What do you think of the new aerodynamic trucks vs the old long hood

Injun's mileage figures are in line with the fuel mileage numbers I have heard while working at two of the big five fleets. I understand that others may be -/+.

I LOVE KWs... However, from a business standpoint, and from a regional operators view (East of I-35) the big cars just don't make sense. The initial cost IS IN FACT HIGHER FOR A CLASSIC; when I shopped about a year ago the difference in price between a 900 and Cascadia was more than $25,000. But the 900 was B-A-D as H@!!. Also, I have docked in places with Volvo and Freightliner condos that a classic would have never made it. Swift has several stops in the northeast that they will not dispatch to classics due to docking issues.

If I were flatbedding a 900 might make a lot more sense, but for the driving I have been doing Cascadia would be the better choice.

 

You've both been drinkin' "the big five" Kool Aid for too long.

Have you ever owned one?

If the answer is no...Then you have no clue what you're talking about.

You get what you pay for....A Crapcadia will be dead and gone or worse yet hauling containers in a few years, The KW/Pete will be running strong.

SWIFT....There is no dock anywhere that a good driver can't get into with whatever truck he's in.
Just because SWIFT doesn't train anyone right doesn't mean someone that knows what they're doing will be as ill equiped to do the job as the majority of their drivers are.

But....You don't own or service your own truck so the distinct advantages of a long hood over a plastic nightmare will never be evident to you.

 

For pulling dry van I like the aeros. If I was doing flatbed or heavy I would go with the hoods.

All that stuff about aeros falling apart is BS. If well maintained they will last, just like a long nosed Pete will fall apart if it is not maintained.

Now, if we are just talking about looks the hood wins every time.

 

As I said before, it depends on the application. My numbers come from personal experience. While I didn't own a W900, I did drive one and track its fuel usage. I also ran a Farmall 9900i Eagle, which, while generally not included in the "hood" discussion, has more out in front of it than this little ol PornStar I have now. Any well maintained vehicle will perform better than one that is neglected.

And you're right. I don't have hard numbers to go from. Merely five years of listening to what drivers and owners say about their trucks. That 6mpg average I gave is generous because I actually hear, most commonly, 4.5 to 6 from the majority of people runnning hoods, while those with aeros are saying 5.5 to 7.5 in most cases.

A lot of it also has to do with how the truck is driven. Keep your foot in the middle of the motor, run high RPMs and jackrabbit shift all the time and you will see lower mpg than if you're easy on the motor. Maintenance costs will be lower if driven easy, too.

Common sense has to prevail at some point. There is a reason a 460 PI could get 15mpg in a 1976 Mustang but only 12 in a 1976 Thunderbird...on a good day....with the same C-6 transmission behind it.

 

Can we please just kill the #### thing and not make it haul a #### container. Give it a lityle compassion, it didnt ask to be a crapcadia.

 

I like the long nose trucks, They do handle better in the snow and bad weather.

 

1.) After experiencing the "Bottom line" approach the carriers such as Schneider and Swift use to operate, I can say that if there was only a nickle a truck more to be made from running classics, they would be running classics; and that is an indisputable fact.

2.) No, I have not owned one. However, like Injun, I can only go with the information I have gained from talking with the many owner operators I have met running various trucks. My statements and those presented by Injun are in line with what has been presented by those that have run both types of trucks while doing the same type of hauling; regional dry van. Different tools for different jobs. Though the local company I just hired onto this AM has an all flatbed fleet and run day cabs; mainly Cascadias, but have a few classics. I WILL BE RUNNING BOTH, so I guess I will have first hand experience very soon.

3.) Yes, I agree. I like classics for quality over aeros. However, I have seen some pretty sad trucks at used truck lots of EVERY make, model, and year. I'm sure you have as well. The driver and maintenance followed make all the difference in the world. From the pic in your signature it is plain to see you give a s#!t and your truck shows it. There was a 2009 W900 at KW of Columbus that the drivers door would not close and the hinge was falling off; was this KW's fault? Not likely; the more likely event was a driver that spent his day swinging off the door like a yard ape.

