Seeing isn't believing when comparing different things. You have the ability to do a 2.47 in an all new so why not compare those? Since gearing has virtually nothing to do with acceleration (unless it's too extreme) it's more likely that the aero gains and faster shifting are what makes this difference. Should we just ignore how pathetically slow the 2.15 was off the line? You consider it a win to get to 60 faster but in traffic lights, 0-30 will happen much more often than 0-60. The 2022 starts in 2nd and all new in 1st but still gets beat bad which likely means it lugged too bad on flat ground. 750 rpm in 1st on 0% equates to right around 0 rpm ("driver" stalled it) on a 6-8% grade. Apparently there's no hills in VA for your engineers to see? To be clear, I like Volvo but if you're telling us your not doing something stupid then actually demonstrate it. Been on this ride before. Dealer suggested gear ratio based on your engineers rather than real world feedback. Performance was pathetic but they had a simple solution to offer us. WE pay 5500 to swap gears out for the ones the engineers swayed around a dozen customers, at just that dealer, away from before they realized they were actually wrong.
I think you missed what the competition was about. If Im not mistaken, you seem to be stuck at the slow start and focus on 0-30 but I cant see where that is relevant for what they are showing: Quicker to 60, less fuel and less strain on the engine. Sure 0-30 happens more often but if the lower strain makes the engine last longer, the lower fuel consumption saves the company more money etc I dont think 0-30 is very relevant either.
@@danielberma You can't affect "strain" on an engine or drivetrain with gearing. Except at the most extremes. i.e. lowest and highest gears. Everything in the middle is just compensated by the transmission. Which leads to my point. They are straining it in first (on the flat ground). Why it's slower to 30. What happens when you stop at a light on a hill or 50,000 trucks out and each costs 2 cars from making the next light? Answer is people hate being stuck behind truckers even more. Aero and quicker shifts are the ONLY plausible reasons it won their race, both of which come on later in the race and Are good for fuel economy. Don't ever believe someone that tells you lower rpm's alone means less fuel, they're either misinformed or just plain dumb. If that was the case, every manufacturer would gear highway speeds to be at idle (and fight for lower idle). Also, not wise to believe people that say 8-10% more efficient. They say it every time a new engine variant comes out. If true, these trucks should be at 100 mpg by now. Admittedly, that gain is def possible with new aero. So, all I asked for was a real comparison, which would almost certainly have the all new with 2.47 win by a lot. Better option for lower cruise rpm's, if you believe that's the key to economy. 15% more overdrive. Again, I like Volvo but people want to make informed decisions, not apples to oranges marketing trickery.
@@sln9651 again you are stuck at something the competition wasnt about. The increased torque means less horse power, less rpm and in the end less fuel, which the aero helps adding to as well. It was faster, at a less x and more y. The strain is less at the extremes on both ends yes, including starts. A slow starter may lead to better reliability and its obvious Volvo is aware of the slower starts and its probably there for a reason. I am not here to defend Volvo in any way, you are absolutely right in that 0-30 at a stop light is an interesting point but I dont see the trickery, they clearly show that the new truck is slower both visually and spoken. Regardless, I think this is the last or the second last generation of trucks before full electric completely takes over and is a viable option.
@@danielberma The reason I consider it marketing trickery is. If they're trying to sell customers on a 2.15 vs a 2.47 being better, then do the test in the same spec besides the gears. What this demonstrated is better aero. Also a great thing but not what they're trying to demonstrate. Same gearing in legacy and all new would be interesting too. That's a fair comp of how it's better overall. 0-30 actually means nothing to me. Most days I'd only do it around 10 times. Not everyone is the same though. I referenced that because it clearly lugs. If you think it's better to lug it down in 1st gear on flat ground then we'll just agree to disagree. I'm just not sure how it could handle starting on a 6-8% incline when that's the case. I'm all for the instant torque and quicker acceleration electric would provide. But for the masses, including OTR? Good luck getting that infrastructure to actually charge all vehicles/trucks in place in the next 25 years.
@@sln9651 a valid opinion but then there wouldnt be an update or new model. As I see it, its a comparison between new and old in a specific setting. Not the details. Also, I try to remember that this is made by the company that produced the truck and they have both the time and information to produce whatever videos/tests that are positive for the new truck. Its true that infrastructure is a big issue, but we gotta start somewhere. There are already 50 ton (110 000lbs) trucks that can do around 250-300km and the next generation (announced a week ago) double that distance. We are now reaching a distance where we, by law where I live, are required to take a break anyway. 4h30m maximum drive. Then 45 minute break, which is perfect for charging. With the increased distance its easier to be flexible on this.
This is complete horse sht. Screw your computer models . These 2.15s drop like a rock in hills .. not to mention the screwed up software making our latest trucks very unpredictable. This gear fast run slow bs has long been a Mega Fleet downfall in the used truck market.
@@nickaltvater5592 you sure it was a 3.08? I've run a 485 1650 dd15 and dt12 with the 3.08 it was absolutely slow and ain't something I'd be proud of @6.4
1:13 New VNL from 1st gear jumping to 4th gear while RPM still at only 750. Is there something wrong with the transmission algorithm?
