Western Railroad Discussion > UP taking delivery of more 710 powered ACE's

Just saw photo evidence of brand new SD70AH's on their way to UP at Chicago. UP 9062,64,65 and a couple more. How many is UP getting and,more importantly,how did UP legally acquire these symbols of freedom?

The 9xxx series SD70AH locomotives for the UP are Tier 3 credit units.

SOO6617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 9xxx series SD70AH locomotives for the UP are
> Tier 3 credit units.


Tier 4 credit units. I'm unsure how UP met the requirements for any more credit units as last year EMD failed to deliver 65 Tier 4 units for the 65 credit units built earlier in 2016. Now they are taking delivery of more credit units with Tier 4 production units nowhere near EPA required numbers. Having a business friendly administration may be helpful in a situation like this.

Tier 3 is clean enough.  Tier 4 has been a disaster, both for rail and trucking.  I'm waiting to see what railroads think of EGR technology, after trucking companies abandoned it, and after NAVISTAR / INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS admitted a whole line of trucks were a failure.  They were such a failure that they were shipped to Asia, stripped of their EGR gear, and finally were good enough to run again.  Asia and South America get these rejected trucks.  Will the RR's be next??

How long did it take for the trucking world to decide it wasn't good?

exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How long did it take for the trucking world to
> decide it wasn't good?

The Navistar/International technology is much different from what the rest of the industry went with.  Everyone else went with SCR.  SCR has had it's issues to be sure but the SCR engines have proven to be better than the previous series built between 2007 and the end of 2009 which were the first to feature catalytic converters and particulate traps.  SCR came along in 2010 and simplified the engines in many respects.  By using SCR, reliability and mileage improved.

International used high levels of cooled EGR, sequential turbo and a whole host of problematic components.  It failed - badly!  International ended up buying engines from Cummins and having Cummins engineer a complete emmision solution for their own line (of engines).  Their market share dropped like a stone and still has not recovered.  Today, they install Cummins engines in about 70% of their trucks.

Would it be safe to say that probably ALL the Tier-4 units that U.P now has will end up with proven EMD 710 series Tier-3 engines? A question I have is this; IS IT the Caterpillar engine that's not performing well or just all the Tier-4 bullshit?

If Alamode is still on here, he may be able to shed some light on how UP was able to get these. How many credit units on are on order, and how many straight Tier 4 units is UP getting this year?

NS19K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tier 4 credit units. I'm unsure how UP met the
> requirements for any more credit units

The credit locomotive "count" goes to the builder, not the railroad. For example, EMD can sell 40 Tier 4s to BNSF and 40 Tier 4 Credits to UP. Or sell 80 Tier 4s to BNSF, 25 Tier 4 Credits to UP and 55 Tier 4 Credits to CSX.

txtrainman43 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would it be safe to say that probably ALL the
> Tier-4 units that U.P now has will end up with
> proven EMD 710 series Tier-3 engines?

Probably not and WAY too early to tell.

> IS IT the Caterpillar engine
> that's not performing well or just all the Tier-4
> bullshit?

The 1010J is not a Caterpillar engine.

1010J is actually the 265H of old that's been tweaked

Posted from Android

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> exhaustED Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How long did it take for the trucking world to
> > decide it wasn't good?
>
> The Navistar/International technology is much
> different from what the rest of the industry went
> with.  Everyone else went with SCR.  SCR
> has had it's issues to be sure but the SCR
> engines have proven to be better than the previous
> series built between 2007 and the end of 2009
> which were the first to feature catalytic
> converters and particulate traps.  SCR came along
> in 2010 and simplified the engines in many
> respects.  By using SCR, reliability and mileage
> improved.
>
> International used high levels of cooled EGR,
> sequential turbo and a whole host of problematic
> components.  It failed - badly!  International
> ended up buying engines from Cummins and having
> Cummins engineer a complete emmision solution for
> their own line (of engines).  Their market share
> dropped like a stone and still has not
> recovered.  Today, they install Cummins engines
> in about 70% of their trucks.