4.) I have put my Century and 53' van into spaces at truck stops as a rookie that I witnessed veteran drivers in classics and spread axles not be able to accomplish. I am not saying I am a better driver or they were not, I am merely saying the truck and trailer combination I was driving just worked better in those instances.

5.) You are correct, I do not own the truck, I do make repairs however. Many refurbishments WELL BEYOND those items listed as driver responsible duties. I also make road side repairs to get lights and other items working. In addition, I trained at Swift for over a month with an O/O and WE DID do several larger repairs on the road. Previously I was an ASE and IMACA certified mechanic and service manager for more than ten years; you might say I have had my hands dirty a time or two. Also, if you look through my picture album in my profile you will see some of the other type of trucks I have worked on; not what you would want to pull a trailer with. It is true that I have not done service on a classic. However, when it comes to wrenching I believe most will agree I am by no means a rookie.

 

Well it must be slow out there. We've brought back this thread.
In the small company I was part owner in for over 15 years, we ran W900's.
Up and down the west coast for the most part. I-5 corridor. So our speeds were roughly 60mph or so.
We hauled mostly printed material...paper. Heavy loads, dry vans. Usually grossed out at 70-80,000.
Our fleet average was under 6mpg. Barely, but it was under.
I remember when KW introduced the T-2000 and tried their best to convince us to upgrade for mileage sake.
We sold out before that came around.

Now a few years later, I am an O/O leased to a company that hauls reefers.
All 48 states.
My truck (a T-2000) used 19,012 gallons of fuel for 2011 over 141,827 gross miles. That figures out to 7.46mpg.
Driving habits are about the same, and I normally drive 60mph or so everywhere (except Cali!).
There is no doubt that the aerodynamic trucks give better mileage for OTR work, in my opinion.
I like the W900's for looks and just out of habit. But I make a lot more money, just by the fuel savings, with my experience.

Just one more consideration that wanders thru my feeble mind:
These fleets have a lot more money and experience trying to determine the most fuel efficient trucks out there. What makes anyone think they can outfigure all these paid experts whose jobs are to squeeze every mile out of a gallon of fuel that is possible?
It takes one great big ego to assume we know better than people who's training is the physics of moving mass thru atmosphere in the most expeditious manner.

Now if someone says: I like the hood and that's what I want!, well then God bless him/her! I understand that.
But for fuel mileage OTR? The slope takes it in my book.

 

I prefer the Hoods like alot of us old timers out here do...my fuel milage depends on where my foot is located..behind the firewall i get about 6 mpg clipping my toenails on the fan i get about 4.5 mpg....i run the 625 hp cat with an 18 behind it in my KW ...as for areodynamics on the trailer...i dont see the effect the slats do on the side..everyone ive seen on trailers looks like they have been hit by everything but the kitchen sink...

 

It takes a little retraining yourself the first time you go to put one in or out of a dock ramp that has a sharp break at the top. A lot of yards require you to slide your tandems all the way back before entering the yard and do not want you to slide tandems on the dock ramp. However, if you have tandems slid all the way back on a trailer with the skirts and the dock has a sharp break in the grade at the top of dock ramp you will drag the skirts; often breaking the braces.

I try to explain the situation to the guard shack to educate them; though it is usually a lost cause. I just slide them back at the shack, pull around to dock assigned, slide the tandems forward, open the doors, put it in dock, slide tandems back to the rear, and finish the dock. Not every dock requires this; just the ones with a sharp break at the top of ramp.

I repaired so many of those things when picking them up that I started carrying my cordless drill, pop rivets with washers, more zip ties, etc so I was better prepared to deal with the damage. I always carried tools and stuff, but not body repair stuff.

Make sure to check the bracing underneath trailers, if all the bracing is damaged or broken, and a lot are, they WILL fly out to the sides of the trailer, like having wings come out from under your trailer as you are driving down the highway. Seen it happen a few times.