cab over tractors???
 

Hi
I have been driving for under a year and would like some input on conventional cab versus cab over.I live in BC Canada and cab over tractors are almost non existent and are almost free to buy.I own a 89 pete 376 and a 80 yard tridem end dump and I need a huge amount of space for turning around as well as any backing that is not straight in.Is a cab over tractor any easier in tight spaces(sure looks like it would be)and why are they so unpopular?I really hope there is more too it than appearance.Thanks

COE's (cabovers) can be a lot easier to back in tight spaces, but one of the reason for their unpopularity is due to a rougher ride when compared to a coventional. Then add to that getting in and out of them is more difficult you have the demise.

COE's, from what I understand, are still widely used and produced in European countries due to a lot more narrow roads than found in this part of the world.

The thing to remember with a COE....find the foot hold before taking the second step, when exiting the cab...and you will always be the first one, to the scene of the accident.



In 1991, ARCO had a trailer rear-ended by a guy driving a COE. Glass from the windshield was embedded into the Company "LOGO" sticker on the rear bulkhead of the trailer. That was on I-82, climbing Manastash Ridge. :shock: Is there really "GAS" in that thing, say's the driver!!! :lol:

They're pretty much the only game in town in Europe due to length laws.

Though some European truckers have imported US conventionals, mostly for show purposes, which they use to haul short trailers like containers in order to comply with length laws.

Russia and other former Soviet republics are a common destination for used US equipment in Europe nowadays since a US market truck can be bought cheaper even with shipping than a true Euromarket truck.

Scania did produce the "T" series conventional that saw some used in some specialized hauls, but they discontinued that due to slow sales. The exact opposite of the fate of the cabovers on this side of the pond. :lol:

cab over versus conventional
 

Thanks for the input.A rougher ride seeing as my runs are really short is a pretty easy payoff to get the maneuverability and I guess if I am to stupid to find the step I should not be allowed to operate a wheel barrow much less a truck.The difference in prices on used cab over and conventional is huge.Does any one have recommendations on cab overs in used?Thanks

Look for a International 9800 or 9670 prosleeper model has a flat floor also were the last models that they made. Freightliners Argosy was the last new COE model introduced into the US market in the late 90's. Either one would be a decent choice for your usage. If you need a sleeper look for a old Wal-mart truck would be a flattop COE International but would have been well maintained be them. The ones to stay away from would be ANYTHING from Scheinder or J.B Hunt. I was a Mechanic at the dealership that had the J.B Hunt schoold contract needless to say we had in stock 3 trannies 3 rear ends and power dividers plus 6 clutches and flywheels. We could put a clutch in a truck in around 2 hours.

Thanks for your input

I spent 3 months in Germany during the fall of 05. 99.5% were COEs. Usually Scania, Mercedez, and MAN. I believe the MAN's (cant remember what it stood for) are made near Munich. From what I gather, they are considered of the best and offers more luxury than some others there.

From Wikipedia:

In 1898 the Maschinenbau-AG Nürnberg (founded in 1841) and the Maschinenfabrik Augsburg AG (founded in 1840 ) merged to become the Vereinigte Maschinenfabrik Augsburg und Maschinenbaugesellschaft Nürnberg A.G., Augsburg. The company was renamed in 1908 to Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg AG, Augsburg (M.A.N.). Today it is one of Europe's leading manufacturers of engineering equipment and vehicles.

You occasionally find older VanHool coaches with MAN engines in the US, usually grey market imports of the extremely short wheel base "T" series coach.

MAN also sells the MAN Lion's coach in Mexico, geared towards the high end luxury bus market.

Someone please try to say this three times fast and report back!

Re: cab over tractors???
 

You ain't a trucker til you've gone coast-to-coast in a doghouse COE roach motel! :D

I'm sorry if i sound rude, but MAN is not really considered a luxury truck in Europe, If were talking top end tucks then Scania is probably the best when your talking in terms of luxury, There 630hp V8 topliners are serious bits of kit, Volvo is another good brand there pushing 660hp now , MAN i would say IMO is a good truck but can be classed as a more basic truck.
Just my opinion for whats it worth.

Ahh German, A true language of love :lol:

ive riden shot gun in a few cab overs before...... aside from being a flat nosed wall going down the road, guzzeling fuel ( actually i think the fuel line is 2X the diameter of a normal line), and once u can put aside the fact thiers no air ride, hmm, while thats a lie too, the trucks have leaf springs so every bump u hit.... u get air.. for confort make shure you dont wear your seat belt, since you basically bounce off the seats, and your butt will hurt more if your attacked to the seat..... another pro about these things is you have a upfront and clos view of anything u might hit....
LOL we hit a deer, i was expecting the thing to pop its head thru the floor at my feet, totally diffrrent feeling seeing the thing bouce off the truck at your feet instead of ahead of u... now we talk about the cons....

the cons to cab overs, watch the 1st step that there puppy is a long friggin fall. the steps are 4 inches wide in kW 100's and 4 inches tall, actually its not really a step, its more of a hole made by some pissed off truck driver carrying a shot gun who landed on his butt too often. thiers no air conditioning in those things... and make shure u take your coffee off the dash if u have to lift the cab and look at the engine. oh another good point is thiers alot fo old spare parts lying around, but the trucks are soooo old that parts are disapearing at unbelieveable speeds.

the trucks are cheap for 1 reason.... companies who own them want to make more money then what the scrap metal dealers are willing to pay.