The reliability and the cost to maintain STILL isn't any good. Between the outright failures and the amount of preventative maintenance needed to TRY to prevent road failures, my company considers it ALL an abject failure. Basically we currently have the same truck that costs $25,000 more to buy, 50 percent more expensive to maintain and 30% less reliable with about the same fuel mileage we had from a truck built in 2006. Any fuel savings we DO see is pretty much wiped out by the cost of buying DEF and the expense to dispense it (equipment and labor). The list of emission related parts failures we see would be as long as my arm, and even affects parts you wouldn't think of. The exhaust stack on a Mack CXU went from $100 to $700 because the intense heat generated by the emissions system would destroy the standard chrome stack. The resale value of used trucks has plummeted, and sometimes our used trucks sit nearly a year before we can unload them, many to overseas buyers who likely strip the emission equipment off them. We had a 2012 truck where a car ran into the side of it and damaged the DPF system. The cost to repair the truck exceeded it's value.

NS19K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Alamode is still on here, he may be able to
> shed some light on how UP was able to get these.
> How many credit units on are on order, and how
> many straight Tier 4 units is UP getting this
> year?


I am baffled by how EMD is able to deliver Credit Units in 2016 and 2017....
For example, they delivered 25 Tier 4 freight units in 2016, but 65 Tier 4 Credit Units.
And based on projected deliveries in 2017 they will be short again on Tier 4 vs Tier Credit Units.

The EPA has been VERY clear on this issue -- Tier 4 freight must be greater than or equal to Tier 4 credit or the locomotive manufacturer is in violation of the rules/regs. However, it is up to the EPA to enforce those rules/regs. I honestly don't know if the EPA does a year end review or if it trusts the builders to supply them with accurate information in this regard.

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > exhaustED Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > How long did it take for the trucking world
> to
> > > decide it wasn't good?
> >
> > The Navistar/International technology is much
> > different from what the rest of the industry
> went
> > with.  Everyone else went with SCR.  SCR
> > has had it's issues to be sure but the SCR
> > engines have proven to be better than the
> previous
> > series built between 2007 and the end of 2009
> > which were the first to feature catalytic
> > converters and particulate traps.  SCR came
> along
> > in 2010 and simplified the engines in many
> > respects.  By using SCR, reliability and
> mileage
> > improved.
> >
> > International used high levels of cooled EGR,
> > sequential turbo and a whole host of
> problematic
> > components.  It failed - badly! 
> International
> > ended up buying engines from Cummins and having
> > Cummins engineer a complete emmision solution
> for
> > their own line (of engines).  Their market
> share
> > dropped like a stone and still has not
> > recovered.  Today, they install Cummins
> engines
> > in about 70% of their trucks.
>
>
> The reliability and the cost to maintain STILL
> isn't any good. Between the outright failures and
> the amount of preventative maintenance needed to
> TRY to prevent road failures, my company considers
> it ALL an abject failure. Basically we currently
> have the same truck that costs $25,000 more to
> buy, 50 percent more expensive to maintain and
> 30% less reliable with about the same fuel mileage
> we had from a truck built in 2006. Any fuel
> savings we DO see is pretty much wiped out by the
> cost of buying DEF and the expense to dispense it
> (equipment and labor). The list of emission
> related parts failures we see would be as long as
> my arm, and even affects parts you wouldn't think
> of. The exhaust stack on a Mack CXU went from
> $100 to $700 because the intense heat generated by
> the emissions system would destroy the standard
> chrome stack. The resale value of used trucks has
> plummeted, and sometimes our used trucks sit
> nearly a year before we can unload them, many to
> overseas buyers who likely strip the emission
> equipment off them. We had a 2012 truck where a
> car ran into the side of it and damaged the DPF
> system. The cost to repair the truck exceeded it's
> value.

