alot of owner operators go broke because their idiots, and I dont mean anybody in this thread, my heart really goes out to them but if you dont do your homework your setting up for disaster.

hell I went out on my own after only a few months of driving for someone else, cleared more then 6 figures profit after taxes last year and I still WOULDNT reccomend it to anybody, I had a bit of an advantage knowing brokers and making contacts while I was a certified mechanic but I did my homework regardless and I started with a paid off truck I was building for a couple years.


anywho, peterbilt and kenworth have the same engine deal with all manufacturers, mbe/detroit is actually trying to cut back since they wanna keep their engines in freightshakers and western stars.

 

Ummmmm.........Detroit hasn't offered engines to Peterbilt or KW since 2000........... :roll:

 

Bigmon said:
You don't know what your talking about driver! Your speakin out your A$$!

Rev.Vassago
And you believed it and they dumped one of those on you and you paid to much. And they laughed when you drove of the lot and you smiled and waved back.


PackRatTDI
Whats this have to do with a Jetta? :?

Where do you guys come of this $h!t, its amazing some of the things you come up with and try to convince everyone else. I bet you have a U.S. Marshall story too? :lol:

You three should be drug tested on Monday report to the safety department. :lol:

 

On the depreciation issue that Rev brought up...

On the Volvo, I looked at truckpaper also and those Volvo's appear to be eating about $30-40k the first year in depreciation. So I think if you go back and take a look Gman was right that you compare a comparable 2006 to a 2005 it is a pretty big hit. And a truck that is 3 years old has lost over half of it's value.

The Peterbuilt and the traditional long nose trucks do appear to hold their value better so trying to compare the Volvo hit to the Peterbuilt is a stretch as the Volvo doesn't appear to hold it's value as well.

I personally would rather wait a few years and get a nice previously loved truck at half price... But to each his own.

On the Cat vs Cummins, this sure sounds like a Ford vs Chevy arguement to me. I will add that on the news last week Cat reported problems with the new EPA motor(I think they were talking about the 2008 engines) and they are seeing abnormally high failure rates in testing at very low hour rates. So Cat announced this would be a hit to them financially, and possible delays.

To me personally I think I would rather have the Cat over the Cummins. YMMV

Longsnowsm

 

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him THINK. :roll:

 

All this comparing Cat vs. Cummins and you guys didn't invite me?

Let's do a little compare-o

Cummins... 2003 comes around and they've had their engines tested with hundreds of thousands of miles. Yes the EGR valves have problems, but nothing is perfect. They go from non-egr, to EGR, in one step. Full compliance with 2003 emissions, on time.

Cat... 2003 comes around they're still dicking around with "bridge" engines, you know, the one "in between" the non-compliant and compliant engines. The deadline comes, they're still not compliant. Nor have they tested the new engines at all. They start paying big fines.

Now they become compliant, and boast how they don't need EGR, and all the other companies use it. They go on and on how dirty it is.

I'm sure a few people can tell you how they've needed their cat engine reprogrammed too. Something about nox, so does that mean even after 2-3 years they're still not fully compliant?

2007... Guess what CAT is going to? EGR!

So let's see, in 4-5 years they've had 4 revisions.

 

Well, not does it matter, but i could play alone those lines, with a different twist...
While Cummins, have no hesitations, to put a not quite ready product in a market, CAT preffers to pay the penaltys, than disapoint their customers...how about that?

It's all matter of a personal preferences, and expirience!
I've had years of good, and reliable service from CAT, so if it's not "yellow", it's not under my hood!
But it's just an opinion! :roll:

 

How was cats product more ready then cummins? Cat had zero test miles, cummins had many. The only real problem cummins had was the EGR valves.

Cat simply went a different route then every other manufacturer, and paid the price. I believe they were paying a 10k fine per engine that was not compliant.

Unfortunately their ACERT product had to be much more "fine tuned"(they probably added the variable valve timing at the last second), and obviously doesn't meet 2007 standards without EGR.

 

I don't think it hurt them any, the goverment can fine all they want, but when it gets down to it CAT settled for alot less, people and buisnesses do it all the time: IRS, Courts, you get it, it's called negoation. CAT wanted to take care of their customers, because most customers did not want the new motors. I think a multi million dollar company like CAT and PACCAR know how to run their buisness for a profit and are just a little bit smarter then a couple of you on this forum. :lol:

 

"We understand EGR technology," Cat spokesman Carl Volz told us. "It does not add value to customers like Acert. EGR only gets you to October 2002, and no further" for even tougher upcoming EPA regulations, he said.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._6/ai_82472082

So was Cat clued out back then, or are they clued out now(since they ARE going with EGR)?