What's new

FedEx Freight | New Tractor speeds

B

BumpDraft

TB Lurker
Credits
11
I just would like to hear what other drivers think of the speed on the new Volvos and Kw. We've had several meetings with our road manager and the lack of top end and torque on tractors seem to be the big complaint. My opinion is I feel like everytime I get a new tractor we take one step back on the power I almost feel like I'm driving a red racer again. My volvos runs 64 and that's checking it with several speed apps. I don't see where these new tractors are getting better fuel milage and there's no reason to get out in the left lane to pass and take 4- 5 miles to get by another big truck. Why do I lose 2-3 mph going from 9th to 10 gear before getting up to max speed. I'm not saying we should be running around going 70 mph but for the love of god 66mph would do wonders. They don't have any problems adding beepers and cameras to tractors. I have a hard time understanding if we're saving so much money on fuel why aren't Ups,Ups freight, Pitt Ohio, Conway Estes,Saia, doing the same thing. Lol end of rant.
 
I got a brand new Volvo, R80XX, back in the day that came straight from Volvo and would run 70mph on the pedal and pulled like a mule, everything was great for the first month. Then our shop PM'd it, cut the nuts out of it, and we, my slip-seat and I, started using 10 more gallons of fuel per trip, per day!!
We brought this verifiable evidence to the attention of the Regional Shop Manager and he didn't want to hear it. Last I heard, the truck was in GBO and still pulled great but 65 was max top speed.
After driving the new KW's, this current bid I took a million mile Volvo with a manual transmission and I had forgotten how much better these old trucks are!! I had to drive a newer Freightliner on Friday because mine was in the shop and I couldn't believe how slow and how bad those trucks run/pull....pathetic!!
Whoever makes the decision to spec these trucks should have to spend a week/month driving them first....we'd all be back in manual transmissions with a "real" volume control for the VORAD!! Also, I'd like to place a VORAD on their desk and everytime they scoot to close to their computer it starts beeping...maybe they'd get one of those that just beeps for no reason!! :)
 
We must be flexible, Red. I agree with you 100%, but we must drive the truck and let the bean counters and spec pros do their job. Some how, some where, it must make sense to waste efficiency (10 gal per run, you said), while sucking the power out of the unit. Or more likely, someone "thinks" it saves something, at least on paper, in theory...

You have the floor. This is actually a good topic for you. You are spot on. For what it's worth, I too drive a old Volvo, wings clipped and all. Not because I have to, but because I can.
 
I agree, and we must remain flexible. Unfortunately, I'll have to admit that the new auto-shift KW 680 I was driving was also using about 10 gallons less per day than the previous Volvos I was driving before it, but that's with the older Volvo's current company specs. My point is with the specs my older Volvo came with from the factory (Volvo's specs) it was performing the same as the new auto-shifts and I had the top speed and most importantly, the pulling power!!

FYI, I drive what I do not because I have to, but because I can as well.
 
I drive one of the newer KW's and I'm waiting to get in a wreck. The shifting is terrible and gets stuck in between gears and down shifts for no reason. I'll be pulling out into traffic and all of a sudden it doesn't want to shift or it down shifts to 1st gear. No one really seems to care what we have to deal with everyday in these things. After they determined changing the shifting from smooth to fast didn't hurt their fuel millage they implemented it. I haven't seen any difference at all. The Volvo automatics seemed great compared to the eaton trans, but we can't get those anymore. Just my .02
 
I will agree, Volvo's I-shift transmissions are silky smooth but the problem is you must buy their Volvo engine to get them. The company wants the Cummings so we get the crappy Eaton...ugh!!
 