I am not selling trucks nor am I telling you you're wrong. Still, with the engines we are running (basically an ISX fleet) we have seen year over year improvement in mileage. Our first "2010" were in 2012 (admittedly missing the first two years of this engine) and our mileage - on basically the same run - jumped from the mid fives to 6.7. The newest tractor with the same rating (450 hp ISX's) are turning in 7.3 mph. The drivers also claim they​ pull better, as much as half a gear (13 speeds) on some of the hills that we encounter. The worst failure thus far has been a scored liner on an ISX at 320,000 miles in a 2013 Volvo VN630. Cummins overhauled it under warranty.

We have leased Mack and Volvo powered Volvo's​ on a short term and fill in basis. I have definitely seen more issues with theses engines. The "seventh injector event" being most common. Talking with the guys at the local Mack/Volvo garage, they seem to think that this is fairly common.

We also see test trucks from all the engine manufacture's and all "generations" of emissions technology. I get to discuss these engines and technologies with some of the engineers that helped develop them. My opinion is (and is based on expirence, and data) that the SCR engines are better that the 2007-2009 generation products. Even the pre-emmission engines of 1998 never turned in 7.3 mph in our service.

Either way, there is no turning back the clock.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/17 20:27 by NYSWSD70M.

Very interesting, always good to get a balanced range of opinions/experiences.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> junctiontower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > exhaustED Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > How long did it take for the trucking world
> > to
> > > > decide it wasn't good?
> > >
> > > The Navistar/International technology is much
> > > different from what the rest of the industry
> > went
> > > with.  Everyone else went with SCR.  SCR
> > > has had it's issues to be sure but the SCR
> > > engines have proven to be better than the
> > previous
> > > series built between 2007 and the end of 2009
> > > which were the first to feature catalytic
> > > converters and particulate traps.  SCR came
> > along
> > > in 2010 and simplified the engines in many
> > > respects.  By using SCR, reliability and
> > mileage
> > > improved.
> > >
> > > International used high levels of cooled EGR,
> > > sequential turbo and a whole host of
> > problematic
> > > components.  It failed - badly! 
> > International
> > > ended up buying engines from Cummins and
> having
> > > Cummins engineer a complete emmision solution
> > for
> > > their own line (of engines).  Their market
> > share
> > > dropped like a stone and still has not
> > > recovered.  Today, they install Cummins
> > engines
> > > in about 70% of their trucks.
> >
> >
> > The reliability and the cost to maintain STILL
> > isn't any good. Between the outright failures
> and
> > the amount of preventative maintenance needed
> to
> > TRY to prevent road failures, my company
> considers
> > it ALL an abject failure. Basically we
> currently
> > have the same truck that costs $25,000 more to
> > buy, 50 percent more expensive to maintain and
> > 30% less reliable with about the same fuel
> mileage
> > we had from a truck built in 2006. Any fuel
> > savings we DO see is pretty much wiped out by
> the
> > cost of buying DEF and the expense to dispense
> it
> > (equipment and labor). The list of emission
> > related parts failures we see would be as long
> as
> > my arm, and even affects parts you wouldn't
> think
> > of. The exhaust stack on a Mack CXU went from
> > $100 to $700 because the intense heat generated
> by
> > the emissions system would destroy the standard
> > chrome stack. The resale value of used trucks
> has
> > plummeted, and sometimes our used trucks sit
> > nearly a year before we can unload them, many
> to
> > overseas buyers who likely strip the emission
> > equipment off them. We had a 2012 truck where a
> > car ran into the side of it and damaged the DPF
> > system. The cost to repair the truck exceeded
> it's
> > value.
>
> I am not selling trucks nor am I telling you
> you're wrong. Still, with the engines we are
> running (basically an ISX fleet) we have seen year
> over year improvement in milage. Our first "2010"
> were in 2012 (admittedly missing the first two
> years of this engine) and our milage - on
> basically the same run, jumped from the mid fives
> to 6.7. The newest tractor with the same rating
> (450 hp ISX's) are turning in 7.3 mph. The
> drivers also claim they​ pull better, as much as
> half a gear (13 speeds) on some of the hills that
> we encounter. The worst failure thus far has been
> a scored liner on an ISX at 320,000 miles in a
> 2013 Volvo VN630. Cummins overhauled it under
> warranty.
>
> We have leased Mack and Volvo powered Volvo's​
> on a short term and fill in basis. I have
> definitely seen more issues with theses engines.
> The "seventh injector event" being most common.
> Talking with the guys at the local Mack/Volvo
> garage, they seem to think that this is fairly
> common.
>
> We also see test trucks from all the engine
> manufacture's and all "generations" of emissions
> technology. I get to discuss these engines and
> technologies with some of the engineers that
> helped develop them. My opinion is (and is based
> on expirence, and data) that the SCR engines are
> better that the 2007-2009 generation products.
> Even the pre-emmission engines of 1998 never
> turned in 7.3 mph in our service.
>
> Either way, there is no turning back the clock.
>
> Posted from Android

