Ugh!

You didn't like blue? :shock: :lol:

I'd take a Volvo 780, 500 H.P. Cummins or Volvo, 13 speed, 3.38 rear end, 24.5 rubber in maroon with full-boat interior!! :D Or maybe a T2000 KW with a 500 H.P. Cat, 13 speed, same rear end, full fairings, full-boat interior, 24.5 rubber.

Unfortunately, once you set the parameters for a poll, they cannot be mnodified, so, I can't add the T600 to the list.
Having looked at it more closely, though, I think I would be inclined toward having one myself. It doesn't have quite the aerodynamics of a few of the listed trucks, but, the difference should have minimal impact, fuel-economy-wise.

So...a T600 with... Eaton 13...and what? 3.55 rear-end? Will only be running the lower 48.

Your thoughts?

I can't see spending almost $18,000 a year 'for the privilege' of running a 387 (or any other shoe box).

According to my research, a KW T-2000, comparatively spec'd with 'a shoe box' box will get an additional mile-per-gallon.

Don't opt to 'live on the down low.'

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21.../DSC000233.jpg

You got to be kidding, look! It's just like a frikin arrowhead!

Also, if that would be CAT ACERT, i'd recomend 3.36, if you gonna run it faster than 65mph.

Looks awful aerodynamic too me, but what would I know I drive the wind catcher everything aerodynamic to me. :P

Blue is a okay color, but if i'm buying i get to be picky

Blue is a okay color, but if i'm buying i get to be picky[/quote]

CR England, Swift, CR England, Swift............Yeah, picky!! :roll: :lol: :lol:

peterbilt must be filling out the survey
 

no 387 peterbilt!!!!!!!!! www.mypeterbiltlemon.com :? :? :?