In one respect, I appreciate the fact that the company goes out and buys trucks, however after driving them, I much prefer the good 'ole Volvos which I am currently in by choice. My other choice is an old KW and while its comfy to sleep in, I prefer the 'ole V. God I hope the day never comes that I'm forced to drive the new KW's
 
The new motto to live by around here is.......
Shut up
Hook em up
Ignore any safety issues
Truck em up

and if you get it, that;s how you get treated like, have a nice day
 
I got one of the new Petes and its balless. As soon as it sees a hill it down shifts way to early. Stays in 9th very little then a high RPM 8th gear. Complained to the shop reprogramed it now I don't have the manual side of the auto at all. You try to out think it and you cant. You put it in manual and you go to a dead zone and have to put it back in auto.I drive from Columbus to Horsecave Ky everyday. The stretch between Cincy and Louisville is nothing but little rolling hills and it kicks this trucks ass. The vorad has me wearing ear plugs and this truck by the end of the week has me mentally exhausted. Been driving a little over 30 years and 23 with FedEx and I can say they have destroyed a good truck. Very sad
Nothing like adding a whole new set of distractions to your day.
 
Redracer3136 said:
I agree, and we must remain flexible. Unfortunately, I'll have to admit that the new auto-shift KW 680 I was driving was also using about 10 gallons less per day than the previous Volvos I was driving before it, but that's with the older Volvo's current company specs. My point is with the specs my older Volvo came with from the factory (Volvo's specs) it was performing the same as the new auto-shifts and I had the top speed and most importantly, the pulling power!!

FYI, I drive what I do not because I have to, but because I can as well.
Click to expand...
got out of a Volvo for the last three years,Cummings never used a drop of oil,,the new KW 1.5 to 2 gal a week i ask around,normal on the new ones how is 70 to 90 gal a year normal on the new ones? sucks
 
Robert Paulson said:
got out of a Volvo for the last three years,Cummings never used a drop of oil,,the new KW 1.5 to 2 gal a week i ask around,normal on the new ones how is 70 to 90 gal a year normal on the new ones? sucks
Click to expand...

the cummins ISX is allegedly having some problems with the rings seating properly. There's a unit at my layover barn that's used 4 quarts per 500 miles since it was new...that's a crapload of oil in it's 400,000 miles....pathetic...love my D13 Volvo/ I shift. Actually, I don't shift, I'm shiftless thanks to my Volvo....
 
So last week at a hub in the N.E they had a meeting and were told that they are aware of the problem and will be in Vegas to discuss the software problem. All the questions that were being asked by the drivers got this response "good question I will ask that and get back to you when I go to Vegas". The problem is he never wrote one thing down and not one driver even picked it up. Now we may have good memories but not that good. When are the people going to wake up, they don't care , they tell you what you want to hear to shut you up. Wake the hell up.
 
trucking62 said:
So last week at a hub in the N.E they had a meeting and were told that they are aware of the problem and will be in Vegas to discuss the software problem. All the questions that were being asked by the drivers got this response "good question I will ask that and get back to you when I go to Vegas". The problem is he never wrote one thing down and not one driver even picked it up. Now we may have good memories but not that good. When are the people going to wake up, they don't care , they tell you what you want to hear to shut you up. Wake the hell up.
Click to expand...

I attended the meeting Monday in Vegas, and the manufacturer's rep's from Eaton and Cummins were very clear spoken on the issue of acceleration. They said the truck will accelerate much quicker at 75% throttle than it will at 100%. According to them if you use full throttle, especially on flat land, the engine and transmission are now at war with the driver over fuel savings. By using 75% throttle, the engine and transmission will skip shift and use the torque map to accelerate you as fast as possible while saving as much fuel as possible.

So the two guys representing the folks who design and build the engine and transmission said to wake up and drive like professionals.

I can't address the eaton/cummins performance, yet I've had an I Shift Volvo for 4 years, and what they said works in that combination very well.

