Truckers, lets see your rigs!

not one of those engines you listed will pull a hat off a bald man's head at anywhere near 1100 RPM, let alone cruise down the interstate in that range.
 
I cannot speak for the others, but havin 6 new DD 15 autos in the fleet, they do claim they want it to run low in the rpm rang. I think it was 12-1300 though. They also claim to never have to roll bearings and to go 50k miles on an oil change:hehe:
And for the cummins, have fun keeping liners in one over 500 hp running like that, any year isx. The manufacturers make these claims as a sales pitch to buyers. But like stated before, just because it CAN do it, doesn't mean it should.$.02
 
Cummins Isx run at 1100!!! Ahaha! What an idiot... good luck keeping one alive in that rpm range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Mr.T said:
not one of those engines you listed will pull a hat off a bald man's head at anywhere near 1100 RPM, let alone cruise down the interstate in that range.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the downsped ones? I know someone running a d11 at low rpm and he does fantastic loaded up to 80k. Bmep and torque have been going up for a while.

The downsped engines produce peak torque at lower rpm than ever before and a wider range. Perhaps you're thinking of the older non downsped engines.
 
a guy I used to work for pulls side dumps in Nevada with D11 powered Volvo trucks......and its the same story, if they're not in the shop getting fixed, theyre certainly not running down the road at 1100 rpm LOL
 
allan5oh said:
Volvo d11, Volvo d13, cummins isx, Detroit dd13, Detroit dd15, etc.

I think k the paccar mx11 and mx13 is capable of it.

Downspeeding has been a trend for a while now. Ratios between 2.00 and 2.20 are now available with direct drive transmissions. Javier driveline of course. There's even talk about ratios in the 1.80 range and 900 rpm cruise speeds.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Damnit, Zach was supposed to answer that.

No one cares about longevity on the OEM any more. The EPA doesn't want them on the road, the manufacturers don't want them there.
It's silly really.
It doesn't really matter what they tell you what the intended rpm is, we're all going to drive SOTP for each vehicle we are in.

Something that conflicts with the low rpm engine operation, torque converter transmissions never run that low. Put an automated manual or manual in, the range drops. (I know why, don't explain unless you feel the need)

I may do some digging and compare histograms from owner op trucks and fleet engines, see where they operate. Owner operators tend to have pristine engines over 1MM.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 
Good luck keeping an emissions system alive at 1100 rpm as well. I am talking real world numbers here alan not what the pamphlet on the parts counter says. An isx will not ever work or live at those RPMs. Unless you haul bagged air in a carbon fiber trailer. Then I could see it.
 
zfaylor said:
Good luck keeping an emissions system alive at 1100 rpm as well. I am talking real world numbers here alan not what the pamphlet on the parts counter says. An isx will not ever work or live at those RPMs. Unless you haul bagged air in a carbon fiber trailer. Then I could see it.
Click to expand...

that's exactly it, I was a driver and mechanic for almost 10 years, drove and worked on everything from CM870's, 2250's, 2350's, D13 Volvo, paccar MX13, 3406E's, C-15's, and acert's......the fukkin brochure and @ssclown dealership mouthpieces haven't the foggiest fricken clue what real world driving is like.
 
Are you talking cans or EGR cooler here?

I dont see a correlation between engine speed and emissions equipment longevity?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 
zfaylor said:
Good luck keeping an emissions system alive at 1100 rpm as well. I am talking real world numbers here alan not what the pamphlet on the parts counter says. An isx will not ever work or live at those RPMs. Unless you haul bagged air in a carbon fiber trailer. Then I could see it.
Click to expand...
The ISX has had downspeeding capability for about 3 years now and you're ignoring the new X15 which is a big revision.


You guys are behind the times. I've heard of no reliability issues with these engines run at lower rpm as long as the driveline is specced properly. These setups are already road proven.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 
biggy238 said:
Are you talking cans or EGR cooler here?

I dont see a correlation between engine speed and emissions equipment longevity?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Actually the opposite is probably true of what is being implied here.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 
Mr.T said:
that's exactly it, I was a driver and mechanic for almost 10 years, drove and worked on everything from CM870's, 2250's, 2350's, D13 Volvo, paccar MX13, 3406E's, C-15's, and acert's......the fukkin brochure and @ssclown dealership mouthpieces haven't the foggiest fricken clue what real world driving is like.
Click to expand...
Go call all the Oems about this. They'll probably just laugh at you. Also many of these engines have unit injectors which would very much be incapable of cruising at lower rpms.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I'm sure they would laugh at me, what's one guy that hasn't vacuumed up the Kool-Aid to their bottom line? fukk.....I don't even drive truck anymore and I'm not stupid enough to believe their garbage. the older, pre-emission engines will ALWAYS be more realiable and more efficient than these new engines that aren't even good enough to be considered a boat anchor.
 
Jesus this thread is getting dumb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
That happens when truckers are involved in anything for long.. ????????

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 
There's even talk of 900 rpm cruise speeds. Also there's rumors one OEM may be able to meet emissions without EGR or DPF! we are entering interesting times in the engine world.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 
Mr.T said:
I'm sure they would laugh at me, what's one guy that hasn't vacuumed up the Kool-Aid to their bottom line? fukk.....I don't even drive truck anymore and I'm not stupid enough to believe their garbage. the older, pre-emission engines will ALWAYS be more realiable and more efficient than these new engines that aren't even good enough to be considered a boat anchor.
Click to expand...
You are really behind the times, the past few years they've focused a lot on bsfc across the entire rpm and load range. There's a reason new trucks are capable of 9+ mpg pulling 80k.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top