Longhoods a dying breed (Musicman & Tracer 12/2008)?
 

Okay, sorry...I'm getting in on this a little late. What Musicman says (12/26/2008) is not only true from a physics base; it's true from a market basis. Many big fleets know more than any of us where it comes to return on investment… Take Werner for instance; who use to buy some longhoods for resale thru their company owned numerous nationwide sales lots… They are no longer buying long hoods (period). They’ve made the shift to 387’s, and other aero styles only. Furthermore, they announced they have no intention of purchasing any “hood’s” again, which include 379Exh, W900L or Freight-shaker Classics. And Yes, that includes their flatbed fleet too! Car haulers and specialized can be adapted too…

Fleets use to use the hoods as a recruiting tool, along with the better resale value. Today, there is no driver shortage and most importantly, resale of hoods are no longer better than other styles…I nor anyone else is a one person focus group. The R&D side of the trucking business is much smarter than any of us. Paccar & Volvo didn’t invest all those millions of dollars into wind tunnels and aerodynamic development for nothing.

Not to mention, the big-fleet equipment managers I’ve talked to aren’t our father’s former fleet managers. Today, these guys go to seminars and schools that wouldn’t allow them to spec a truck with 3:70’s or worse 3:90’s (heavy haul exception?). Heck I remember my first Pete cabover in 1976 had 4:11’s with a screaming 2 cycle 350 hp Detroit in it. What were the fuel costs then?

Why don’t we have those old original blunt-nosed blocks of concrete running down the road today? Well, I rest my case…It’s called high fuel costs, technology & computer science R&D…The longhood is going to join them in the future!

As a dealer, I can tell you that the party is over for the day of the longhood in any dominant way. When fuel prices went up you couldn’t give a hood away (actually the trend started when the 2004 Cat bridge motor didn’t cut the mustard). Now that fuel prices have dropped there’s been a small spike in hood sales again. Short lived until the next fuel spike?

Well, (Tracer) I can tell you the fellas buying them are the guys who just can’t change with the markets. In my humble option anyone who is going to survive in the future is going to have the most efficient equipment the market has to offer. Anyone else is going to be taken out by attrition and the defiance of those same market forces. It’s not enough to simply depreciate equipment you still need as good a resale as possible!

I work with a bunch of guys that own "hoods" and I don't think any of them are looking to downgrade to any aero truck,and most of us made more money when fuel was higher. All our company trucks are being changed over to Pete 379's also.

Point is there will always be a market for "hoods" atleast for the time being.

Is there a reason you didn't post this in the thread you are referencing? Wouldn't that make it easier for everyone else to understand who and what you are responding to?

Every 379 that Werner had in their fleet was torn up by the lousy drivers they hired to hold the steering wheel. Freightliners are a dime a dozen, so it is cheaper for them to put their lousy drivers into a vehicle that doesn't cost as much to fix when their drivers tear it up.

A quick trip over to truckpaper.com proves you wrong. A quick search comparing similar equipped Freightliner Century Class to Peterbilt 379's shows the 379's are fetching about $30,000 more than the Century Class with comparable mileage.

Are you sure it wasn't the fault of the POS Cat motor? Large hooded trucks have always fetched higher prices than throwaway Freightliner products, and they always will. If you were incapable of selling them, that would say more about your business than about the trucks themselves.

Would it surprise you to know that I know several people who own and operate long hooded equipment that are getting better fuel mileage than aero trucks?

And good resale was, is, and will continue to be in the better quality product. And throwaway aero trucks are not where that quality rests.

Exactly correct.

I think you will find those who will buy the hoods even if they got 2 mpg. Having said that I have a couple of friends who seem to be doing well on fuel mileage with 379 Pete's. I still like the classic look of the hoods. I might buy another hood one day, but don't see it happening any time soon.

Oh, come on, Rev.

Just because it has a hood doesn't make it well built...and just because it's aero doesn't mean it's cheap!!!

Just curious, what are your average MPG numbers?

Better fuel mileage in a Hood than a Aero?, yeah right. The Hood must have a 50mph tailwind behind it all the time.

I tend to believe, that i found a best compromise, for that matter. KW T600....

