If you were going to look into one of the new fuel economical trucks that just debuted (bragging about avg. of 7-9mpg), which do you like the best. Its a slug fest between the two of them. They are both claiming victory! No matter what, they are close, and seem far better mpg then the average truck on the road today. So what else are you looking for in the trucks themselves?

I would recommend checking the two web sites out. Its pretty interesting fight between the Frieghtliner Cascadia and the International Prostar!

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

Very interesting that Freightliner claims the Cascadia will save $938 per truck in fuel, but International claims the ProStar will save $3900 per truck in fuel. Makes a feller wonder who's being honest.

__________________
Keep that diesel burnin' and those tires turnin', but get there safe to keep on earnin'!!

It's too bad that we all (myself included) can't remember our own short comings at the exact moment a fellow man or woman is having one of their own.

Right now, I wouldn't touch either one of them with a ten foot pole. Trucks typically have a 10-25 year lifespan of a particular model in production. Until that particular model has been on the market at least 3 years and proven that they have no hidden design flaws, I wouldn't have a thing to do with them.

As for their fuel mileage claims, those only work for certain specific setups. If you pull a van and can set it up for the best possible aero effectiveness, then their numbers may be possible. For the rest of the world, the shape of the tracror is not the sole determining factor in what mileage you will get. Too many variables on air flow for anyone to make any specific claims and get me to believe them as gospel truth.

Are they both aerodynamic? Of course they are. But, just how much is a debatable point. Right now, they both have new models out and are engaged in a bit of an advertising war of words. Give it time, let a bunch of them get out on the street and into the real world, and then we may have some solid info and history to make decisions about them. I'm very conservative and slow when it comes to jumping on the new and improved equipment bandwagon.

Interesting on the 3 year thing. I never really thought about that. But as a computer kinda guy, I give the same advice on computer software and hardware. Why would it not hold true with trucks. (Light comes on)

As for the areo, and scarecrows comment, thats what prostar is crying foul with. There is video after video that they show the side by side tests. The part they push is that with just the Tractor, the Frieghtliner wins. It wins with half a trailer as tested also. But with a 53' trailer, the prostar wins hands down. Thats what they are claiming anyways. And the fact that they put it in side by side tests and plaster the site with it, seems to give me a bit of value to there claim.

But the Cascadia claims nice handling with that rack and pinion. That seems hot too. I will tell you one thing, I believe that they are better MPG then the rest. I just don't know what I would choose side by side. The inside of that Prostar is night and day compared to the 9400's that it will replace.

Seems to me like a 20% better fuel economy would be about a 20% savings in fuel. Considering how much fuel these things use a year, savings would add up quick.

But definitely don't get the first model. Like when Chevy released their new 5.3 and so many people experienced piston slap. My brother has one of the 5.3's without the piston slap and it's really nice. Apparently the only place it doesn't outperform my 5.7 is on the low end torque. Technology's amazing.

like anything the fuel milage in either model will be directly proportional to the operators right foot pressure
albeit if i had to drive one it would be the prostar.
its almost 2008 time for all truck makers to come up with a complete new design
thats futuristic spacious and efficient

Get a T6. Long standing proven record of fuel mileage.







Same with pickup diesels. Remember the Navistar 7.3L? The first couple yrs were kinda a bum deal and then from about 2000 thru their 2003 run they were pretty decent. Of course the 6.DUH and the 6.4L haven't been that great period.

__________________

I looked at a Prostar the other day, they moved the HVAC from under the passenger seat. I liked the old prosleeper setup better than this one as well.

I like the sleeper better on a Cascadia, under hood you might like one better than the other but I haven't formed an opinion as to which I like better.

It was brought up elsewhere about Internationals new engine line up, that has been promised and delayed, I expect the D-15 will be out in quantity before it but could be wrong. Nodular iron is a stronger material than cast per lb so it should be interesting when some of them do make it into trucks.

The Mercedes engine is something of a bridge motor, replacing low end Detroits with a larger displacement and lighter engine , but it's days are numbered. Parts are hard to come by for it except from dealers because only the Daimler group can sell the engine in new trucks and the engines haven't been out long enough here for an after-market parts source to support users. The dealers are admitting to some problems with lines from the injectors to the nozzles, and I have heard reports about turbos and some problems in the heads. People most satisfied with them aren't racking up lots of miles.

Yep, I think one of them is fibbing.

__________________

America just went to hell.

Such is the way of advertising... you can play with numbers all day long to make things look good. I know that Roehl just bought a LOT of new trucks so they wouldn't have to deal with the first generation of these new emission-deprived trucks. It must be nice having that buying power... I'm still working on getting new brakes for my Tahoe.