I'm not disputing your own experiences, but when I talked to some people at a shop that sees a LOT of Cummins engines (more than we do) and told them about your experiences, they laughed out loud. Their opinion? Choose your poison, they're all junk. Not a surprise being that Cummins and affiliated companies developed much of the gear everyone uses. On the Cummins we DO work on, we see a lot of exhaust manifold failures, EGR cooler failures, and the need to reseal basically every gasket and o-ring on the right hand side of the engine. As far as the Mack/Volvo engines, the MP8/D13 family of engines has been pretty much bulletproof except for a bunch of injector cup failures (supposedly fixed on the 2018 models), but it's the DEF system, EGR system and DPF system that are killing us. Just the pump and module that moves the DEF from the tank to the 7th injector is $1200 plus the core charge. Atomizing modules? $350, NOX sensor, $400 each, often times two, Flexible exhaust pipe section ($200 for an aftermarket front one, $600+ for the OEM only rear one. DPF cleanings $400 for cleaning alone, not to mention gaskets, any clamps needed and the labor to R&R it. This is just a sample of what i deal with every day. The rest of the truck continue to get and better and better, while the emission controls are the Achilles heel of the whole deal.

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > junctiontower Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > exhaustED Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > How long did it take for the trucking
> world
> > > to
> > > > > decide it wasn't good?
> > > >
> > > > The Navistar/International technology is
> much
> > > > different from what the rest of the
> industry
> > > went
> > > > with.  Everyone else went with SCR.  SCR
> > > > has had it's issues to be sure but the
> SCR
> > > > engines have proven to be better than the
> > > previous
> > > > series built between 2007 and the end of
> 2009
> > > > which were the first to feature catalytic
> > > > converters and particulate traps.  SCR
> came
> > > along
> > > > in 2010 and simplified the engines in many
> > > > respects.  By using SCR, reliability and
> > > mileage
> > > > improved.
> > > >
> > > > International used high levels of cooled
> EGR,
> > > > sequential turbo and a whole host of
> > > problematic
> > > > components.  It failed - badly! 
> > > International
> > > > ended up buying engines from Cummins and
> > having
> > > > Cummins engineer a complete emmision
> solution
> > > for
> > > > their own line (of engines).  Their market
> > > share
> > > > dropped like a stone and still has not
> > > > recovered.  Today, they install Cummins
> > > engines
> > > > in about 70% of their trucks.
> > >
> > >
> > > The reliability and the cost to maintain
> STILL
> > > isn't any good. Between the outright
> failures
> > and
> > > the amount of preventative maintenance needed
> > to
> > > TRY to prevent road failures, my company
> > considers
> > > it ALL an abject failure. Basically we
> > currently
> > > have the same truck that costs $25,000 more
> to
> > > buy, 50 percent more expensive to maintain and
>
> > > 30% less reliable with about the same fuel
> > mileage
> > > we had from a truck built in 2006. Any fuel
> > > savings we DO see is pretty much wiped out by
> > the
> > > cost of buying DEF and the expense to
> dispense
> > it
> > > (equipment and labor). The list of emission
> > > related parts failures we see would be as
> long
> > as
> > > my arm, and even affects parts you wouldn't
> > think
> > > of. The exhaust stack on a Mack CXU went
> from
> > > $100 to $700 because the intense heat
> generated
> > by
> > > the emissions system would destroy the
> standard
> > > chrome stack. The resale value of used trucks
> > has
> > > plummeted, and sometimes our used trucks sit