How exactly does a aero truck help in heavy haul. The load I haul most is 15 ft wide and 15 ft high on the trailer, the gap from the back of the cab to the front of the load is 18 ft., 6 axles and over 80,000 lbs.

Long hood, short hood, aero or not you will get 4 -5 MPG. I have friends hauling wind tower bases, no matter what truck they have they get 1 - 2 MPG. My truck averages 6.5 to 7 empty which ain't bad considering it's light weight is 45,000. Loaded I get between 3 - 7. I don't think a new aero truck will help any, I'll keep my "hood". By the way, my motor ain't yellow. I believe that 2004 Cat bridge motor was meant for marine application, they make good boat anchors.

My friend bought a new Pete with the new cat with twin turbos, talk about a POS, in 2 years it has had $41,000 in warranty work, no wonder Cat is getting out of the highway truck engine business.

HD, I think for your applications, you would be the exception to the rule, here. You get higher rates for what you do, as awful fuel economy is part of the deal. I know Walking Eagle likes to brag about his 2 MPG average, both loaded and empty. And he drives a W9. The "hood" likely has a negligible effect at best for heavy haul.

I was just referring to the more common applications, that's all :).

And solo379, I agree...would never want another freightliner again after the T600 I'm in now...

My point is no matter what the local used truck salesman says, trucks aren't a one size fits all business.

How is that possible?

Fuel prices have come down so long live the hoods. According to this board, hood O/O's get more cpm than Areo truck owners so that makes up the difference too. EX: look at what Rev gets compared to Pepe.

I always take a good, long look at the long hood trucks. They just have such class. :thumbsup: Might just be my prejudice, but I think they have a lot of pride in their ride.

Come on rev, you know **** well that's only half the story. True depreciation is purchase cost minus selling cost. Besides, what is listed at truckpaper is not what they're "fetching".

I'll admit the classics have a nicer interior, but even that has gone downhill. A friend of mine bought an 06 w900 and his 96 had a much better interior.

Other then the interior, is there really much of a difference? Same engines, trannys, differentials, driveline, brakes, brake chambers, air lines, starters, alternators, coolant, front axles, batteries on and on....

Truth be told, take the hood and cab off, and you'd have a hard time telling what kind of truck it is.

I like the perspectives here. I find it fun and insightful! Hard to find in trucking in general? Musicman is a friend and told me I’d like it!

Well, I've run both Hood’s & Aero’s pulling reefer's (379Exh, W900L & 387's) and all I can tell you is the mileage difference is provably different (especially into head-winds). Otherwise, no...I didn't say that heavy haul had any bearing what-so-ever on the issue. MPG has nothing to do with a small niche application. Yes, T-6’s are doing well too…

Will hoods be around for a while? Of course...All I'm trying to place a perspective on here is that as a part-time dealer and running under my own authority, the market place has changed. Is it currently supporting hoods again? Sum what? When fuel goes back up again, we'll see?

Additionally there are bigger problems, as more O/O's return to company driving or leave the business (which they are) it's having an additional impact on resale values. If you doubt my perspective take a quick search on ebay for Pete 379's. I've never seen so many on there! Then run 387’s…big difference!
…Yes, and truckpaper is asking a lot for hoods. So, they aren't selling for near those prices, if & when they do sell! There’s too many...Russia was buying and taking trucks (hundreds at a time) out of the country for the past 3 or 4 years. They've stopped buying because their economy is in bigger trouble than the U.S. is...

The day of "we finance all credits is over!"...Have you seen the average credit scores in trucking? I have, and I can tell you paying too much for chrome & chicken lights is over too! The credit-crunch is hitting trucking just like the housing market… More and more good business minded O/O’s are surviving in trucking...NOT the hobo-cowboy O/O’s of yester-year. The survivors will be folks like I read on this blog! Who understand business?

Yes, I love the 379 Exhd classic look too. It’s not about style anymore; it’s about a business formula that works! Fuel mpg is no small issue any more…Perception is 9/10’s of what drives any market. If they are financable…the first question is how many mpg’s dose it get? And, finally they ask if you have an ECM printout to prove it? If not, they want one subject to buying…

Name a well built aero truck.

