Waiting on New Trucks thread.

A friend of mine in MT runs a 4 axle Cascadia pulling a 4 axle cattle trailer. He is always in the mid to high 6’s, hauling the same weight for the same rate as the guys who are getting mid 4’s to 5. To me that just sounds like more money left over at the end of the day.

 

I Imagine that 2.XX rear gear is very helpful in the fields and barn yards………

 

Why does everyone equate high rear ratios to not being able to get going?

 

A lot of it stems from when all this “downsped” trend started about a decade ago or so. Back when you could spec a 2.79 or so set of rears and match it up to an automated Eaton box that had the same ratios as a manual model. It’s gotten a lot better these days with some of these in house transmissions having better ratio sets for direct drive/downsped applications.

That said, a higher rear end really only belongs on the highway. In environments such as a soft field or rough worksite, changing gears whether manual or automated needs to be much more precise with a higher rear end as the RPM change up or down is a larger jump with a higher rear end. It can also exacerbate or even create bad shifts. Being too low in the RPM band at the speed you want but the next gear down is too high, or vice versa.

For heavy haul/vocational stuff, it’s easier on the equipment to spec low gears with overdrive transmissions.

 

If I were in a soft environment and had concerns about when it would shift then I would simply put it in manual mode and shift when I wanted.

 

And my point still stands. If the ratios aren’t conducive to what you’re demanding in that moment, it won’t matter what mode or gear you try and put it in. Like I said, sometimes that isn’t enough. Highway specs don’t always work in vocational environments and vice versa.

 

Don’t worry the etruck will make the mighty Cascadia obsolete……..

 

My reefer trailer is now 12 years old, when figuring out how much a new one (box only) would cost me, I had to go into the tenths of a cent per mile to calculate how much more it would cost me,a mile if it’s a different trailer for a certain customer that only gets used once in a while (like my flat) that’s one thing, but as a trailer that runs every day, I’ll never buy another used one if I can help it.

I’m still stuck on the old trucks though because I don’t want emissions or elogs

my 12 year old trailer is costing me $0.173 cents a mile, and the floor is shot, a new one was like $0.173 over the next 5 years, if I could get 7 years out of it, which I’m sure I can, it drops to about $0.145 a mile

even at one cent a mile, the $650 a year for a new one wasnt worth the headaches and that I should of done math out sooner

 

Hauling cattle isn’t exactly a vocational operation, and the original comment I was replying to eluded to high rear end ratios not being good for it. My FLD had a 10 speed and I hauled nothing but livestock with it for 4 years, I don’t see why it’s such a surprise that a Cascadia with a modern drivetrain can do it.

 

It’s nothing like logging, true, but I’m sure you remember the weights and some of the more adverse conditions you came across when beef engineering versus what a typical Swift truck would see. Can a 2.xx geared truck do it? Yeah, it won’t like it, but yeah. Just like I could pull a dry box with my old 377 with factory 3.90 rears and a 13. It’ll do it, but a smidge over-geared for that application.

There is no one size fits all when it comes to this industry as far as truck spec goes. Is there overlap? Yes. But not all overlaps are optimal either.