> > > nearly a year before we can unload them, many
> > to
> > > overseas buyers who likely strip the emission
> > > equipment off them. We had a 2012 truck where
> a
> > > car ran into the side of it and damaged the
> DPF
> > > system. The cost to repair the truck exceeded
> > it's
> > > value.
> >
> > I am not selling trucks nor am I telling you
> > you're wrong. Still, with the engines we are
> > running (basically an ISX fleet) we have seen
> year
> > over year improvement in milage. Our first
> "2010"
> > were in 2012 (admittedly missing the first two
> > years of this engine) and our milage - on
> > basically the same run, jumped from the mid
> fives
> > to 6.7. The newest tractor with the same
> rating
> > (450 hp ISX's) are turning in 7.3 mph. The
> > drivers also claim they​ pull better, as much
> as
> > half a gear (13 speeds) on some of the hills
> that
> > we encounter. The worst failure thus far has
> been
> > a scored liner on an ISX at 320,000 miles in a
> > 2013 Volvo VN630. Cummins overhauled it under
> > warranty.
> >
> > We have leased Mack and Volvo powered
> Volvo's​
> > on a short term and fill in basis. I have
> > definitely seen more issues with theses engines.
>
> > The "seventh injector event" being most common.
> > Talking with the guys at the local Mack/Volvo
> > garage, they seem to think that this is fairly
> > common.
> >
> > We also see test trucks from all the engine
> > manufacture's and all "generations" of
> emissions
> > technology. I get to discuss these engines and
> > technologies with some of the engineers that
> > helped develop them. My opinion is (and is
> based
> > on expirence, and data) that the SCR engines
> are
> > better that the 2007-2009 generation products.
> > Even the pre-emmission engines of 1998 never
> > turned in 7.3 mph in our service.
> >
> > Either way, there is no turning back the clock.
>
> >
> > Posted from Android
>
> I'm not disputing your own experiences, but when I
> talked to some people at a shop that sees a LOT of
> Cummins engines (more than we do) and told them
> about your experiences, they laughed out loud.
> Their opinion? Choose your poison, they're all
> junk. Not a surprise being that Cummins and
> affiliated companies developed much of the gear
> everyone uses. On the Cummins we DO work on, we
> see a lot of exhaust manifold failures, EGR cooler
> failures, and the need to reseal basically every
> gasket and o-ring on the right hand side of the
> engine. As far as the Mack/Volvo engines, the
> MP8/D13 family of engines has been pretty much
> bulletproof except for a bunch of injector cup
> failures (supposedly fixed on the 2018 models),
> but it's the DEF system, EGR system and DPF system
> that are killing us. Just the pump and module that
> moves the DEF from the tank to the 7th injector is
> $1200 plus the core charge. Atomizing modules?
> $350, NOX sensor, $400 each, often times two,
> Flexible exhaust pipe section ($200 for an
> aftermarket front one, $600+ for the OEM only rear
> one. DPF cleanings $400 for cleaning alone, not
> to mention gaskets, any clamps needed and the
> labor to R&R it. This is just a sample of what i
> deal with every day. The rest of the truck
> continue to get and better and better, while the
> emission controls are the Achilles heel of the
> whole deal.

To each their own I would guess. I can only relate my own experience (s) for the most part. However​, I did call a friend of mine with Penske to discuss. He is not a fan of ANYTHING Mack/Volvo. Says that they seem to be fine for two years and then have something to fix every month. He feels that Cummins and Detroit have the least issues. I know that many of the all Mack fleets have walked away from Mack in this area which has been a strong for them (Western NY). Honestly, my own MP8/VED13 experiences have been anything but bullet proof!

