[GoldiesPlating]

Interesting. I never really considered the weight issue. As a company driver I never had to worry about that. Being an owner/operator I can see where that would make sense. I'm just wondering if those weight savings come at a price in regards to driver safety. I would THINK that the weight savings are realized by substituting plastic for metal in some areas of the cab or at least thinner steel in some frame members. I know that rolling ANY truck over is disasterous and metal or plastic wouldn't make much difference on the shell, but it seems to me that in saving 4000 pounds, more than just the shell would have to be made lighter or weaker no?

[htown]

I would pick a pete 379 with lots of chrome, hands down.

[joasis]

In the short time I have been reading and posting this board, I have seen a lot of negative posting about Freightliners...and the thing is, most of it is developed by the idea that real truckers drive real trucks...i.e., Petes and KW's....most don't think about true factors...sure, a Pete holds 20% more resale then a comparable FL...so? They cost 20% more initially. They wreck more often, so something is wrong with the truck...BS, 55% of the new trucks built are FL's, so statstically speaking, they will be in lots more wrecks, plus, nearly every major carrier runs them. However, you are less likely to be seriously injured in a FL since the cab has a lot of room and ability to crush without crushing the driver. The truck was always broke down.....ok...most all trucks use the same components (except Mack), so what exactly was failing? The only things you buy with the name is the cab...and its fit and finish. Even the wiring harnesses are made up by a 3rd party vendor.

So the bottom line is when you buy a truck, you are buying the style and quality from your chosen comany to suit your tastes. I had a Ford 9000 that I loved to drive, but weighing in at 20,000# it went away in favor of a 13,000# FLD120. One last thing....the extra weight isn't that big a deal on fuel....but.....100000 miles per year, what if the penaly was only 5%? 1000 gallons of diesel is a pretty neat bonus....

When I was running out of staying power in 1999, diesel was getting high then....and I never saw how the guys running the Cats in the Petes and getting 4 mpg could hang in there...I was getting 6.3 in my Classic, 470 Det, straight 10 speed, 363 gears and 22.5 lo-pros.....chrome and mile high rubber look awsome, but at what cost?

[GoldiesPlating]

Personally, I get 5.6-5.8 mpg in my Peterbilt 379 short nose sleeper.

[BIG JEEP on 44's]

I don't know where people are getting their weights from when comparing these vehicles ...when I drove for Werner I would only accept A century or T-600 tractor ,as I need the light truck to be able to easily drag my 500+ pounds of freeweight along with me...well I looked up the Unladen weights for all the trucks we had



Here's the list all with C-15 cats they would weigh less with a Detroit.

Classic XL 260 WB...17,467 Unladen registered weight

Pete 379 C-15 and 270 WB just about the same as a classic ,can't remember
exact ,but it was negligibly more than the classic but is 10 inches longer in the wheelbase over the Classic at 270 VS 260.

Pete 387 240WB 17,586 heaviest truck in the fleet at Werner!

Kw T-600 C-15 middle of the road body package 240 WB 17,178 second lightest in the fleet moderately

Century class freight liner 240WB 16,959 ...With full side skirting and a C-15.

[joasis]

I have to admit, it has been a few years, but I know what the Ford and the Classic both weighed, since I lease with a company that required actual weight less fuel. The requirement was tractor and trailer together could not exceede 30,000. I owned my trailers also.

[redsfan]

Weight is always going to be an issue, I would think especially when you are a company driver working on percentage... :wink:

Most companies that utilize Freightliners are doing so for the weight issue and the increased fuel economy. That's not just the Centuries, but also the Columbias are lighter than a 379 or 387 or a KW for that matter. The biggest issue for me as to why I like Columbias is the room that is inside of them. I get claustrophobic in a 379. The long nose doesn't really bother me too much, but the crappy turning radius drives me nuts from time to time especially in some of the tight spots that I currently get into.

As for frontend and resale value, there is not a lot of difference on a "base model" anymore. I have priced all of them. One thing I have found, KW's hold their resale value better than a FL or Pete either one.

If you're on with a company that offers a lucrative fuel bonus, the FL is a huge plus. You can never get 7 mpg with a Pete like you can consistently get with a Columbia. I can't even break 6 mpg in the 379's that I drive daily. Not to mention the fact that when compared to a Columbia or a Volvo or the old Western Star's, a 379 rides like an old dump truck. Sometimes it's hard to believe that they're even air-ride.

