Again, this is a Train board, so I'm not sure who all here has expertise in those types of diesels. I AM however pretty sure that an EMD 16-710G3C-T2 gets better fuel consumption numbers than a 16-710G3B or older.
Perhaps this is why CAT has had mixed results in the locomotive market.
I drove in the Late 90's Back then we had OTR rigs that would get 9-10 MPG as a normal MILEAGE. I drove a 98 Pete 379 with a 475 CAT that would get 7 MPG at 75 MPH. Yet now a Cat motor if your LUCKY will only get 5 MPG in the same configuration. What Changed 2 things CARB and the EPA decided that they wanted to SAVE the earth and reduce emisions by 40% out the tailpipes. So CAT redid the Engines came out with ACERT Cummins and Detroit came out with EGR tech and DPF tech on all of the OTR engines in 07. However in 04 it was Just EGR and Acert. Now tell me this how can an engine that is burning 50-75% more Fuel be emitting LESS NOX and CO2 than the one it is supposed to replace.
YoHo1975As for the emissions requirements for trucks... I'm sorry, but as a California resident for 6 years I was acutely aware that California's central Valley now boasts some of the worst air quality in the entire country. I'm not just talking Carbon Dioxide issues, I'm talking Smog, particulate matter, NOx. So, while I sympathize with truckers, I myself was recently unemployed, I wish it on nobody, I still agree with the state of California and I don't appreciate the name calling
Have to agree. In the mid to late 1960s a few people who flew into Newark, Pittsburgh, Birmingham, and Chicago when the wind was from the east would have nose bleeds start before they even got to the gate. Used to be when passing thru 7000ft a person could see a red haze from all the polution. Industries fought it tooth and nail. Another strange effect was thru the 1960s people in the Pittsburgh area were at least 6 - 9 inches shorter than others not in that area.
Smog never had much effect on me but guess I just picked the correct parents. But other people I knew--------------????????!!!!!!!!!!!
Holy smokes! If a '92 truck gets 5.5 MPG and an 0-10 gets 7 MPG, does this mean I can trade in my 1996 Taurus LX that gets 30 MPG on the open road with a comparable car in size, comfort, and power that gets 38 MPG?
I once read a trucking magazine that as a trucker you can actually get information from the manufacturer giving you a good idea of what kind of fuel mileage you will get from a truck in the kind of route you drive. Good luck even getting that information to make informed comparisons for an automobile.
I know the stakes (i.e. the out-of-pocket expenses) are much higher in trucking and perhaps accounts for why the truck makers will address fuel economy questions better than auto makers.
But it would be really nice if one could get an even ballpark idea of what kind of gas mileage you could get from a new car in service. It is not that the EPA numbers are "bogus", that the EPA test is different from the kind of driving you might do, I have a feeling that the EPA numbers are "gamed" in some ways. If anyone is curious, I can point out anomolies on the EPA's own Web site, showing the raw "Test Car List Data" fuel economy numbers where they also show drag numbers used for the tests and point out some suspect values.
edbenton The 9400-9600's were the First ones out so they came out in what 1991-92 or so IIRC. So they have 20 years on them probally 2 2.5 Million miles of Hard pulling in mostly coal service. Lets see what we would be looking at to rebuild them to current standards. New Prime movers new Wiring and Control system. Had desktop controls which CREW HATE. Also Do not meet EPA Emissions so need Upgraded there. Looking at 1.5-1.8 Million PER. Can get a new one for just over 2.2 million that is more Fuel Efficent and the frame is 20 years NEWER. Lets see here from a OTR look. I am driving a 92 9700 Cabover that has a 400 Cat gets 5.5 MPG and breaksdown all the time anymore. Now I can trade it in get a 2010 Model Prostar that gets 7 MPG warrenty and also reliable. How would you go.
The 9400-9600's were the First ones out so they came out in what 1991-92 or so IIRC. So they have 20 years on them probally 2 2.5 Million miles of Hard pulling in mostly coal service. Lets see what we would be looking at to rebuild them to current standards. New Prime movers new Wiring and Control system. Had desktop controls which CREW HATE. Also Do not meet EPA Emissions so need Upgraded there. Looking at 1.5-1.8 Million PER. Can get a new one for just over 2.2 million that is more Fuel Efficent and the frame is 20 years NEWER. Lets see here from a OTR look. I am driving a 92 9700 Cabover that has a 400 Cat gets 5.5 MPG and breaksdown all the time anymore. Now I can trade it in get a 2010 Model Prostar that gets 7 MPG warrenty and also reliable. How would you go.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
See there is a slight Issue there is a groiup in Californa called CARB the Californa Air Resouce Board that if your going to Overhaul a locomotive you have to Bring it up to Current Teir 2 Standards by 2012 or it can not be RUN IN CALIFORNA AT ALL. So are you going to have a set of Engines for COMMIEFORNIA AND ONE FOR THE REST OF THE NATION. Or are you going to bite the bullet and just bring them up to standards. That is were the OTR Trucking Industry is facing right now with Reefer Units anything older than a 2002 is Now ILLEGAL for Cali so we have a choice 70-90K for a New trailer and Unit or 40K for Upgrade on the one we are pulling now.
BTW try getting a SBA loan for a Equipment upgrade in this Economy there is NO CREDIT and if we get caught in Cali it is a 3K fine. Nice huh yet we have no choice. Yet 90% of all fresh Veggies are coming OUT OF CALIFORNIA so what do we do. run an illegal trailer and hope we do not get stopped for a reefer unit check by a state NEEDING 55BILLION to plug a hole in its BUDGET or try to afford 40-90K to run there Legal.
The first ones were arrived in November 1993 and the last of the BN name units wee in July of 1995. They probably have many miles as you said and are in need of rebuilding.
CZ
Thanks to unoffical EMD listing
Rumor has it is BNSF’s going to retire BN 9600-series SD70MACs and some of these will be going to Mexico. I wonder which railroad south of the border they’re going too? Ferromex, Ferrosur, KCS-M? The SD70MACs would look nice in KCS’s Belle! If BNSF’s going to take most if not all of its former BN 9400-9600 series off lease, maybe US regionals MRL, IAIS, and the Indiana Railroad should get some of these SD70MACs too and compliment their existing rosters of AC-power.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.