Why do the US general truck manufacturers cut off the offered power at 605 hp?

[💗Blaaashyyy💗]

And don't offer trucks with engines like Scania or Volvo with 750 hp etc? I'm not talking about specialist trucks here, because both in Europe and in USA specialist trucks are done by different companies, but it's not totally uncomon that a company or owner operator to have a around 700 hp truck from either Scania or Volvo in Europe, and both companies are more than happy to offer you such a truck. Why don't US companies offer such engines in general?

[_KC76_]

Most likely answer is: Because of who buys the most trucks.
-Fleet operators buy the most trucks, and the largest fleet operators usually run team drivers of 2 or 3 people, so the trucks are turning wheels 18 to 24 hours a day. Lower powered engines get better fuel economy, so the fleets buy trucks with more fuel economy, and don't care what the horsepower or torque are. With team drivers, running nearly 24/7, the fleet operators can afford to run trucks governed at 65 mph, that have only 385 horsepower, but mught get 6.5 MPG as compared to a 700HP engine that gets 4 MPG when ran flat out.
--It's simple economics, Fuel costs more than a driver's salary.

[Zeke]

Blash lähetti viestin:

Now that you bring it up, I DID hear that Caterpillar stopped offering their engine for semi trucks, exactly because they either couldn't meet the emissions restrictions, or couldn't be bothered with trying.

But then again, I hardly believe that emissions restrictions are higher for Europe than USA. Anyone has data on emissions on, lets say, Cummins X15 Performance 605 vs Scania's DC16 107 730 Euro 6 V8?

Cat couldn't be bothered. They came up with some solutions, like the ARD system. It's a system with an injector and a friggin spark plug to ignite it, and it burns soot that way. The EPA pushed too hard, too fast, and Cat was fed up with being rushed. They make enough money doing construction and selling parts for their older on-road engines. Pre-emissions trucks in good shape with yellow engines in them sell for good money still.

[Actionjackson]

Blash lähetti viestin:

Actionjackson lähetti viestin:

The truck speed limit in the US is way higher than in EU, so in average they are probably still quicker on a long trip since they have higher average speed.
A short and slow climb does not cost a lot of time if you can blast with 70 or more mph the rest of the time.
In EU all you ever get is 80kmh.

You realise that US is not flat? There are many places in the west when you have to climb most of the time. 750 hp trucks aren't suuuuper popular in Europe either, but if you need and want one, you can get it. Still doesn't explain why US manufacturers don't offer higher HP engines.

No, but very large parts of it are flat. And excessive power cost excessive money, no need for that. I mean if they would want something like that they would just build it.

[LarryA]

Based on RL. Here is some examples.

Boils down the engine MFG Warranty and EPA Standards been previously posted.
Roll Back a few years to 1974.

Typically depend on the truck dealer percentage of H.P. and Torque in some cases Not all could increase the H.P. and torque by 7% not over and still maintain warranty. Again that depended on the dealership.

Order a New Pete 359 with Cat, Cummins or Detroit.

350 Cummins rated 350 H.P. Cummins dynoed at the crankshaft. Not to the ground.
340 H.P._350 H.P.. at the crank. At the ground around 275 H.P. dependiing on tractor and transmission set ups.

Cat: Dyno all trucks H.P. to the Ground.
1693 T. 325 H.P. to the ground + or - 3 percent.
1693 T.A. 425 H.P. plus or minus 3 percent.

Push a 1693 T.A. to 500 H.P. plus. Have to either the engine on a hot day. Cylinders would load up with fuel. Result in major engine damage. The best HP at 1800 RPM was 475 H.P. still maintain Cat Warranty. Again that depends on Cat Dealership are a Franchises. Not owned by Cat.

3408 Cat push to 800 H.P. same issue have to use either to start the engine.

3406 B Model Cat and convert it to a 3406 E. Model. Push it to 650 H.P.. Have to use a Kit to accomplish that H.P.. Warranty expired.

Take a Glider Kit 2022 put a 1693 T.A. Cat in it. woulld be a bad set up. 3406E model waould be a better choice. Using the 1693 as a example. MFG Date 1974. The EPA standards are based on engine MFG Date not the date (Edit) of the glider kit. .
EPA standards would be based at 1974. Not 2022 the mfg date of the Glider Kit.

That folks is why some owner operators and independents build Glider kits to get around the EPA standards.

Edit: Cat White for semi tractors. 1672, 1673, 1693, 3408.
If used in heavy equipment painted Cat Yellow.

3406 all were Cat Yellow. Cat Dropped the Cat White.
3406 is designed after the 3408 bore and stroke.

Lot of H.P settings effect fuel mileage, maintenance, tire wear. Cost pennies. Count the pennies the dollars will take care of them selves.

Have A Great Day.

