ouch! with my freightliner i get around 6.8-7.4 running 55-68mph,,, you mean i cant get 6.5mpg on w900 w/86" studio? i was looking at an truck w/exact same specs and wondered about the mpg

Volvo ruined Autocar by mostly just re-badging a Volvo truck and calling it heavy duty. All of you Mack boys had better take notice - you're next.

Pulling my HHG trailer, I typically get 5.4-5.8 running 65-70mph with my w900l. 475 Cat, 3.55 rears and 13 speed...72" aerocab..not the most aerodynamic truck out there, but I love it. I don't run a roof fairing, nor do I keep the trailer pulled up close to the truck..I've got a bout a 6' gap between the back of the sleeper and the front of the trailer. I don't hot dog it to speed, I let the truck pull itself up to speed, and I also accelerate up to hills...I'll speed up, so I've got more momentum going to help the truck get to the top.

As far as looks go, I like the KW W900 over any of the other trucks...I'm not biased, as I almost bought a Classic XL before this truck, and I've tossed around the ideas of buying a 379 with a 48" flattop sleeper, with the ISX cummins in it..but can't get over the narrow cab. I think KW has done the best job of keeping the "classic" look around, and they really haven't changed much exterior wise, and look to be keeping the look around for a few more years.

I know MACK is going to go down hill after volvo got there hands on them in 02. MACK went down hill after they stop making the RD. That grantie is a nice truck but it will never replace an r model. Am a MACK fan of 01 and older :lol:

10-4 on that there is guy that hauls for my dad and has a 2005 Granite and that thing isn't like the old Rd's.