Seeing isn't believing when comparing different things. You have the ability to do a 2.47 in an all new so why not compare those? Since gearing has virtually nothing to do with acceleration (unless it's too extreme) it's more likely that the aero gains and faster shifting are what makes this difference. Should we just ignore how pathetically slow the 2.15 was off the line? You consider it a win to get to 60 faster but in traffic lights, 0-30 will happen much more often than 0-60.
The 2022 starts in 2nd and all new in 1st but still gets beat bad which likely means it lugged too bad on flat ground. 750 rpm in 1st on 0% equates to right around 0 rpm ("driver" stalled it) on a 6-8% grade. Apparently there's no hills in VA for your engineers to see?
To be clear, I like Volvo but if you're telling us your not doing something stupid then actually demonstrate it. Been on this ride before. Dealer suggested gear ratio based on your engineers rather than real world feedback. Performance was pathetic but they had a simple solution to offer us. WE pay 5500 to swap gears out for the ones the engineers swayed around a dozen customers, at just that dealer, away from before they realized they were actually wrong.
I think you missed what the competition was about. If Im not mistaken, you seem to be stuck at the slow start and focus on 0-30 but I cant see where that is relevant for what they are showing: Quicker to 60, less fuel and less strain on the engine. Sure 0-30 happens more often but if the lower strain makes the engine last longer, the lower fuel consumption saves the company more money etc I dont think 0-30 is very relevant either.
@@danielberma You can't affect "strain" on an engine or drivetrain with gearing. Except at the most extremes. i.e. lowest and highest gears. Everything in the middle is just compensated by the transmission. Which leads to my point. They are straining it in first (on the flat ground). Why it's slower to 30. What happens when you stop at a light on a hill or 50,000 trucks out and each costs 2 cars from making the next light? Answer is people hate being stuck behind truckers even more. Aero and quicker shifts are the ONLY plausible reasons it won their race, both of which come on later in the race and Are good for fuel economy. Don't ever believe someone that tells you lower rpm's alone means less fuel, they're either misinformed or just plain dumb. If that was the case, every manufacturer would gear highway speeds to be at idle (and fight for lower idle). Also, not wise to believe people that say 8-10% more efficient. They say it every time a new engine variant comes out. If true, these trucks should be at 100 mpg by now. Admittedly, that gain is def possible with new aero. So, all I asked for was a real comparison, which would almost certainly have the all new with 2.47 win by a lot.
Better option for lower cruise rpm's, if you believe that's the key to economy. 15% more overdrive.
Again, I like Volvo but people want to make informed decisions, not apples to oranges marketing trickery.
@@sln9651 again you are stuck at something the competition wasnt about. The increased torque means less horse power, less rpm and in the end less fuel, which the aero helps adding to as well. It was faster, at a less x and more y. The strain is less at the extremes on both ends yes, including starts. A slow starter may lead to better reliability and its obvious Volvo is aware of the slower starts and its probably there for a reason.
I am not here to defend Volvo in any way, you are absolutely right in that 0-30 at a stop light is an interesting point but I dont see the trickery, they clearly show that the new truck is slower both visually and spoken. Regardless, I think this is the last or the second last generation of trucks before full electric completely takes over and is a viable option.
@@danielberma The reason I consider it marketing trickery is. If they're trying to sell customers on a 2.15 vs a 2.47 being better, then do the test in the same spec besides the gears. What this demonstrated is better aero. Also a great thing but not what they're trying to demonstrate. Same gearing in legacy and all new would be interesting too. That's a fair comp of how it's better overall.
0-30 actually means nothing to me. Most days I'd only do it around 10 times. Not everyone is the same though. I referenced that because it clearly lugs. If you think it's better to lug it down in 1st gear on flat ground then we'll just agree to disagree. I'm just not sure how it could handle starting on a 6-8% incline when that's the case.
I'm all for the instant torque and quicker acceleration electric would provide. But for the masses, including OTR? Good luck getting that infrastructure to actually charge all vehicles/trucks in place in the next 25 years.
@@sln9651 a valid opinion but then there wouldnt be an update or new model. As I see it, its a comparison between new and old in a specific setting. Not the details. Also, I try to remember that this is made by the company that produced the truck and they have both the time and information to produce whatever videos/tests that are positive for the new truck.
Its true that infrastructure is a big issue, but we gotta start somewhere. There are already 50 ton (110 000lbs) trucks that can do around 250-300km and the next generation (announced a week ago) double that distance. We are now reaching a distance where we, by law where I live, are required to take a break anyway. 4h30m maximum drive. Then 45 minute break, which is perfect for charging. With the increased distance its easier to be flexible on this.
A Volvo vnl trucks travelling to dubai hills estate
What happened to the original one?
❤
😢😢😢magnific waw🤩🤩🤩😘👍👏❤️
This is complete horse sht. Screw your computer models . These 2.15s drop like a rock in hills .. not to mention the screwed up software making our latest trucks very unpredictable.
This gear fast run slow bs has long been a Mega Fleet downfall in the used truck market.
Try a 3.08 geared truck next 😀
A 3.08 is trash. It has no performance and no fuel economy. I would rather have a 3.38-3.55 vs 3.08 or a 2.65-2.89 and gain economy.
@@AlexD-fq5zm my old Cascadia got 8.8mpgs
@@nickaltvater5592 you sure it was a 3.08? I've run a 485 1650 dd15 and dt12 with the 3.08 it was absolutely slow and ain't something I'd be proud of @6.4
New mirrors are awful