Fuel economy question

[flatbedin]

Not going to lie, I come from a long line of flatbeders, and that's all I know. I have always had a large car with a big cat.

With today's fuel prices, and market. I want to set up a truck that will be "multi-talented" if you will. Pull a skateboard when the money's there, and a refer or van when it's not.

With real world figures, what truck would you buy (motor, ratio, ect) and why?

I have tried to research fuel milage on the detriot, isx, and d-16, but don't have any real numbers to play with.

I can say that my Cat will get 6.5, but only if I set the cruise at 58 and don't stop for 11 hours..

Thanks

[GMAN]

I have an International 9400 with a CAT that averages about 6.29 and a T600 with the same engine that has been averaging around 6.91 mpg. Both have the same engines. The International has a 10 speed spicer with 354's. The KW has a super 10, but I don't recall the gear ratio. Both trucks are primarily driven around 65-70 mph.

[charged]

My dads 2003 international 9400i eagle with a c15 has been getting 6.1 mpg. It has an eaton ten speed auto and 3.36:1 gears. Steers are goodyear G395LHS, drives are recaps except for two new yokohama TYS77. Size are 295/75/22.5. He pulls an aluminum 48' flatbed. No fairings single turbo.

[flatbedin]

Gman, do your cat's have twin turbo's or non twin?

Also I know that aerodynamics doesn't play as big of a role when flatbeding, as it does with a van and refer. Do you have full fairings on your international?

I've been looking at the Volvo 630, I personally think that they are cheap made, and hold no re-sale value. But it's money in the bank vs money out the stacks at this point. If I add full wheel fairings, with a removable top, that would give me the ability to put the top on when needed, and take off when pulling a skateboard.

Does anyone have a ISX that can tell me what the maintenance looks like? The few guys that I have spoken with, say that the ISX is nickle and diming them to death.

[GMAN]

Flatbedin, I have a single turbo on both trucks. I also have full fairings.

[no_worries]

Are you looking at a new truck, a used truck with EGR, or a pre-EGR truck? Big difference in those engines. Might as well be apples to oranges if you're not comparing the same vintage.

[rank]

1998 KW T800
M11 Cummins/370 - 410 hp/13 spd/4.33 rear gear/22" rims/Lo pro tires/high rise bunk. I drive it 60 mph pulling decks around the northeast and I get 6.75 - 7 mpg in the summer. I gross 80,000 southbound and I pretty light heading north.

2001 KW T2000
C15/475 CAT/13 spd/3.73 rear/22" rims/Lo pro rubber/high rise bunk. The driver drives it 70 and he gets ~5 mpg.

2008 KW T660:
485 ISX/13 spd/goverened at 70/high rise bunk. Pretty much the same mpg and driving habits as the T2000.


[/u]

[GMAN]

The driver will have as much or more to do with fuel mileage than gearing or anything else. While gearing and spec's are important, it is still the driver that makes the difference.

[Copperhead]

The driver will have as much or more to do with fuel mileage than gearing or anything else. While gearing and spec's are important, it is still the driver that makes the difference.

Yep, you can have the best specs in the world but a lousy driver will still get lousy fuel mileage. A good driver can often compensate for less than stellar specs, not always, but most times. A good driver with excellent specs can pull some real eye opening mpg's.

[no_worries]

It's his own truck, so the driver is a constant. Therefore, the specs make all the difference.

[tracer]

2001 KW T2000
C15/475 CAT/13 spd/3.73 rear/22" rims/Lo pro rubber/high rise bunk. The driver drives it 70 and he gets ~5 mpg.

I think you can improve fuel mileage on this truck by switching to 24' tires (less revs per mile). Driving at 70 mph will be easier on the engine, RPM-wise.

[rank]

2001 KW T2000
C15/475 CAT/13 spd/3.73 rear/22" rims/Lo pro rubber/high rise bunk. The driver drives it 70 and he gets ~5 mpg.

I think you can improve fuel mileage on this truck by switching to 24' tires (less revs per mile). Driving at 70 mph will be easier on the engine, RPM-wise.

I think you're probably right, but we need the height.

[kimosabe99]

I am looking at a used 387, C-15 @ 475HP, 10 speed with 3.55 rears. I would like to het some educated guesses about fuel mileage from those that operate something similar. I have been operating Cat 550 with an 18 speed lately and am looking at fuel numbers closer these days.

Also, for you CAT operators. Since CAT is getting out of the engine business what are you hearing from your dealers about part availability etc. for the future?

kimo

PS I run around 70 MPH

[tweety bird]

At the risk of having my head bitten off by the anti-Volvo crowd, have you thought about the Volvo with the Volvo engine? I know when it came out it was supposed to get good fuel mileage. I know a few folks who got it but haven't talked to them about what kind of mileage they've been getting. I ought to do that...

Anyway, worth looking into.

[mikeymike]

Volvo 670 with volvo Ved 12 465 hp. If it doesn't get at least 7 something is wrong. Most of the time 7.2 up to 7.7.....have seen 8+ on agood days...

[solo379]

Also, for you CAT operators. Since CAT is getting out of the engine business what are you hearing from your dealers about part availability etc. for the future?

They are saying it's not gonna be a problem....
Also, if you want a fuel economy from CAT Acert, try to keep your RPM below 1400, preferably around 1300. Don't unnecessarely push it, and slow down, if it's the option. I've got 7.5mpg for the last 2800 miles from my kitty.
And that's at the pump, not ECM! 8)