[Mandilon]

Subject: If aero-types are 15% more fuel-efficient then classics, would classics be about 15% more efficient than cabovers :?:

...thus guesstimating aero-types about 30%-40% more efficient than cabovers :wink:

Generally that will be the difference between an aero truck and a non-aero truck.

Put great specs in the aero truck, and the difference will be larger.

About what % of OTR trucks are cabovers?

KeepOnTruckingSAFELY

[mike3fan]

Originally Posted by Mandilon

Subject: If aero-types are 15% more fuel-efficient then classics, would classics be about 15% more efficient than cabovers :?:

...thus guesstimating aero-types about 30%-40% more efficient than cabovers :wink:

About what % of OTR trucks are cabovers?

KeepOnTruckingSAFELY

2.3455365%

[rank]

I don't know but a nice looking old school Freightshaker COE blew my doors off the other day. He was pulling a reefer and musta been going about 80 mph.ea

I suppose they get no worse mileage than a hood....same frontal area.

[BanditsCousin]

My buddy runs a newer Argosy with a large drom box pulling HHG and will get 5mpg empty and 5mpg loaded at 83,000#

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by Mandilon

Subject: If aero-types are 15% more fuel-efficient then classics, would classics be about 15% more efficient than cabovers :?:

Please show some real data to prove that all aero-types are 15% more fuel efficient than classics.

[allan5oh]

6.9 mpg = 15% more then 6 mpg

6.9 mpg = aero truck

6 mpg = classic

definitely seems plausible to me, many guys say aeros are worth a full MPG.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by allan5oh

6.9 mpg = 15% more then 6 mpg

6.9 mpg = aero truck

6 mpg = classic

definitely seems plausible to me, many guys say aeros are worth a full MPG.

Where is the data to support it?

Fine Rev I drove a 88 Pete 379 with a 400 Cat it got 5.4 MPG. 88 T600A with a 400 Cat also same trans and rear ends wheel baseboth had full fairings same governer cut off points it got 6.7 MPG same driver and loads everything. In fact Rev the T600 could manage to haul a full ton more than the Pete since it had an Aluminum frame on it. Now tell me that a classic does not get worse MPG than an Areo truck. If that was the case then why are fleets only getting the Areo trucks anymore.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by ironeagle2006

Fine Rev I drove a 88 Pete 379 with a 400 Cat it got 5.4 MPG. 88 T600A with a 400 Cat also same trans and rear ends wheel baseboth had full fairings same governer cut off points it got 6.7 MPG same driver and loads everything. In fact Rev the T600 could manage to haul a full ton more than the Pete since it had an Aluminum frame on it.

That isn't data. That is an anecdote.

Now tell me that a classic does not get worse MPG than an Areo truck.

I never said it did or didn't.

If that was the case then why are fleets only getting the Areo trucks anymore.

I know of several fleets that purchase non-aero trucks. TMC and Werner are two that immediately come to mind.

Did you ever haul.........exotic cars?

Shelby Corba 427 Corvette ZR-1 and a Few Others Boss had a van set up to haul them with ramps to unload. Rev I may never have been a stupid Bedbugger No Offense to you Bandits Cousin. However I was the one that was requested so often that my bosses ended up having to bounce me empty to get loads that would pay 4 bucks a mile in the 90's with my deadhead figured in and sometimes it was 900 miles of deadhead on those. Try Denver to Chicago paid to the truck 6 bucks a mile and they bounced me out of Casper to get that one.