We do 107k on six axles here, so heavy specs are the way to go..... With your set up out there are you sure heavy specs are worth the added cost and weight ? Getting paid by the 100weight......
And I think the 20 year replacment cycle is not cost effective with the new emissions trucks...... But time will tell I guess .
Help spec my truck
Discussion in 'Western Star Forum' started by cnsper, Apr 19, 2014.
Page 2 of 5
-
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
-
6 axles with the spacing will get you 88k
Steer 12k
Tandem 34k
Tridem 42k
This is based on their bridge formulas
My setup
steer 12k
drives w/ pusher 43,500
Trailer quads 52,000
Total 107,500
I have a little wiggle room there on that. I also have to have 70 feet outside bridge for 106k with 8 axles. the pup will have the ability to carry another 40k gross but will not need to go over that 136k limit.
I am anticipating the truck and 53 to come in at 30-35k empty range. That leaves 70k for payload when most are carrying 48-50k on their steps and flatbeds. With the pup it will add another 20-25k to the payload (I don't have pup weight yet) so yeah the heavier specs are worth it. I also like to over spec things. Like I really do not need 46k drives but I think it will be easier on them with this weight than the 40k drives will be.
Yeah, paid for every hundred pounds I carry times the number of miles run. The added capacity will generate approximately $2 per mile extra to the truck. If I am running light, I just keep the other axles off the ground. There is also a lot of hay hauling in this area so the doubles will come in handy for that.
As far as the 20 years, that is not replacement, that is retirement. I can rebuild the truck for a lot less than a new one will cost in 10-15 years.
Now can the setup carry more legally? Not with a divisible load. You will not get an over axle weight permit with a divisible load. That is the main key to all of this, these loads are divisible so I have to stay within the bridge limitations. Not just the overall length but also each axle set.
BTW the 53' quad weighs in only 2500 lbs more than a buddy's 48' spread step but can carry 25k more in payload. -
Sounds like you have a plan ............
That's on 20/46 axles (3 axle trailer) 3.73 rear gears 18 speed 11R24.5 talls and big single frame. Never had any problem with those specs.............
W/S is a nice truck..... Might want to look at the new Mack's people around here like them...,although they are no less expensive !!! -
I would spec lighter if I was you. Just got a new 2013 KW with 228" wheel base, 14,600 front end, 46,000 rears, 18sp, 525 1850 ISX, extended day cab, double frame, dual lift axle, 12r 22.5's front, 11r 22.5's rear, Hendrickson primaxx, suspension, 3.91 gears, jost fifth wheel, only 150 gallons fuel capacity, large def tank, wet kit, enclosed headache rack, with only 7 chains in it, and other misc stuff. She weighs out at 23,600 lbs.
The 2006 KW I had before, with 40,000 rears 12,000 front axle, 235" wheelbase, 13speed, 475 1650 ISX, with 240 gallons of fuel, KW 8 bag suspension, 3.55's, 24.5 low pros, truck was stretched and lined was only 22,000 lbs.
I would look for a single frame, 14,600 front end for the most bang for the buck, 40,000 lb rears
. I would go with 3.55's and 11r 22.5 rubber on the rears, and 12r or 315 rubber on the front. -
As far as the emissions truck goes, you will likely have problems with the DPF/SCR/EGR ... it is much easier to just avoid all of it if you can. It is a gamble with the emissions systems, even with regular maintenance. It adds weight to your empty weight also.(2000 pounds?) Even if you later were forced to take your 6nz out and re-wire it, put in an emissions compliant engine, you could sell that 6nz to just about anyone for good money ... An emissions truck will surely be full of soot from the EGR and you WILL need to rebuild it after 5-600k miles or so. Rebuild is far less likely with the older motors with the same mileage. If this is the only truck you are running, do you want to risk having to tell your customers that you can't deliver the product as promised, because of some emissions system that doesn't work like it is supposed to? I am all for saving the planet, and would also buy into the new systems, but the rate of failure is just too high for a one truck show for me ... Even without a monthly payment it can be a nightmare ... Just don't want to see you go spend $175k or more on this truck then every 10k miles the check engine light is on ... and you are left looking for a more permanent "fix" to the expensive emissions to keep your business going .... -
-
The problem with 22.5 tires is about 4 mph slower at the same rpm with the same gearing. Plus I do like the ground clearance... LOL -
Disc brakes dissipate the heat faster than drum brakes do. Proven fact for decades.
