The KW is growing on me too. The insides were all fairly the same, maybe 2 inches difference which is pretty much undetectable. I'm 6'6" and they were all way taller than me.
Why do you think the columbia is junk? This one looks fresh off the line and really gives me the impression it would last a good long time and has been really well cared for. I'm looking for good fuel management and this truck is primarily designed for that in mind, especially with the detroit.
I haven't seen the KW in person though. I just may fall in love. Especially since they had a couple hundred nice trucks there and it still made my top 3 sight unseen lol.
Instant O/O and Load boards
Discussion in 'Ask An Owner Operator' started by PharmPhail, Jan 26, 2009.
Page 5 of 481
-
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
-
Well, maybe I was unfair in calling the columbia junk. I drove a 2006 columbia at Arrow until May of '08, and it was about to fall apart (but then....... it was an ARROW columbia). To me it just seemed a little small to do the job I was asking it to. The interior *seemed* a little smaller than the 2001 Century I drove for Garero Trucking in SoCal (the company who decided in the two months I drove for them that they would not pay me-- CA Dept of Labor Claim, they are collecting now).
I liked the Century because it was easy to drive, but really shook like crazy, hence the monikor: "FreightShaker". But both were decent on fuel with those Detroits. So, they would definitely be good for fuel savings as long as the engines are in good shape. The only other truck I drove was a Pete 379 at TMC for the very short time I was with them. Should have never left, although with the current happenings there, I'm sure I would be gone by now. That Pete was just sweet, but with the weight and that Cat in it, I'm sure the Shakers got better mileage.
I cant make the decision for you obviously with my minimal knowledge (but I can sure as hell live vicariously through you), but I guess I'm attracted to the KW because I would guess that it has more room to live in it, which I suspect that most O/O's have to do, especially in this economic downturn, in order to support the truck and make a few bucks.
Wish I could be there driving again. -
In general most truck owners would agree that KW and Pete's offer the most bang for your buck. They generally hold their resale value longer and offer more comfort in ride than FreightShakers. Also, they usually hold together better and longer.
There's a forum member here that has a KW T600 that's averaged over 7mpg throughout its lifetime. I think that truck is a '96 and still making him money (although he's the 3rd owner, IIRC).
-
-
Yes I've been jealously following the tale of Broncrider's / formerly Brickman's T6. I would buy that truck from him in a heartbeat if he could finance it. From what I understand he needs it all to put down on another truck.
If I were buying new, I would consider a Pete for the resale value. But at 6 to 10 years old, I'm looking at bottom residual value anyway for resale. We're talking a couple thousand bucks, no where near enough to justify the fuel mileage over ownership. -
Isn't she DREAMY??
:smt055:smt049:smt060
-
Curse YOU!!!
-
-
How 'bout this bad boy? Enough room on board for the wife and kids, too.
-
Hmmm...... sell the house or end the apt lease, move into the truck...... live at T/A.....
haha!!
Only two problems I could see with that MONSTER:
1) Fuel mileage is probably in the crapper
2) Trying to cram that BEAST into one of those tiny little "Loves" or "Pilots" that litter the freeways of America.
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
Page 5 of 481