I average around 6 mpg. I know guys with W900's that get upwards of 7 mpg. I know guys with Century Class trucks that get 5.5 mpg.

Does a hood cost $30,000 more than an aero? It sure as heck didn't when I bought my truck in 2005.

So the 05 Century Class that was listed for $30K less than the comparable 379 probably isn't "fetching" that either.

There is a huge difference. Everything from how the truck is assembled to how the components are designed to fit to the truck. You'd be surprised how much of that engine is not manufactured by the engine manufacturer. Huge amounts of my 379 engine are PACCAR products rather than Cummins products.

The one I'm sitting in! My '06 T-600. The T6 was originally designed as a modified W900 back in the '80s. The drivetrain, interior, sleeper, frame, etc. is the exact same as a W9. Same truck, with the exception of the nose. I have no real experience with the T2000s or 387s, so I can't say about those.

I have also known people who swear by Volvos. Haven't spent a great deal of time in one, but the one I drove sure drove nice.

Honestly, I agree that the columbia/century trucks are built cheaply, but they can last quite awhile. Couldn't believe it, but I was next to a pumpkin driver earlier today, and he had over 700,000 miles on that truck. I'm sure it took lots in repairs to keep it going for that long, but how much did they save in fuel over that 700k? For that matter, how much less money did they dump into that than they would have on a "well built" truck?

Compared to some of the current offerings, a T600 isn't even an "aero" truck.

Volvos are great trucks that are a PITA to work on, and are notorious for electrical problems.

Only major electrical problems I have is ABS wiring, and I just changed it all with some good quality wire. There's not a single truck out there that is immune to that. I've seen a lot of w9's with ABS lights on, for some reason.

How much did you pay for your truck rev?

You're right, compared to some it's not...not sure about how the -660 compares to some of the other aeros, though.

Seems that I've seen all types of trucks last many years. I see old freightliners, volvos, KWs, petes, and internationals everyday. I have an uncle with an '03 Century, and the thing runs great. The only major problems he's had with it were a turbo and a CAC, which are problems that no heavy truck is exempt from. Has nearly 650,000 miles on it...

$106K.

I wouldn't consider a T660 an "aero" truck either. I would consider it somewhere inbetween a hood and an aero.

That's a pretty good price. I know someone that bought a Columbia of the same year for 82k, with an automatic in it. I think it was sitting in the lot for a while. That would explain the cheap price.


T660 is pretty aero to me. Axle back configuration, and the corners are very smoothed.

I have a Volvo and never had a electrical problem ever.

So I guess everyone who has (including myself) must have been lying. Thanks for the heads up.:rofl:

And my $106K Pete is likely worth more than $24K more than that Columbia now. Now the only question is how does fuel mileage compare between the two. I'm sure it won't even be a fair fight, since my Pete has a monstrous 565 Cummins in it. And yet I can still get 6 mpg out of it.

Hey Rev…I believe you’ve made a compelling case for your truck. It would be my guess, that given your good driving habits you’d be getting 7 mpg or more in a similarly spec’d 387. Not doubting you, but the important data comes from the ECM lifetime average mpg. Have you ever called that up? Sounds like you can run this truck for a long while though.

What’s your truck worth? I say what’s your truck worth compared to a similar 387 ISX o/o spec’d truck?

Here’s an example from Springfield, Mo Pete…

2006 PETERBILT 387 Stk #D638791 $67,500 MO

ISX Cummins 475 HP, 18 Spd OD, Engine Brake, Pete Flex Air Suspension, 355 Ratio, 235" WB, 70" Raised Roof Sleeper, 22.5 Tires, All Aluminum Wheels, Tandem Axle, 12,000# FA, 40,000# RA, 366,834 ...
PETERBILT OF SPRINGFIELDPhone: (800)666-7383Fax: (417)865-2515


