm or run at 1800 rpm so filters do not get pluged for feeding cows that is not that good usually just going slow so 1800 is way to fast old ones burned way less fuel and u could idle them up a little bit maybe 1100. Rpm and do the job on a tractor really come on get real regen on tractor . And they wonder why beef cost so much

[Archived]

Jon, the EPA’s success in driving gas engine manufacturers to where they are today doesn’t mean they set equally achievable standards for diesels. How many gas engine manufactures stopped producing over the road engines? As far as I know the EPA has not set fuel consumption standards for diesels. In fact, most data shows that 2010 compliant diesels use more fuel than the same engine that met the 2007 standards. So, 2010 compliant engines are more expensive, use more fuel, and require the use of DEF; not something I want to own.

Peter, I hear you about having to keep the exhaust temps up to reduce the frequency of regens. My 08 Beaver used over 50 gallons of fuel in the DPF burner in less than 16,000 miles! CAT considered this normal.

[Peter]

The peterbilt was 2005 it had none of that stuff it was great

[Doug and Tina]

Once the market shakes out and the engine manufacturers stabilize as far as who they will produce engines for, and what markets they will serve I think we will see significant improvements in fuel consumption. The Volvo installed by Prevost is about 1 MPG more efficient than the last versions of Series 60 engines used in Prevost Coaches. Volvo developed a more efficient emissions control system in addition to changing the torque curve to peak earlier and to hold max torque longer instead of the late peak and fast drop off of torque on the Series 60.

The mileage cannot be mandated because of the fact there are so many usage variations and driveline options used with diesel engines. But while the government may step back from mandating mileage for diesel engines, the marketplace will not. Nobody is going to worry about mileage as much as a large fleet opeartor who puts millions of miles on a fleet of trucks per year. The engine manufacturer that delivers the best mileage is going to get the business and the one whose engine burns a little more fuel per mile is going to lose so you can bet we are going to see the same trend we saw with car engines. Car engines went from using air pumps and other bolt on emissions devices in the 70’s to the highly developed, very clean, powerful and economical engines of today. The government spanked them if they did not.

It’ll happen with diesels also, but my guess is it will not be a solely engine related attack on poor mileage, but a combination of engine and more efficient transmissions, tires with less rolling resistance, lighter weight trucks and trailers, aerodynamic features, and less control from drivers. We have a long way to go but already our engines are very efficient when you consider how much weight they handle compared to the average car.