Be wise and stay away from the cabover petes. You can't see anything on the right side of you. I know of one company that all new drivers got to drive the old cabover pete. I believe that truck was 15-0 in sideswipes.

Machine something Nurnberg, Machine something Nurnberg, Machine something Nurnberg! LOL

Them was the days
 

My first truck I drove was the cabover White Freightline in 1978. I would stop for coffee and still feel vibration through my body as I sat in the truckstop. I contribute the rough rides patially to the fact everything was spring loaded those days. Hell, even long noses were rough rides with springs in everything. I do miss the ease of getting into tight spots (of course you only dealt with a 40ft trailer...sigh). We also saw a rise in rear enders when guys weren't sitting at the very edge of the truck. If a good cabover comes out again that is aerodynamic and smooth, I will consider it.

Re: Them was the days
 

I take it you dont like the Argosy? http://www.freightlinertrucks.com/tr...-model/argosy/

I dont think I could handle riding in any CO.

Ahh, the only time I will be caught behind the wheel of a freightliner is as a company driver . Just not a fan.

Yeah. I havent started driving yet. But, I have checked out a lot of trucks online and talked to many drivers. I would have to say my choices of a truck would be the KW T600, Pete 387, or Volvo 770/780. But, that is from not knowing much. Just listening to others.

oh come now, remember how fun it was to crank the whole cab forward!?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

and the view just before going under a 13'6" bridge... :lol:

I learned to drive on a 1984 International cabover. This was in 1998, I was working for a HHG company. What fun that was to learn to drive on.

For me it was a 1973 Transtar 1 and I hated that thing rubber block suspension and a spring ride seat.

yeah...not only did you have to climb into the truck, but you had to climb into the sleeper when you were tired. :lol:

Yeah head first then feet first back into the seat.

:lol: :lol: :lol: oh, the memories. i bumped my head on the ceiling so many times...maybe that's why i forgot to get out of trucking... :lol:

I drive a 2000 KW k100. This is the last year they were made. Air ride suspension, air ride cab, and air ride seat. Mine has a longer wheel base so it rides pretty good. Its got the 110" inch double bunk sleeper and I get descent fuel milage, about 6.5. Anyways I love this truck, wish they still made COEs.

This is really true. I had one of those corner mirrors, but visibility was still incredibly horrible in that blind spot. I nailed one fourwheeler, which I managed to keep off the books. I broke the turn signal off at least twice. I mangled countless sets of lugnut covers on that right wheel.

I never realized how dangerous that truck was until I finally got into a conventional. I haven't driven a classic conventional, so I don't know how they compare. The more modern aero styles such as the Kenworth T600 and International 9200 both have vastly superior visibility on that right side. From a safety perspective, I'd rather drive my T600 with all the mirrors missing than that Pete with all the mirrors in place, and properly aimed.

This much is true, but I think the biggest danger is if you rear-end another truck, or crash into a cliff wall or something. I had a horrible accident in my cabover, not preventable, where I was unable to avoid getting tangled up with a fourwheeler performing a stupid human trick. I obliterated the living piss out of that SUV, but the only damage to that Pete cabover was a broken turn signal (the socket still worked, so I put a new bare bulb in it to continue up the road) and the corner of the bumper bent into the steer tire (I got the tow truck guy to pull it out for me.)

They're probably better in this kind of thing than a conventional with a fiberglass hood. I also backed into one of our other trucks one night, because I wasn't paying attention, and the other guy had parked in the wrong place. I called the boss, and instead of screaming at me or firing me, he made me help him fix the damage in the shop. That was a Freightshaker cabover, and I had caved in one corner pretty badly with my trailer. A couple hours of pounding, a little Bondo, and some spray paint, and the truck ran for many more years. If that had been a hood, I would have busted the fiberglass all to pieces, and we would have had a lot more work to do to get the truck back on the road.

This is :dung: . Our fleet average MPG used to be 6.5, and I was bringing it down the worst with my old mechanical engine with the old-fashioned hopped up fuel pump. The newer cabovers with modern electronic engines were getting better than 7 mph.

Under the hood, or under the cab, the engines and other components are the same on a cabover as anything else. The only major difference is the transmission is far behind you, so you have to shift through a long linkage back to the shift tower.

More :dung: . I've driven lots of cabovers with air ride. I won't disagree that the ride is worse than a conventional though. The short wheelbase, and sitting directly on top of the steers (or in front of them in some cases) does make for a bumpy ride. Especially with an ultra short wheelbase single-axle cabover like mine used to be. (110" wheelbase if I remember.)

Can't agree with this either. It's true that bouncing around is a problem, but you need the seatbelt to keep from bouncing all the way out of the seat, and losing control. Especially if you have leather seats, and a short doghouse.