ST
 
silent trucker said:
I attended the meeting Monday in Vegas, and the manufacturer's rep's from Eaton and Cummins were very clear spoken on the issue of acceleration. They said the truck will accelerate much quicker at 75% throttle than it will at 100%. According to them if you use full throttle, especially on flat land, the engine and transmission are now at war with the driver over fuel savings. By using 75% throttle, the engine and transmission will skip shift and use the torque map to accelerate you as fast as possible while saving as much fuel as possible.

So the two guys representing the folks who design and build the engine and transmission said to wake up and drive like professionals.

I can't address the eaton/cummins performance, yet I've had an I Shift Volvo for 4 years, and what they said works in that combination very well.
Well what's there explanation of constant up and down shifting on hills that doesn't need to be shifted on. I say be more of a engineer on a good design and stay out of the cab of a truck. This isn't Kansas, acceleration isn't my beef with this new truck, it's downshift.

ST
Click to expand...
 
Gator,
the eaton guy had a lot to say about "torque mapping". This has to do with trying to keep the rpm to a minimum. A couple of drivers challenged him about the downshift issue and his explanation had to do with the programming. They did take a couple of road unit numbers from drivers so they could check to make sure they were set correctly. He also said that within 3 years, the trucks will be running 900 rpm at 65 mph for fuel purposes.

ST
 
ST, I will say yes the truck gets better fuel mileage by about 10 gallons a day, I just had the truck reprogrammed and now the manual side of the trans is not there until it hits exactly at 1300 rpms. Not before not after. You trying it , it goes to a dead zone. You leave it in auto and your passing a truck on a small grade and it will downshift from 9 th to 8 th way to early , then it's dropping speed trying to catch itself at 1800 rpms if it isn't going back and forth from 7 th to 8 th.
This isn't controllable from the driver. Like I said by Friday I am mentally toast.
I drive Ohio and Kentucky which is a bunch of rolling hills so you can see between the beep beep beep when your behind a slow truck going up a hill, with this don't pass you won't pass him now that any given day in another Fedex truck you will pass no problem.
So back off for the insane beeping and the next hill your on his ass again, this is not professional trucking as Cummins and Eaton call it.
Trucks run on momentum 75% of the time and this program has killed that
 
Last edited:
Gator,
they were telling us the manual should only be used to "lock" in a gear to prevent downshifting, especially in snow and ice while pulling hills. There was a long explanation on the transmission and a vigorous discussion from several drivers who use the Pete's and KW's every day, all over the west and northwest. Can't say I remember all the details, it was at least 30 minutes of back and forth.

ST
 
I know all this is long term thinking of platooning trucks and self driving trucks. That's the bottom line on this. As soon as trucks and cars can data talk to each other all you will be is the liability option in a seat.
I don't think as drivers in the present time I should spend most of the day fighting a truck that your going to loose with everyday.
 
Gator said:
ST, I will say yes the truck gets better fuel mileage by about 10 gallons a day, I just had the truck reprogrammed and now the manual side of the trans is not there until it hits exactly at 1300 rpms. Not before not after. You trying it , it goes to a dead zone. You leave it in auto and your passing a truck on a small grade and it will downshift from 9 th to 8 th way to early , then it's dropping speed trying to catch itself at 1800 rpms if it isn't going back and forth from 7 th to 8 th.
This isn't controllable from the driver. Like I said by Friday I am mentally toast.
I drive Ohio and Kentucky which is a bunch of rolling hills so you can see between the beep beep beep when your behind a slow truck going up a hill, with this don't pass you won't pass him now that any given day in another Fedex truck you will pass no problem.
So back off for the insane beeping and the next hill your on his ass again, this is not professional trucking as Cummins and Eaton call it.
Trucks run on momentum 75% of the time and this program has killed that
Click to expand...

And being a California Road driver, I'm on the clock. I'm reminded of the old saying "As goes California, so goes the nation". The FMCSA has been trying to force all truck drivers onto hourly for 5 years or so...and I suspect they'll succeed within 3...thus eliminating the issue of how fast we go up hill...after all, as long as you're paid by the hour, who cares?

ST
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top