Operator opinion Chris Waite "We have operated high-powered vehicles for
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 29
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
many years. Almost right from the start I realised that we needed vehicles that are well on top of the job in order to give customers the service they demand, and give us the reliability to continue to do so. As a result, the vast majority of the trucks we have operated over the years have had near enough the most powerful engines available at the time.
"Livestock haulage is particularly hard on the equipment. We have to cope with narrow country roads, often in very hilly areas. The combination of maximum gross weight and very high levels of wind resistance from tall multideck trailers, plus the added effect of air passing through the ventilation flaps, really takes a lot of pulling at motorway speeds. Lower-powered trucks struggle to maintain a decent cruising speed and soon drop back on most gradients. The only way to overcome this is to specify a big engine with plenty of torque, then you can have relatively high gearing to give reasonable fuel consumption along with decent journey times.
"We have operated V8 Scanias for many years, going back to the days of the 142 intercooler with 420hp. Most people thought that it was way over the top back in the '80s, but they proved their worth and gave us excellent service. The same applied to subsequent models right through to R series. We have 560hp, 620hp and 730hp versions in the fleet at present and they all perform well. Also we ran a number of Euro-3 580s in the past, and they proved to be excellent trucks. The big engines are very reliable, we have never had to have one apart so far, touch wood! The rest of the driveline is robust and the retarder is superb. It allows the driver to brake gently and smoothly, which is just what you need when carrying livestock.
"They have always been the most expensive trucks to buy new, but their whole-life costs are relatively low and they have the best residual value by far. Advertise a V8 for sale and it is invariably gone in just a few days. It's difficult to say why they fetch such good money, but they are quite hard to find and buyers are prepared to pay accordingly. I have tried to buy either very late used V8s or exdemonstrators in recent years. It saves a bit at the front end and I can still take out a manufacturer's R&M contract. "Volvo has also served us well over a long period. We bought our first F16 500 back in the early '90s. It was one of the first to go on the road, and it went very well, but it was very thirsty and only returned about 5.5mpg at best. It was a good lmpg worse than a Scania 143, and had a few engine problems, but it eventually settled down. We have had a number of FH16s in recent years, including 580s, a 600, a 700 and the new 750. They all perform very well. The I-Shift gearbox is better than the Scania Opticruise, although we have had issues as the trucks get older. The fuel consumption has improved, especially with the 700 and 750, and they are now just a little behind the Scania 730. It takes a while for a Volvo to bed in, and the 750 is about 0.3mpg heavier I think it might close the gap as the miles increase. At the moment the 730 does just over 7mpg pulling a big stock trailer, which is very good. Performancewise there is nothing between the 730 and the 750, and they are both right on top of the job. They climb motorway hills on the limiter fully loaded.
"When buying new, the Volvo is still a bit cheaper. Its pricing seems to fluctuate, whereas Scania tends to be firmer and sticks to its guns. It can be as much as £8,000 to £9,000 more, which is a bit annoying, but a V8 Scania definitely has the better residual. Also it takes longer to sell a used 16-litre Volvo, as there doesn't seem to be such a strong demand for them. Maybe Scania's tough stance on new pricing does do us a favour after all. Volvo has really closed the gap, but Scania is still my first choice at present."
CM opinion Bob Beech "Huge engine outputs aside, both of these trucks are very familiar pieces of equipment. The cabs, chassis and most other components are shared with most of the lowerpowered variants from either range. As a result, they drive very much like their lower-powered stablemates. It's just that they get up to speed a lot quicker, and stay there pretty much regardless of load or terrain. This is not really an issue on motorways and dual carriageways, but can have serious implications on urban and country routes, where drivers have to pay attention. Both trucks have a restful, effortless feel. Treat them with respect, and the driving experience is memorable and all but the steepest hills cease to exist.
"Taking the Scania first, if you like big trucks it's difficult not to warm to a V8. The 730 is the latest in a long line of engines that have become the yardstick to measure other trucks by. It pulls from just above tick-over and really comes on song at just over 1,000rpm. The power just builds in a seamless wave, and the truck gathers speed relentlessly. The two-pedal Opticruise gearbox is easy to use, and the changes are invariably smooth, except for the odd low-speed downshift. The clutch remains engaged during changes and this, along with the greater rotating mass of the synchromesh gearbox, means it takes a while longer to slow things down.
"In normal automatic mode, the transmission blockchanges two or three gears at a time. This is fine in most situations, but can hinder progress in tougher going. It's better to either select manual mode and control it yourself, or use hill mode and extend the rev range, but the latter can cause the engine to rev excessively if overused, and drink fuel. Otherwise the truck is a delight to drive, with safe, assured handling. Careful use of the retarder makes for rapid, but controlled descents, and overall it's a superb machine.
