ISX or ACERT, can't win?

I am looking at 2 trucks right now for purchasing, and they each have there advantages and disadvantages. My main problem right now is, engines. I have heard good and bad with each, as you will with every single thing in life, but, I am trying to make a smart decision, I do not mind to keep either truck for a long time, I just don't want to be nickle and dimed to death by 5 MPG, or repairs (guess I shouldn't buy a truck at all then haha)

Here are the specs

Truck 1:
2006 kenworth W900L
ISX cummins at 450 HP (Ex-RSB company truck, can go to 500 but no higher)
13 speed
3:70's
22.5 rubber
72 inch stand up sleeper.
244'' WB
120 gallons per side
Alum wheels
645,000 KM
Drives = almost brand new
Steers = 60% or so
8 bag air ride
Injectors,Turbo,Major component warranty to 804,000 KM or end of June 2010

Pros: lightweight truck, good on fuel (drive this exact spec right now at current company) room for toolboxes due to smaller tanks. Quiet cab package from factory.

Cons: pretty base model gauge package, not a diamond interior, just smooth, only pass window is power, not a studio sleeper. Truck is white, such a "base model" color in my opinion, and no fridge.

Truck 2:

2007 Kenworth W900L
C15 ACERT CAT at 550 HP
18 speed
3:55's
24.5 rubber
72 inch studio sleeper
244'' WB
150 gallons per side
Alum wheels
538,000 KM
Drives = almost brand new
Steers = almost brand new
8 bag air ride
Engine, Turbo's, Injectors to 800,000 KM or June 2011

Pros: Fully loaded, leather, full gauge package, power mirrors, locks, windows, keyless entry, metallic blue, arctic package, quiet cab package from factory, light package, half fenders.

Cons: Heavy truck, guessing harder on fuel due to the ACERT CAT. No room for tools boxes, ACERT engine.

I drove truck #1 already, truck #2 is not in my city as of yet, should be arriving at the dealer this week. Truck #1 is actually very solid for being an ex company truck, shifts EXTREMELY nice, very smooth and clean with almost no slop in it. Very quiet inside. Good oil pressure.

A mechanic at my current company told me the ISX is something to stay away from. Where the connecting rods go through for the wirst pin, it is a tapered area. Cummins is not running a full skirt on there pistons anymore, and this is the 2nd ISX in the shop needing a full rebuild, with only 800,000 KM on the clock. Apparently the con rod bushings wear funny and make to much clearance, and with the pressurized rods, you lose all your oil pressure to your crank and your rods, bye engine.

The CAT has it's own host of problems, but my main concern there is, having 2 turbo's to replace, if need be, and the horrible blow through design of the ACERT. Fuel mileage is just horrid on these engines I hear.

Now, the company who owns these 2 trucks that are getting there ISX engines rebuilt right now, is known for running extremely trash equipment, and horrid maintenance, you have to fight just to get lights fixed. Also, both trucks began there life as training units for new drivers.


I would like some opinions from people who have these engines and run them. I feel the CAT would last much longer if the right things were done to it, and the fuel mileage could be brought up with pittsberg performance parts, such as a fuel air seperator and there muffler made specifically for the w900 truck, which increases fuel mileage from .5 to 1 MPG from what I have heard, and I believe anything pittsberg performance says, they make some impressive stuff.

Truck will never pull over 90,000 pounds gross weight. Will be dry van/reefer/step deck freight pulled around north america.

Before anyone mentions "if you want fuel mileage, don't buy a W900L or Pete 389" or anything like that, I disagree. We have Volvo's here that are averaging 1-2 MPG's worse then our pete's and KW's. You can get horrid fuel mileage with a bullet truck if you drive it like a race car, and when your loaded right up to snuff, that big square hood, air cleaners and stacks, don't kill you much more at all.

I want a real truck I can be proud of, that looks like a truck, not a tubberware truck that looks like a oversize minivan.

 

I am not to sure why you say that is funny. I have driven trucks with Pittsburgh performance parts on them, and they have been the smoothest running, highest MPG trucks of there kind around here at least.

 

I definitely would like truck #2 better, and if I averaged even 6.5 for a year round, I would be happy with that. If the CAT seems to be running good when I take it for a test, I might lean more towards that direction, I would be darn proud to own that truck.