I used to use a clip from a child's car seat to keep the lap portion of my belt locked in, so it was more effective at holding me in the seat. I only hit my head on the ceiling a few hundred thousand times over the years, which could have been much worse.

That stretch of I-81 up in PA around exit 2 we used to call the washboard was the worst. That's all been fixed now, I hear, but the road use to undulate, and you'd hit your head on the ceiling 60 times a minute or something, it felt like. I hated that road.

In practice, the view up front isn't that different from a conventional. The first time I ran my old route with a hood, I felt huge in those parking lots. However, I quickly realized that in most circumstances, I had been keeping a far larger gap at the front with that cabover than was actually needed, due to the difficulty of judging how close I was on something in front of me, with that huge blind spot. When I got a hood, the hood fit into the space I was already leaving 80% or more of the time. Although it was possible in the cabover to get right up on the dash and look over, in order to get closer on something at the front than would be possible in a conventional.

I'd say the blind spot in the front of a cabover is comparable to a long, square hood like a W900, but I've never been behind the wheel of one. It seems visibility to the front is much better with a slope hood aero truck, and you're much less likely to run over somebody pulling out of the fuel island than in a cabover. I never did that, but one of our other drivers at that place did.
Especially in the winter, when the grab bars have iced up. Reach, grab, ZIIIIIIP!!!
:dung: :dung: :dung: Although sitting right on top of the engine, even the best air conditioner doesn't get very cold in high summer. Also, if your A/C gets busted, and you're trying to sleep in that coffin sleeper when it's only like 60 out, it takes hours for things to cool down enough that you aren't sweltering. Some of the most miserable nights of my life were spend in that tin can with the windows and vents open, feeling the heat radiate off the engine underneath me.
Coffee on the dash is much less of a problem than having all the crap in your sleeper fall 5' and smash out the windshields. You have to tie everything down, zip down the curtains, and put the seatbelt on. Even with all that, one time I picked my truck up at the shop, and there were pictures of titties plastered all over my windshield from where my stash crashed through the gap in the bottom of the curtains. :oops:

The hood vs. flip cab angle really has different sides to it though. The advantage of a cabover is you can jack everything out of the way, and get access to all the guts from stem to stern, whereas with a conventional, especially a short nose, many things are buried up under something else. Replacing the exhaust, the brake foot valve, and many other things is a monumental pain in the ass on a conventional, in comparison. On the other side, having to jack up the cab to get at a blown heater hose or whatever is also a monumental pain in the ass. Store all that crap, get out your jug of hydraulic fluid to refill the leaking $500 jack they're too cheap to replace, take the crank handle off your trailer, because the last guy who worked on your truck stole your handle. Jack for what feels like an hour until it's finally far enough over to engage the locks.

But anyway, my final word, what would I recommend for the OP? I hate cabovers for one reason above all. They look like ass. I'm really glad I left that era behind me. Not to mention the vastly superior visibility on the right side. Vastly superior. And hey, I didn't even get into the comfort aspects. The old doghouse style cabovers were miserable inside. I've never been in one of the new flat floors. I wouldn't even think about anything else. Flat floor or forget it. No matter how bad they might be, they still have to be better than the doghouse variety. But best of all just to buy a conventional. You'll be happier, and look much cooler going down the road too!

Re: cab over tractors???
 

The first truck I ever drove was an old GMC Astro cab-over, spring ride, no power steering, no A/C, heat never worked well, those were the days,

I wouldn't recomend buying one now, they served there purpose back in those days due to the length restrictions but they are obsolete now, you won't ever get good fuel milage with a cab over.

I believe those old 367 Peterbilts got pretty decent fuel mileage. They were cabovers. I spoke to one company who did well with them and would buy more if they could get drivers in them.

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?

We used to call them the old fishbowls because of how big the windsheild was.

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.

Actually, companies such as Scania and Volvo AB do make conventional tractors available for the European market. They're more commonly used for shorter bulk trailers, but a lot of companies may buy a conventional to serve as a "flagship" of their fleet.

South (and southern) Africa is a popular destination as well, although a lot of fleet owners ideally would import from Australia instead, as South Africa (like Australia) drives in the left lane, and a right hand drive vehicle would be much more ideal. However, as you've stated, it's much cheaper to import from the US nowadays.

They discontinued manufacture of right hand drive models, because of slow sales in the UK, and a lack of interest in other countries which use right hand drive. The T-cab is still manufactured, and you can even get one with the 'Longline' sleeper (although your allowed trailer length is severely hampered at this point). The T-cab also comes in standard 4x2 configuration for hauling non-specialty loads (as does the Volvo FH, which is better known in the US as the VNL series). Scania also offers a militarised version of the T144 as a military prime mover and tank transporter.

Umm... no.. Scania (particularly the T-cab, Topline, and Longline tractors) are typically considered more the luxury truck. MAN/ERF... is closer to a basic working man's truck.
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.

Yeah, but all you have to do (if you hit a 4-wheeler) is pick up your feet just b4 impact and you'll be fine...except for a skint butt when you hit the pavement on the other side...

New scania r730 or mercedes actros will both crack 11mpg both are coe's