| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PaleRider
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
Location: Greenville, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:32 pm Post subject: Which truck? POLL |
|
|
What would be your choice when given the option of the following trucks:
KW T2000
Freightliner Century Class S/T
FL Columbia
Peterbilt 387
Mack Vision
What would make you choose one over the other?
What if the truck was 3 years old?
ALSO.... what SPECIFIC options would you most like included if you were to buy one brand new? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Niagarafallss1
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 515
Location: Western New York State
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, where's the option for the KW T600?
I'll take a t6 anyday! 8) |
|
| Back to top |
|
red12
Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 275
Location: St. Louis, MO
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I rather have a 379 or a Volvo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
sanchez498
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 2777
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| None of the above. My choice would be a volvo 880 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mad Dog
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 843
Location: guess, I'll be there
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KW 900 |
|
| Back to top |
|
formertrucker
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| None of the Above |
|
| Back to top |
|
PaleRider
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
Location: Greenville, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You may notice a common thread among the vehicles listed: each is aerodynamically designed to maximize fuel efficiency. If the vehicle of your choice is not as aerodynamically efficient in its design as those listed, why in H E double hockey sticks would you want to lose money by having to expend more $$ on fuel? If maximizing profit is the goal (is durn sure mine!), then I want every cent I can squeeze out of every mile.
I did not give any consideration to the Volvo 880 due to the square nose that is so close to being the box-y Freightliner, a la Classic XT. The design is NOT as fuel efficient as I want. But...to each his/her own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
solo379
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3145
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Niagarafallss1 wrote: OK, where's the option for the KW T600?
I'll take a t6 anyday! 8)
I've made that choice last year, can't complain so far! 8)
And T2000, is just "spoiled", version, of T600, with a more pricy repair bills! :P |
|
| Back to top |
|
formertrucker
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PaleRider wrote: You may notice a common thread among the vehicles listed: each is aerodynamically designed to maximize fuel efficiency. If the vehicle of your choice is not as aerodynamically efficient in its design as those listed, why in H E double hockey sticks would you want to lose money by having to expend more $$ on fuel? If maximizing profit is the goal (is durn sure mine!), then I want every cent I can squeeze out of every mile.
I did not give any consideration to the Volvo 880 due to the square nose that is so close to being the box-y Freightliner, a la Classic XT. The design is NOT as fuel efficient as I want. But...to each his/her own.
What do you expect 13-15 mpg, there are more trucks out there then the ones you put up there that are very fuel effieint, but shopping around is better idea. I know when I had a volvo 660 I got well in the high 7's with my detroit |
|
| Back to top |
|
sanchez498
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 2777
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boxy??????
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Niagarafallss1
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 515
Location: Western New York State
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
solo379 wrote: Niagarafallss1 wrote: OK, where's the option for the KW T600?
I'll take a t6 anyday! 8)
I've made that choice last year, can't complain so far! 8)
And T2000, is just "spoiled", version, of T600, with a more pricy repair bills! :P
I've driven a t2 with a straight ten, and a t2 with a super ten, that model doesn not impress me nor handle very well in my opinion.
T6 has it going on 8) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mad Dog
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 843
Location: guess, I'll be there
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
PaleRider wrote: You may notice a common thread among the vehicles listed: each is aerodynamically designed to maximize fuel efficiency.
Sorry, I just like the windcatcher (KW W9), I like the nose, I prefer the weight to keep the nose where it belongs on the road, and I like how it handles. We (my partner) seemed to be out driving longer than 2 weeks anymore comfort plays a big parts as well. We are at home in this truck, it' comfortable. :wink:
We looked at a International this time out and have made decision to purchase a new KW W900L pretty much loaded (to our specs). I have driven a KW W9 for close to 24 years, my choice of preference. Don't you know that us drivers cannot ever agree on mfg or tractors or what color the sky is? :P |
|
| Back to top |
|
BanditsCousin
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 3231
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Niagarafallss1 wrote: OK, where's the option for the KW T600?
I'll take a t6 anyday! 8) |
|
| Back to top |
|
PaleRider
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
Location: Greenville, TX
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay.... for those who complained about the absence of the T6... I will attempt to add it to the list of choices. Seems it is a pretty nicely designed truck, too. Not really that much in the way of modifications to create the T2 from the T6, at least... on the surface. Would be nice to have them side by side for comparisons sake. How about price comparison between the two? I have already seen someone said the repairs costs were lower for the T6, but, I'm talking initial price. Does the T6 comes with a Detroit 500?
Also...not many folks talking about options they want to have on their tractors... Does that indicate that most folks are pretty comfortable with just about any standard configuration?
At school, we had both FL Classic's and Century Class S/T's. I did not like the additional wheelbase that accompanied the Classic (wider turining radius), nor do I care for the thought of wasting fuel on inefficient design ("windcatcher" as Mad Dog put it).
How about rear-end gear ratios? Any preferences there? Should that be a different poll altogether?
Thanks for the responses, y'all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Niagarafallss1
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 515
Location: Western New York State
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PaleRider wrote: Okay.... for those who complained about the absence of the T6... I will attempt to add it to the list of choices. Seems it is a pretty nicely designed truck, too. Not really that much in the way of modifications to create the T2 from the T6, at least... on the surface. Would be nice to have them side by side for comparisons sake. How about price comparison between the two? I have already seen someone said the repairs costs were lower for the T6, but, I'm talking initial price. Does the T6 comes with a Detroit 500?
Also...not many folks talking about options they want to have on their tractors... Does that indicate that most folks are pretty comfortable with just about any standard configuration?
At school, we had both FL Classic's and Century Class S/T's. I did not like the additional wheelbase that accompanied the Classic (wider turining radius), nor do I care for the thought of wasting fuel on inefficient design ("windcatcher" as Mad Dog put it).
How about rear-end gear ratios? Any preferences there? Should that be a different poll altogether?
Thanks for the responses, y'all.
Fine! This is what I want!
4.11 gears, 2 speed 'glide, 383 stroker, 3" exhaust coming off a set of dual flowmasters, and a bottle of go go juice snuggled up in the trunk next to the fuel cell. :twisted: :D :P 8) |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