2006 PETERBILT 379EXHD Stk #D886788 $67,500 MO

Cat 475 HP, 10 Spd OD, Engine Brake, Pete Flex Air Suspension, 336 Ratio, 265" WB, 70" Hi Rise Sleeper, 22.5LP Tires, Aluminum/Steel Wheels, Tandem Axle, 12,000# FA, 40,000# RA, 299,696 miles, ...
PETERBILT OF SPRINGFIELDPhone: (800)666-7383Fax: (417)865-2515 PhotosSend a MessageAdd To 'Trucks Of Interest'
Updated: Dec 19 2008 1:04PM

The 379 may be more marketable with ISX (no money diffence).The above units have extended warranties. I don’t see how you get much more, if any, than a comparably spec’d 387. Please keep in mind we are in the middle of a huge down-pricing in the market right now. No one is willing to say there’s a set wholesale or retail price at this time. Also, throw out Freightliner as anyone’s comparable. We all know the weakness they’ll always hold in the market…T6’s sometimes bring even more money. T2000’s are the same cab with a different hood & roof. Otherwise, the same as a 387 all around…The Volvo 780 is a fantastic truck, for the money & hold value well!

Kenworth is closing down production in Renton, Wa. and laying-off over 400 (they use to produce 50 trucks a day). Paccar (Peterbilt) in Denton, Tx. has cut way back and won’t divulge how many trucks they are building a day. Not sure, I think Volvo Navistar etc are in the same boat?

Given that the Russians exported so many trucks from the U.S. along with the cut-backs of new truck production, the used truck market could change in the future when/if freight capacities come back. If/when fuel prices rise it could cause a run on Aero again (if anyone can get financing)? Iran & Russia are trying to spike crude prices as we speak…

Mostly cheap, company specs trucks. Not "hoods".

With a 565 Cummins, 3.55 rears? Unlikely. I don't do anything special to get 6 mpg. I just drive. It doesn't matter if I'm loaded or empty - I get 6 mpg. It doesn't matter if I have 5000 lbs in the box or 40,000 lbs - I get 6 mpg. Since my truck seems to be immune to getting anything other than 6 mpg, I don't do anything special to get it. Although I've tried.

Your comparisons have far too many miles on them. My truck is still under factory warranty for the engine, and IMHO, an ISX will garner a higher price tag than a Cat - especially now that Cat is getting out of the game.

This is the closest comparison I could find to my truck (although mine looks a million times better).

I think it's a fair assumption that prices are going down across the board, however, which makes the point moot.

Many of the fleet throwaways also made their way to South America.

Just to prove you know nothings wrong, I'm gonna buy a 1994 mechanical "non aero" 379, 359, FLD120 or W9. This new truck of mine is going to be a flat top, it's going to weigh 16,000 - 18,000 lbs, it's going to have a bunk heater and it's going to get 6+ mpg pulling my steps.

If I am right, you clowns pay the $20,000 for the truck.

And, BTW, why in h-e double hockey stick do we have two posts on this topic?

Have you been over to the other CAD forum to read the TMC thread? Interesting to hear what the drivers had to say about the fuel mileage on their 387's compared to their 379's.

What do they have to say? I can honestly say that's one thread I haven't really ever taken the time to read.

I quit after the first 107 pages...LOL.

IIRC, the 387's were getting worse mileage than the 379's. They said they were heavier than the 379's. TMC trucks are governed quite low IIRC, so drag may be less of an issue. Also, as you know, TMC is a flat bed carrier, so there is less need for the "condo".

But the 379's must suck fuel because they have long hoods.

Actually, I have hood envy because we have a T600, T800, T660 & (2) T2000's , so all I need to complete the collection is a W9.....and a K100 Aerodyne.

Long live the hood.

Hey Rev. Do you think a MACK Vision is a junk aero truck??

To be honest, I have no idea what it looks like.

How do I get my sleeper on a 387?

Stretch the frame, and stick it on the back behind the factory sleeper!

Here are some pics. Now i know you know the truck lol:lol: If you do think they are junk i just want to know your reason thats all.


http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/8...stcoildkj7.jpg

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1...answitcli6.jpg

I honestly don't. I've only driven one Mack in my life (a whopping 180 miles or so), and I remember nothing about it.

I've heard about that "phenomenal", many times. Still find it hard to believe. Any scientific explanation?
Or it's a pure magics!