Author Topic: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389  (Read 1637 times)

Got it Done

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1461
  • Downtown Pagosa Springs
    • My pics
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2010, 08:47:41 AM »
Sounded more like a U-joint or yoke to me.



It's been a long road, Dad... now it's time to rest.

JP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2907
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2010, 10:03:36 AM »
Sounded more like a U-joint or yoke to me.

that's what I figured too.
No sheep, no bows on real trucks.

michael k

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2010, 04:49:52 PM »
bussdriver from sweden
i drive from cape north to the gibraltar rock
transmitting from a 27inch mac

krooser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3717
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2010, 02:35:41 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwuAFWLNFHI&feature=related
but some parts is made in the usa :-D
Allison's are in a different class altogether... nothing better for heavy haul, construction work, etc. Almost dummy proof.

cliffjona

  • Regular Membership
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2010, 03:08:33 PM »
Not so much the drivers fault, but the company that under spec the equipment
Dieseldog 101

coloradogreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
    • 10-4 Magazine
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2010, 07:46:44 PM »
Would they have known about a grade like this in advance?  Or is there that much forward scouting?  Seems like a large load for that type of road, especially without a pusher to help, or knowing the limits on the specs of the truck. :?
Yes, they would have known about that grade in advance. You don't get away moving something that big without knowing a route in advance.

Troy.
IMAGES COPYRIGHT TROY MILLER/ 10-4 MAGAZINE

Photography is a beautiful thing...


Contributor- 10-4 Magazine

I'm not fearless, I'm just stupid.

Ray F

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23721
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2010, 09:58:25 PM »
Yes, they would have known about that grade in advance. You don't get away moving something that big without knowing a route in advance.

Troy.
AGREED !!!! IMO They Should Have went with "BULLDOG POWER" instead of "Petey Power"  :evil: :evil: :lol: I Would Have USED an RD800 or a DM800  8-) :-D

coloradogreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
    • 10-4 Magazine
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2010, 10:35:59 PM »
AGREED !!!! IMO They Should Have went with "BULLDOG POWER" instead of "Petey Power"  :evil: :evil: :lol: I Would Have USED an RD800 or a DM800  8-) :-D
Whoever's nameplate is on the front of the truck doesn't have much to do with it, it matters about the componentry underneath that nameplate. Plenty of RD or DM800's would have torn themselves apart like that just as soon or sooner than the 389 did.

Troy.
IMAGES COPYRIGHT TROY MILLER/ 10-4 MAGAZINE

Photography is a beautiful thing...


Contributor- 10-4 Magazine

I'm not fearless, I'm just stupid.

ThaddeusW

  • Regular Membership
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2159
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2010, 02:45:02 AM »
Plenty of RD or DM800's would have torn themselves apart like that just as soon or sooner than the 389 did.

Troy.

Troy,
Dem's fight'n words!  :-D

But in all seriousness it heavily depends on the drive line of the truck. What was the carrier reduction of those axles? I bet it was too low and there was way too much stress on the drive shaft. Sure an under specked Mack RD or DM800 would fail as well but how many RD800/DM800's have you seen with axles less than 58,000 pounds (Serioulsy go in truck paper and search for models beginning with RD8, DM8 and RM)? How about a DM800 with 65-80K Mack rears with a 6.73 or greater ratio on 12.00R24 rubber? That would make a world of difference. Same goes for that Pete, heavy axles with a deep reduction would do a world of good.

For example Conforti trucking of NJ has a few heavy spec tri-axle Peterbilt's but they have a big DM800 with 80K rears on 14.00 R24 rubber for the big jobs. It tops out at 40 MPH in top gear and pedal to the floor. So you know that truck was built right for the job (they built it). Another company called Central Jersey Trucking has a rare DM800 with 100,000 pound Mack Planidrive rears on 14.00R24 rubber. They removed the 865 V8 and 5 speed and installed a CAT 425, 13 speed fuller and a 4 speed Spicer auxiliary box. That DM800 would give any Pete a run for its money (except that monster blue one that was posted in old trucks) and would have dragged that 400,000 load up the hill without breaking a sweat.

Today its all about saving money and weight. I bet some companies try to keep their heavy haul tractor speck somewhere in the middle, ie. they are light enough to use for drop deck and low boy work but just enough to work with some bigger loads. Then they get a big job like this and don't think it through,  or have no choice but to use what they have. I have seen "heavy haulers" advertised on Truck Paper with rinky dink 40k axles. Just because it has a lift axle doesn't make it a heavy hauler, neither do 46k axles. To me real heavy haulers should have 58k+ axles with a deep reduction, they don't and shouldn't be speed demons. Not every job requires you to run 65+ MPH.

