Cab-Over v. Traditional

[Desert_Slim]

Mods if I posted this question in the wrong place I apologize in advance.

Okay ladies n gents here's my train of thought.. Which one is "better." I know this is a matter of opinion, but your opinion counts. I see alot of guys in Europe with cabovers and it seems here in the US its mostly traditonal? Is this sorta like the "Big cause we can" US mentality v. Europe's "small and economical" mentality? Sound off.

Keep in mind:

Easy of Maintnece
Visability
Manuverability
Aerodynamics
Build Desgin (ie. Wasted Space, Reoccuring problems, or Poor Decisions)

[Rev.Vassago]

First off, it's conventional, not traditional.

Secondly, the main reason that you see cabovers in Europe is due to the infrastructure over there. In many places, it just cannot support conventional trucks. It seems the less land mass a contry has, the smaller the trucks they use.

[chuck3507]

Some conventionals have excellent manuverability, like the freighshaker columbias. If by traditional you mean long nose petes and w900's, they are nice but hell to get in and out of some places.

[Stainless]

European trucks are restricted by shorter length limits due to the narrow roads in old cities. It is possible to run a 379 Pete over there but you would have to run with a shorter trailer which means less freight on board, therefore, cabovers are the most practical.

I'm not a fan of older model COE's but the Argosy is nice and i seen quite a few sharp looking European rigs on holiday last July.

[Jackrabbit379]

Cabovers may be easier to get around in tight places, but it feels like you're sitting on the side of a barn. :P

[Desert_Slim]

Awsome input guys keep it coming! Pardon my mistake with traditonal and conventional.. wont let it happen again With all that in mind why doesn't the masses use Cab-Overs if they're so manuverable? That barn comment was pretty hilarious btw..

[nickbtubas]

cab overs are not economical they are pushing a HUGE wall of air just to go down the street. therefore using more fuel