Given that every manufacturer has an alternative, Cummins must do something right. They​ still remained in the lead last year with 36% of the market.

However, a driver of mine gave me one statement that always rings true - "they are all a POS when they are broken".

Just to bring this back into the railroad-specific, does anyone have mean time or distance between failure info for these engines on UP, BNSF, CSX, etc? That would seem to be one way to determine how much worse the new engines are compared to the tier 3.

I have to believe the info on cost of new equipment / rebuilding old equipment entered into the evaluation at the class 1 lines. It's interesting that NS went all in on rebuilding, while the others seem to be buying new stuff.

(And, probably entered into Florida East Coast's decision to expand the LNG experiment to more of their ES44 units. I believe they're at 18 now. With ten or 11 fuel tenders. )

The hard part is that these are 15 plus year machines. They may get off to a terrible start and then be fine once the bugs are worked out. Then again, they​ may be fine now but completely impossible to maintain later in the life cycle.

Posted from Android

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> junctiontower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > junctiontower Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > exhaustED Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > How long did it take for the trucking
> > world
> > > > to
> > > > > > decide it wasn't good?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Navistar/International technology is
> > much
> > > > > different from what the rest of the
> > industry
> > > > went
> > > > > with.  Everyone else went with
> SCR.  SCR
> > > > > has had it's issues to be sure but the
> > SCR
> > > > > engines have proven to be better than the
> > > > previous
> > > > > series built between 2007 and the end of
> > 2009
> > > > > which were the first to feature
> catalytic
> > > > > converters and particulate traps.  SCR
> > came
> > > > along
> > > > > in 2010 and simplified the engines in
> many
> > > > > respects.  By using SCR, reliability and
> > > > mileage
> > > > > improved.
> > > > >
> > > > > International used high levels of cooled
> > EGR,
> > > > > sequential turbo and a whole host of
> > > > problematic
> > > > > components.  It failed - badly! 
> > > > International
> > > > > ended up buying engines from Cummins and
> > > having
> > > > > Cummins engineer a complete emmision
> > solution
> > > > for
> > > > > their own line (of engines).  Their
> market
> > > > share
> > > > > dropped like a stone and still has not
> > > > > recovered.  Today, they install Cummins
> > > > engines
> > > > > in about 70% of their trucks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The reliability and the cost to maintain
> > STILL
> > > > isn't any good. Between the outright
> > failures
> > > and
> > > > the amount of preventative maintenance
> needed
> > > to
> > > > TRY to prevent road failures, my company
> > > considers
> > > > it ALL an abject failure. Basically we
> > > currently
> > > > have the same truck that costs $25,000 more
> > to
> > > > buy, 50 percent more expensive to maintain
> and
> >
> > > > 30% less reliable with about the same fuel
> > > mileage
> > > > we had from a truck built in 2006. Any fuel
> > > > savings we DO see is pretty much wiped out
> by
> > > the
> > > > cost of buying DEF and the expense to
> > dispense
> > > it
> > > > (equipment and labor). The list of emission
> > > > related parts failures we see would be as
> > long
> > > as
> > > > my arm, and even affects parts you wouldn't
> > > think
> > > > of. The exhaust stack on a Mack CXU went
> > from
> > > > $100 to $700 because the intense heat
> > generated
> > > by
> > > > the emissions system would destroy the
> > standard
> > > > chrome stack. The resale value of used
> trucks
> > > has
> > > > plummeted, and sometimes our used trucks
> sit
> > > > nearly a year before we can unload them,
> many
> > > to
> > > > overseas buyers who likely strip the
> emission
> > > > equipment off them. We had a 2012 truck
> where
> > a
> > > > car ran into the side of it and damaged the
> > DPF
> > > > system. The cost to repair the truck
> exceeded
> > > it's
> > > > value.
> > >
> > > I am not selling trucks nor am I telling you