You seem to feel that the trucks are in the shop all the time with emissions systems problems. We also have a 2011 Dodge 5000 and it has DEF and all that other crap too. Although I hate it, that truck has over 80k on it and has only been in the shop 2 times. Once for a sensor in the DEF system and once for a broken wire in the shift lever.
If there was really that much of a problem with emissions trucks, there would not be 190k of them sold every year. Yeah the older ones had issues, I will give you that but it has now been 7 years since all this crap started. I think they have most of the bugs worked out.
Yeah the emission trucks have a lot more to go wrong but there is also the expense of retrofitting a glider. I would not be able to do that for 20k. Looking to the future and not to the past. Sometimes you may not like it but you CANNOT ignore it. -
I guess we disagree on what direction we think particular states are going to go as far as emission standards go. I refuse to believe that any state that enacts another law similar to CARB is going to drop the hammer and not give several years phase-in time.
I used to have an emission truck. Even though it was likely the worst one ever made, the caterpillar SDP model, mine was rebuilt at 499k miles, just under warranty, the DPF needed replaced, also under warranty, when the mechanic opened it they said they had never seen so much soot in an engine. It went for about 50,000 miles relatively trouble free, but then the same symptoms started up again. The crankcase oil filter also clogged after every 1,000 miles or so. I eventually hollowed it out and that stopped that engine code. I was lucky to get above 5 mpg with that truck. Winter was in the 4s, even with low to no idling. And with what Rawze's videos show about how the soot builds up with the cummins isx cm871, it is doing the same thing. I cannot believe that with the addition of SCR that the soot problem is eliminated. I will believe it if they ever figure out how to run an engine with no EGR at all and completely take care of the emissions 100% downstream of the engine.
As for fixing the emissions engine for less cost than a non emissions engine, you can't even compare it really. One has systems on it that are expensive and tech's are often scratching their head and throwing new parts at it because there are so many sensors on it, it is hard to know the real cause of whatever the problem is with it. The non emissions truck doesn't have any of that. Also any good mechanic will be able to work on it.
The figure of 190k of them sold I can believe. I would bet that is mainly comprised of large companies who are turning the truck in for a new one every 3-4 years anyway. Not the one who is looking to get many more years than that out of it. Does that article show what small companies or single truck owner operators are trending towards?
If you are hellbent on getting the emissions truck, then by all means go for it. I am not venturing down that path again anytime soon. Hope it works out well for you whichever way you decide to go.Cetane+ Thanks this. -
Sounds like you got one of the lemons. At least the engine was the right color.
See guys this is how disagreements should be. CIVIL... LOL
Thank you for your input though. What I meant about the emission vs non emission cost was that I can keep an emissions truck running cheaper than I can converting my non emissions truck over to an emissions truck. I would say that it would run into the 30-40k range to do that conversion with having to get a new motor and all the other stuff. It may be higher by the time that comes around.
Putting your head in the sand and refusing to believe that other states will follow the CARB lead is not going to make the problem go away. Years ago CA came out with some crazy anti smog legislation and all of a sudden cars had to have these smog pumps and such. Then the feds moved in and put even stricter legislation. No they did not eliminate those older vehicles being used but what is to stop them from doing this with trucks? It is not out of the realm of possibility. Government wants the little guy to fail and the corps to succeed. If everyone had to buy new trucks, who do you think is more likely to keep rolling?
You did state that there would be a phase in period and on that I agree. My point is that I don't want to have to buy a new truck then or have to upgrade the one I already have. I can not justify paying over 140k (without the extras) for a truck that could possibly be obsolete and unusable in 10 years.
Those big fleet trucks are probably the majority of the 190k per year, I don't know, but their old trucks are being purchased and easily run for another 2-5 years or more. Heck, ours is a 2001 and has 1.3 mil so 20 years is not out of the realm of possibilities.
See one advantage I have is that I don't have to run 7 days a week. I can't, the places are all closed. When you do not have any down time then there is no time for preventative maintenance etc.
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
Page 2 of 5