You need to enable JavaScript to run this app.

Skip to main content

RE: MetroDecker
(24 Jun 2014, 6:34 pm)aureolin wrote Scania do both 13.0 six cylinder and 16.0 v8 truck engines capable of 250-730bhp whilst still meeting Euro 6 emission standards, so the technology is at least there.

I really don't know about the financials. I think it makes less financial sense to rapidly increase the rate of depreciation of your assets, as your not necessarily getting value of money from them. putting them on unsuitable routes does just that. you wouldn't think the first lot of Gemini's are only a year older than the ex red arrows Citaros...

Except a truck engine power to weight ratio is totally different to a bus.

You stick a big powerful lump in the front of a tractor unit and don't need to take into account low floors etc. Some even have the 'nose' like a RM or similar to the ones you see in the movies.
It is essentially designed to haul the trailer.

Scania or whoever else, need to reduce those engines in size, whilst squeezing out fuel costs and maintaining performance.

As for the next point, I agree.
Not sure who will buy a bus with a knackered, worn out engine.
I imagine the resell value will have been factored into the initial outlay - whether those costs were predicted to be more than they possibly could be, is another thing.
'Illegitimis non carborundum'

MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
Re: RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
Re: RE: MetroDecker
Re: RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker
RE: MetroDecker