If I were building up a heavy haul company I would have at least two monsters for the big jobs. And they don't have to be that big either. A Western Star 4900 EX, Kenworth C500 or Mack Titan with 70K SISU planetary hub reduction axles (5.22 ratio) on 315/80R22.5 rubber, 20K steer and 20k lift axle and 550+ HP, 18 speed and a 4 speed auxiliary would be up front. That would cost a bit more but it wouldn't be a killer. I once saw two Pacific heavy haulers with 110K+ rears for sale at just 30 grand each, a steal! For 60k you could buy two monsters, invest 20K in each for restoration and for a total of about 100 grand you have two trucks that will handle just about any heavy haul job. Try going to Mack, Western star or Kenworth with those specs and I am sure they will floor you with price tags of around $500,000 or more!
|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|
|==ASCII Trucking =====|'|""";,____,
|__,,,_,,,__________====_____|....,]
***(@)'(@)*******#|(@)(@)*****(@)

Running Pete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2010, 05:59:48 PM »
Please post pics. of those Pacifics in your driveway when you get them Thadddeus! :-D You made a very good point also IMO.
It's hard to beat a Pete...

coloradogreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
    • 10-4 Magazine
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #25 on: July 21, 2010, 08:21:18 PM »
Thaddeus-

All valid points in my opinion. And you do tend to find older equipment used for the heavy stuff (Duffy is a great example, their biggest truck is 52 years old). I'm not trying to knock on Mack, but, I am saying that you could have gotten a truck from Peterbilt spec'd for the job. Granted, like you said, it would have an enormous price-tag, but, as you said, as well, any new Mack, Kenworth, Western Star, really any manufacturer, would have you over a barrel on price for something capable of handling the job (I believe that this is a large part of why the heavy hauler's run older equipment for the big stuff, it's simply cheaper).

I agree, as well, that a lot of people forget that a truck doing heavy haul doesn't have to be a hot rod truck. In fact, the law doesn't allow it, here at least, I beleive it's around 140,000lbs. gross or so you cannot have your truck doing more than 55mph, period. Driver's seem to get big heads about a lot of stuff, and most highway trucks will even handle grossing 130,000lbs. (granted they'll shake a bit taking off if it's a single frame, but, they ultimately will not tear themselves apart). What a heavy hauler should be, however, depends on what you call heavy haul. Is it 90k+? 100k+? 200k+? It really depends on where you draw the line. Personally, 100,000lb. gross is my line for heavy haul, and plenty of trucks will be capable of this, so, for those, 46k rears with a pusher axle is plenty fine enough. It also largely depends on the driver, as well. The biggest truck at Hi-Plains is the black and yellow 379. 20k Front, 20k. pusher, a 50k. rears (18 and a 625 Cat), which, doesn't quite meat all of your specs for heavy haul, but, he's grossed over 350,000lbs. with it (with the 10-wide he weighs somewhere in the range of 85,000lbs. empty). A lot of heavy haul is about the driver not the truck, just look at the guys who grossed 150,000lbs. coming up the Rockies in the '40s with 140hp. engines. Gearing, in heavy haul, is quite simply, the most important thing in my opinion. If you have enough gears and enough reduction you can move just about anything (look at the Space Needle: ONE horsepower engine, but, geared so incredibly low that it manages to move the entire top section).

This video shows how under-thought this job actually was, as I can guarantee you, if you had a similar truck to the one hauling right here had been pushing or had been pulling with the Peterbilt, it likely wouldn't have happened. You could move a 400,000lb. load with a bunch of dinky city-hauler's if you had enough of them strapped together because you're reducing the work each drive-line ultimately has to do (although, the more trucks you have to utilize ironically, you are decreasing the amount of work the trucks don't have to do because you're adding weight, kind-of an asimptotal sort of thing).

This is simply my opinion, and I will readily admit to not being an experienced heavy hauler, it simply deals with what I think from what I've seen and experienced thus far.

Troy.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 08:24:17 PM by coloradogreen »
IMAGES COPYRIGHT TROY MILLER/ 10-4 MAGAZINE

Photography is a beautiful thing...


Contributor- 10-4 Magazine

I'm not fearless, I'm just stupid.

Eric (ep)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3441
  • Friend Of Coal
    • The Myspace Page
Re: Hmm, I guess there are limits to the driveshaft of a 389
« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2010, 11:41:07 PM »
The samething happen to me a few months back. I was hauling 50 some tons coal in a Pete 379 up to the Charlene loadout. I was coming out of the dip when the yoke broke...The miners and drivers told me that I was not the only one that had a truck break down there. That dip will find every weak spot in a truck for sure...

I was pushed on up the hill with a CAT 980 loader, then jumped into a KW900L later that day... :-)

- (ep)


COAL, Keeps The Lights On!