I read in a magazine that the later 372 pete cabovers (the big darth vader helmet lookin one) was the first and only? truck to get over 10 mpg average loaded?
|
Originally Posted by Shawnee: |
With a cab over you will be the first one at the sciene of the accident ! Plus rough ride and a hzll of a first step if you miss the first step.
|
Originally Posted by PackRatTDI: Originally Posted by : Originally Posted by : Originally Posted by ColtsFan: Brand names can be a bit... ambiguous. With buyouts, new management, etc, a lot of companies are simply manufacturing a rebadged variant of a product offered by the parent company, or, may simply be an assembly plant for another company's product. For instance, Leyland in the United Kingdom is now used to manufacture DAF trucks, and the Foden brand name was discontinued in favour of DAF products, as well (all three brands are owned by PACCAR)... whether the Foden factory is still operational as a DAF factory or not, I don't know, however. As for the question of cabovers, personally, I wouldn't do it. I ran a cabover pulling a 40 ft end dump trailer, and it was quite alright (the truck was a 98 I-H 9800i). The thing I would worry about most is availability of parts. I know the Argosy is still in production, as is the International 9800... while the latter isn't sold on the US market (I think they're manufactured in Brazil now), I don't see why you wouldn't be able to get parts still. But how easy is it to get parts for something like the Kenworth, Peterbilt, Mack, Ford, etc. cabovers? Maybe it's not as difficult as I seem to think, but I'm a bit skeptical. That aside, if you keep anything in a cabover, and forget to secure it, it'll go all over the place in that cab when you have to crank it forward to service the engine or drivetrain, and look at some of the wheelbases available on conventional tractors - I'm looking at an online ad now for an '02 Freightliner Columbia. With a 70" sleeper, it only has a 239" wheelbase. I see another ad for a Columbia with a 70" sleeper and only a 212" wheelbase. And if you're running short hauls, and don't expect to spend much time in the sleeper, a truck with a 51" sleeper would have an even shorter wheelbase. All things considered, I just don't think the added bonus of a short wheelbase compensates for the shortcomings og choosing a cabover. |
Ahh German, A true language of love :lol
ich bin deutsch |
you won't ever get good fuel milage with a cab over.
NOT TRUE. 7.0 mpg in my 95 intl. 11.1 det ser 60. |
Does any one have recommendations on cab overs in used?Thanks
I bought a 95' intl coe, off walmart. it has a 11.1 det engine. I have had it for 10 years now. over 1.2 mil miles. it went 1.1 mil before I had to do anything to it. the clutch was even original from the factory. after 1.1 mil, I had clutch put in, then bottom 1/2 of motor done, then injectors 6 months after that. the truck is still going strong 5 day's a week. it gets great fuel mileage & always has. when I bought mine 10 years ago, a I looked at conventionals of the same year. all were twice as high & all had higher mileage for twice the price. when everyone wants the same thing the price usually stays high. thasts why I bought my coe. my personal preference was to get a great deal & make money with what I bought, not to look good going down the road. |
aside from being a flat nosed wall going down the road, guzzeling fuel
once again. I also though that m.p.g would be a problem when I fist bought mine. it has not been the case. I also think that because I have such a short wheelbase & my trailer is so close to the tractor there is no air drag to speak of between the 2. |
Originally Posted by Walking Eagle: |
New scania r730 or mercedes actros will both crack 11mpg both are coe's
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:33 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.