> > > you're wrong. Still, with the engines we are
> > > running (basically an ISX fleet) we have seen
> > year
> > > over year improvement in milage. Our first
> > "2010"
> > > were in 2012 (admittedly missing the first
> two
> > > years of this engine) and our milage - on
> > > basically the same run, jumped from the mid
> > fives
> > > to 6.7. The newest tractor with the same
> > rating
> > > (450 hp ISX's) are turning in 7.3 mph. The
> > > drivers also claim they​ pull better, as
> much
> > as
> > > half a gear (13 speeds) on some of the hills
> > that
> > > we encounter. The worst failure thus far has
> > been
> > > a scored liner on an ISX at 320,000 miles in
> a
> > > 2013 Volvo VN630. Cummins overhauled it
> under
> > > warranty.
> > >
> > > We have leased Mack and Volvo powered
> > Volvo's​
> > > on a short term and fill in basis. I have
> > > definitely seen more issues with theses
> engines.
> >
> > > The "seventh injector event" being most
> common.
> > > Talking with the guys at the local Mack/Volvo
> > > garage, they seem to think that this is
> fairly
> > > common.
> > >
> > > We also see test trucks from all the engine
> > > manufacture's and all "generations" of
> > emissions
> > > technology. I get to discuss these engines
> and
> > > technologies with some of the engineers that
> > > helped develop them. My opinion is (and is
> > based
> > > on expirence, and data) that the SCR engines
> > are
> > > better that the 2007-2009 generation products.
>
> > > Even the pre-emmission engines of 1998 never
> > > turned in 7.3 mph in our service.
> > >
> > > Either way, there is no turning back the
> clock.
> >
> > >
> > > Posted from Android
> >
> > I'm not disputing your own experiences, but when
> I
> > talked to some people at a shop that sees a LOT
> of
> > Cummins engines (more than we do) and told them
> > about your experiences, they laughed out loud.
> > Their opinion? Choose your poison, they're all
> > junk. Not a surprise being that Cummins and
> > affiliated companies developed much of the gear
> > everyone uses. On the Cummins we DO work on, we
> > see a lot of exhaust manifold failures, EGR
> cooler
> > failures, and the need to reseal basically
> every
> > gasket and o-ring on the right hand side of the
> > engine. As far as the Mack/Volvo engines, the
> > MP8/D13 family of engines has been pretty much
> > bulletproof except for a bunch of injector cup
> > failures (supposedly fixed on the 2018 models),
> > but it's the DEF system, EGR system and DPF
> system
> > that are killing us. Just the pump and module
> that
> > moves the DEF from the tank to the 7th injector
> is
> > $1200 plus the core charge. Atomizing modules?
> > $350, NOX sensor, $400 each, often times two,
> > Flexible exhaust pipe section ($200 for an
> > aftermarket front one, $600+ for the OEM only
> rear
> > one. DPF cleanings $400 for cleaning alone,
> not
> > to mention gaskets, any clamps needed and the
> > labor to R&R it. This is just a sample of what
> i
> > deal with every day. The rest of the truck
> > continue to get and better and better, while
> the
> > emission controls are the Achilles heel of the
> > whole deal.
>
> To each their own I would guess. I can only
> relate my own experience (s) for the most part.
> However​, I did call a friend of mine with
> Penske to discuss. He is not a fan of ANYTHING
> Mack/Volvo. Says that they seem to be fine for
> two years and then have something to fix every
> month. He feels that Cummins and Detroit have the
> least issues. I know that many of the all Mack
> fleets have walked away from Mack in this area
> which has been a strong for them (Western NY).
> Honestly, my own MP8/VED13 experiences have been
> anything but bullet proof!
>
> Given that every manufacturer has an alternative,
> Cummins must do something right. They​ still
> remained in the lead last year with 36% of the
> market.
>
> However, a driver of mine gave me one statement
> that always rings true - "they are all a POS when
> they are broken".

I agree with having to fix stuff ever month, and it's almost always the same stuff, 90% emission related. If it weren't that stuff, we would be doing cartwheels down the street over the performance of our trucks. I juxtapose these with the Internationals we work on, in which EVERYTHING breaks on them, from the front bumper to the taillight.