"The FH16 750 is smooth and sophisticated, and is extremely relaxing. First impressions are that it is not quite as dramatic as the R730 to drive — an effect created by the lack of revs and low engine noise. But in reality it picks up speed just as quickly. Out on the road we found both trucks were at virtually the same speed in the same gear at every point. On a long straight climb, both held 40mph in 11th gear and a sharp 12% gradient approached via a double bend was demolished at 25mph in 8th gear. It would have been possible to go faster, but we thought it prudent to rein things in.
"The I-Shift transmission is as good as ever, despite handling all that extra power and torque. Changes are smooth and rapid at all speeds and there is little to be gained by using the power mode. The 16-litre straight-six engine prefers to do its work at very low revs and is happy to burble away at 1,10Orpm-1,400rpm. Just the occasional use of manual mode to either hold the gear or change down a fraction earlier was all that was required, otherwise the electronics really do know best.
"The ride is smooth and the handling predictable. The fixed pusher-axle means the Volvo doesn't have the crisp steering response of the twin-steer Scania. The Volvo engine brake is effective, especially at low revs, and well matched to the transmission, but it doesn't have the bite of the retarder. There could be a case for specifying a retarder as well as the engine brake on a 750, as it would be the best of both worlds. The Scania retarder lacks effect at really low speed and its exhaust brake is also less effective in these situations.
"Which is best? There is nothing in it — the Scania has more charisma, the Volvo is sophistication itself, and both are tremendous technical achievements and in the right application, serious working tools. We might just pick the Scania, simply because it makes us think we are still young, but we are only really fooling ourselves!" • Where power counts Whenever a truck manufacturer increases the power output of its biggest engines, two statements generally follow. The first is from the manufacturer, stating that they are not engaged in a power battle with the competition, and that the increased power and torque are incidental. The second utterance is from numerous members of the press who state that there is no real commercial need for this level of power in European road transport, and therefore little or no demand.
This process started in about 1969 and looks set to continue forever more. At present, only Volvo and Scania have broken the 700hp barrier and seem to be locked in a private battle for supremacy. But the increasing use of multi-trailer artics and bigger drawbar combinations in a number of European markets looks set to fuel demand for extra engine power. A number of manufacturers have the capability to increase outputs from their latest Euro-6 engines, for instance the new big six-cylinder from Mercedes-Benz is capable of producing more than its current 600hp-650hp, and rumours persist about a bigger displacement Iveco Cursor engine.
While the number of top-power trucks actually sold is very small — hence Daf's reluctance to go beyond 510hp with the 13-litre MX range — every high-power truck sold does turn heads and go some way to strengthening residual values across the range. Many might decry this statement, but the resale values of most Scania tractor units with power ratings above 440hp show just how this process works. They might not be any better vehicles than their main competitors, but used buyers are willing to pay more.
It might seem there is no valid reason to buy a 750hp truck to operate in the UK at 44 tonnes, and these outputs are only really suitable for heavy haulage work, but this particular application proves the opposite. If the operation is truly demanding and journey times are of vital importance, a really high-power output can make economic sense, just as 420hp did when 250hp and 290hp were the norm back in 1983. Livestock hauliers have to cope with both drivers' hours legislation and animal welfare rules, and at times the two can conflict. It's not possible just to park up when the driver's time is up and deliver the load the next day. Relief drivers have to be sent out to take over and the load has to be delivered, but the extra performance of a top-power truck can make a difference. The ability to maintain speed virtually regardless of the terrain might just get the truck to its destination, or at the very least a lot closer than a lower-powered vehicle.
The operator mentions the effect that wind drag can have on a multi-deck livestock trailer. This zaps engine power and increases fuel use, and the relatively good economy that both these trucks return goes some way to prove that a high-power truck can give better fuel consumption in the right application. An engine has to work harder to overcome the effect of persistent wind drag. Unlike climbing a hill, there is no respite, as the truck is pulling hard all of the time and the engine is rarely on the overrun.
As an example, a Scania R480 running down from Scotland with a full load of cattle took 45 minutes longer and returned 5.5mpg, so 6.7mpg to 7mpg from the Volvo 750 and Scania 730 look to be respectable figures in relation to the performance advantage. In the right situation power can pay, but you have to pay a lot for it in the first place. But good reliability and first-rate residual values help sweeten the pill.
Few drivers would complain given the choice of either of these tractor units. They have all the performance they could wish for, excellent handling, effective retarders/engine brakes and wellequipped cabs. From a driver's perspective, it's pretty much a question of which one of the two Swedish makes you prefer.
This debate has gone on for more than 40 years and looks set to continue, as in this particular power bracket at present there are no other competitors.