[Deathjr112]

the reason behind the average of 400-600hp rigs in the US is due to cost and emissions. So the more HP a vehicle has the more fuel it burns. more fuel it burns more money the owner/operator has to spend. the more money spent less money earned and with the government trying to eliminate emissions 1000hp trucks aren't beneficial in the US. do some companies run them? yes but for short distances like to the next city or so but thats usually it.

[Deathjr112]

Blash lähetti viestin:

Now that you bring it up, I DID hear that Caterpillar stopped offering their engine for semi trucks, exactly because they either couldn't meet the emissions restrictions, or couldn't be bothered with trying.

But then again, I hardly believe that emissions restrictions are higher for Europe than USA. Anyone has data on emissions on, lets say, Cummins X15 Performance 605 vs Scania's DC16 107 730 Euro 6 V8?

and yes the US emissions is stricter, the US applies a single set of standards to gasoline and diesel vehicles, while the EU allows higher levels of air quality pollutants to diesel vehicles.

[_KC76_]

LarryA lähetti viestin:

Take a Glider Kit 2022 put a 1693 T.A. Cat in it. woulld be a bad set up. 3406E model waould be a better choice. Using the 1693 as a example. MFG Date 1974. The EPA standards are based on engine MFG Date not the date (Edit) of the glider kit. .
EPA standards would be based at 1974. Not 2022 the mfg date of the Glider Kit.

That folks is why some owner operators and independents build Glider kits to get around the EPA standards.

Have A Great Day.

I don't know where you got that info, but you literally have it reversed. The EPA/Emissions requirements are based on the Chassis, and the Engine has to be the same year or NEWER than the Chassis it is being put in to.
-- I have literal experience building cars and trucks, and know first-hand what the laws are regarding Engine swaps, and building/rebuilding vehicles.

[ttower]

KingConrail lähetti viestin:

LarryA lähetti viestin:

Take a Glider Kit 2022 put a 1693 T.A. Cat in it. woulld be a bad set up. 3406E model waould be a better choice. Using the 1693 as a example. MFG Date 1974. The EPA standards are based on engine MFG Date not the date (Edit) of the glider kit. .
EPA standards would be based at 1974. Not 2022 the mfg date of the Glider Kit.

That folks is why some owner operators and independents build Glider kits to get around the EPA standards.

Have A Great Day.

I don't know where you got that info, but you literally have it reversed. The EPA/Emissions requirements are based on the Chassis, and the Engine has to be the same year or NEWER than the Chassis it is being put in to.
-- I have literal experience building cars and trucks, and know first-hand what the laws are regarding Engine swaps, and building/rebuilding vehicles.

Glider kits (used to at least) be popular because you could get a new truck and use the same old reliable engine from before, allowing fresh, clean trucks with dependable classic drivetrain. These gliders were not sold as a complete truck (hence gliders), and were not emissions tested, as they had no engine to test. The preferred engine was then installed by the owners.

That said, I would be 0% surprised if this is changing, and glider kits are starting to be regulated more, both in engine use, emissions, production numbers, etc.

Regular vehicles definitely work by Chassis/Frame for things like VIN and Emissions, Glider Kits were different, and that is why they were popular

I have no sources, but that is the collective knowledge I have seen and heard many times before, with little contradiction so far.

[_KC76_]

ttower lähetti viestin:

KingConrail lähetti viestin:

I don't know where you got that info, but you literally have it reversed. The EPA/Emissions requirements are based on the Chassis, and the Engine has to be the same year or NEWER than the Chassis it is being put in to.
-- I have literal experience building cars and trucks, and know first-hand what the laws are regarding Engine swaps, and building/rebuilding vehicles.

Glider kits (used to at least) be popular because you could get a new truck and use the same old reliable engine from before, allowing fresh, clean trucks with dependable classic drivetrain. These gliders were not sold as a complete truck (hence gliders), and were not emissions tested, as they had no engine to test. The preferred engine was then installed by the owners.

That said, I would be 0% surprised if this is changing, and glider kits are starting to be regulated more, both in engine use, emissions, production numbers, etc.

Regular vehicles definitely work by Chassis/Frame for things like VIN and Emissions, Glider Kits were different, and that is why they were popular

I have no sources, but that is the collective knowledge I have seen and heard many times before, with little contradiction so far.

I have no doubt, that's how it was in the "good old days", but with the tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, and tier 4 Emissions for Diesels in the US now, it does not work that way anymore. I know dozens of owners who would love to build a glider if they could get away from having to use DEF and diesel particulate filters. Even Diesel locomotive manufacturers are restricted from putting old Prime Movers in new car-bodies under current federal EPA laws.

[LarryA]

Thanks guys for the info above concerning the new EPA standards appreciate it. Not to brag built 8 glider kits over the years last one in 1990 a 359 Pete.

Have A Great Day