Bottom line, IMO, give me something fairly new that will get me from point A to point B without breaking down and I don't really give a hoot what make it is. If you're giving me the choice, I'll take the Columbia.

[GoldiesPlating]

Originally Posted by redsfan

Weight is always going to be an issue, I would think especially when you are a company driver working on percentage... :wink:

Most companies that utilize Freightliners are doing so for the weight issue and the increased fuel economy. That's not just the Centuries, but also the Columbias are lighter than a 379 or 387 or a KW for that matter. The biggest issue for me as to why I like Columbias is the room that is inside of them. I get claustrophobic in a 379. The long nose doesn't really bother me too much, but the crappy turning radius drives me nuts from time to time especially in some of the tight spots that I currently get into.

As for frontend and resale value, there is not a lot of difference on a "base model" anymore. I have priced all of them. One thing I have found, KW's hold their resale value better than a FL or Pete either one.

If you're on with a company that offers a lucrative fuel bonus, the FL is a huge plus. You can never get 7 mpg with a Pete like you can consistently get with a Columbia. I can't even break 6 mpg in the 379's that I drive daily. Not to mention the fact that when compared to a Columbia or a Volvo or the old Western Star's, a 379 rides like an old dump truck. Sometimes it's hard to believe that they're even air-ride.

Bottom line, IMO, give me something fairly new that will get me from point A to point B without breaking down and I don't really give a hoot what make it is. If you're giving me the choice, I'll take the Columbia.

I'm not sure what year or model 379's a lot of people are referring to in this thread but here's why I LIKE mine:

I had a 2007 SHORT nose 379.
I know Peterbilt uses SEVERAL options for suspension and I'm not sure which mine had but the ride was fantastic. Totally blew the 387 out of the water. Rode rock solid without bouncing or squirming at all. I remember bouncing around like crazy in my 2005 387 and my 2007 Pete rode NOTHING like that. MY day cab rides like that now but never my sleeper unit.
I could turn INSIDE the turning radius of a 387 Pete and NEVER had a problem making a U-Turn one shot.
My fuel mileage was 5.6-5.8 mpg. I would haul around 47,000 pound on the deck on a regular basis.

[Cyanide]

My .02 worth...

My favorite truck I've been assigned without a doubt was the KW T-800B I just recently moved out of when I switched from Jim Aartman to Superior Carriers. It had the best comfort, fit, workmanship, durability, and reliabilty out of everything I've driven for commercial trucks.

My least favorite would be the Freightliner Century I had during my time with Shaffer. :dung: :lol:

Just for fun concerning weights/specs, here's what that KW had...
15,500 lb. unladen weight
230" wheelbase
72" flattop sleeper
(2) 95-gallon fuel tanks
Cat C-12
Fuller 10-speed tranny with 3.70 ratio
22.5 Aluminum wheels
75 m.p.h.
6.1 m.p.g. average with an average payload of 51,500 lb. running across I-80 between the Midwest to California and back on most loads.

[redsfan]

Originally Posted by GoldiesPlating

I'm not sure what year or model 379's a lot of people are referring to in this thread but here's why I LIKE mine:

I had a 2007 SHORT nose 379.
I know Peterbilt uses SEVERAL options for suspension and I'm not sure which mine had but the ride was fantastic. Totally blew the 387 out of the water. Rode rock solid without bouncing or squirming at all. I remember bouncing around like crazy in my 2005 387 and my 2007 Pete rode NOTHING like that. MY day cab rides like that now but never my sleeper unit.
I could turn INSIDE the turning radius of a 387 Pete and NEVER had a problem making a U-Turn one shot.
My fuel mileage was 5.6-5.8 mpg. I would haul around 47,000 pound on the deck on a regular basis.

What I am driving now are 05 & 06 379's, but I drove an 07 about a month ago and there was really no noticeable difference in the way it rode or steered, to me anyway. I agree that they all use several different suspensions, however.

I would say that 5.6-5.8 mpg and a 47K load are par for the course with most Pete's I've seen, but change that tractor to a Columbia and you'll see 6.5 - 7.5 mpg and 49.5 - 51K loads. That's the main reason for companies going with Freightliners.