I would recommend, if you are going to get a Volvo, you try and get one with a Cummins. Regarding the engine, I have not heard much positive about the Volvo engines. But I have talked with several alignment shops that really have fits with the Volvo air ride front end keeping them aligned properly. If it comes out of the factory aligned correctly, you probably will not have a problem. ![]() The Volvo air suspension front axle may be an issue. The CAC and tubing, Radiator, etc are very vulnerable and usually, they have to be replaced all as one assembly. The Volvo's don't seem to deal with a deer hit very well from what I have seen. I would get some kind of grill guard installed. Some of the dealers are getting better at stocking parts since Volvo has addressed the issue. Parts has been one of Volvo's weaknesses for some time. The Volvos are just not that O/O friendly from a maintenance standpoint. If you lose the u-joint (which is non greasable and is subject to salt corrosion) in the steering column, you have to replace the entire steering column shaft. There are a number of components in them that are similar in that you have to replace an entire component assembly and not just a portion. Can't get just replacement individual parts (unless you took parts off a junk yard truck). like, if the windshield wiper assembly breaks a connecting arm, you have to replace the ENTIRE windshield wiper assembly. Some of the design features are a real pain from a maintenance standpoint. Sure, it was a comfortable, quiet truck, but, from an O/O standpoint, it doesn't appeal to me as well. These results were used to validate component models for simulations, allowing for a realistic estimation of the steady-state performance under a wide range of operating conditions for this type of system.When I was a company driver, I was put into a Volvo for about 200,000 miles. The main contribution of this paper is the presentation of experimental data on a complete Rankine cycle-based WHR system coupled to a heavy-duty engine. These values correspond to energy recoveries of 3.4, 2.5, and 1.6%, respectively, relative to the total energy requirement of the engine. Over the driving cycle, the total recovered energy was 11.2, 8.2, and 5.2 MJ for cyclopentane, ethanol, and water, respectively. The net power output for simulations with cyclopentane was between 1.8 and 9.6 kW and that for ethanol was between 1.0 and 7.8 kW. ![]() The predicted net power output with water as the working fluid varied between 0.5 and 5.7 kW, where the optimal expander speed was dependent on the engine operating point. Additionally, cycle simulations were performed for these working fluids over a typical long haul truck driving cycle. Simulations were performed to evaluate the cycle performance over a wide range of engine operating conditions using three working fluids: water, cyclopentane, and ethanol. The experimental results were used to calibrate and validate steady-state models of the main components in the cycle: the pump, pump bypass valve, evaporator, expander, and condenser. Experiments were performed using a Rankine cycle with water for waste heat recovery from the exhaust gases of a heavy-duty Diesel engine. Waste heat recovery using an (organic) Rankine cycle is an important and promising technology for improving engine efficiency and thereby reducing the CO 2 emissions due to heavy-duty transport.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |