An observation

With PACCAR engines, Peterbilts and Kenworths are running into the same problem. I guess the rest of the manufacturers are catching up with Volvo.

 

International and Volvo and Freightliner all come standard with single axle maxi(parking) brakes and it is an option to upgrade to tandem axle maxi`s. if the salesman is worth a danm he checks the box for tandem maxi`s without asking. the company you were working for may also have opted for the downgrade to save the $200 price.
If you are in the habit of braking with the "yellow button" you will wear the brakes out much quicker on that axle because you are stopping the whole 80,000# with 1or 2 axles instead of 5. That would be a first warning/firing offence (equipment abuse) in many of the companies I have worked for over the last 45 years.
If you are manually adjusting brakes on one axle regularly then either the auto-slacks need replacing or the shoes/drums need to be checked for proper contact and the drums measured for wear diameter.
On the subject of Volvos being a truck for starters they are a great riding, excellent handling truck on pavement and gravel roads but are not great on jobsites or off-road type work unless spec'ed for it. Yes they are on average about 350# heavier than the same spec'ed Freightliner and 500# more than a paccar powered Pete or KW. they have more storage room and larger beds than the competition with the same specs (large midroof 250" wb)

 

In 05 when my buddy bought his T600 he priced a very similar speced Volvo a d the Volvo was considerably higher. That was a long time ago but I can’t imagine they’re any cheaper.

 

Any truck can be set up properly for the job. If an O/O wants a Volvo they will probably have to sit down with the salesperson and actually spec the truck out as the likelihood of finding a Volvo set up well enough for flatbed work sitting on a lot somewhere is probably low.

 

A few years ago, the 630 and 730 was the best choices for open deck work if going the Volvo route. They have a lot of aluminum used in them. Surprisingly light. See a number of companies using them.

 

I had about a 94 Volvo. Midroof, light weight about maybe a 330 hp M11 or so. Rockwell 9 and headache rack.

I did covered wagon with a ravens trailer spread hooked on that 5th wheel with a fabric plate almost a year or three seasons rather.

I can tell you from that experience it was NOT.....

1-NOT a fast truck. You could whip it into the 90's if it's feeling frisky in the right situation...

2-NOT liking curbs crossed at 45 degree angle.

3-NOT able to stay unfixed after I spent about 5 to 6 months down on I-10 strictly pipe one way and chains the other between Houston and Florida. When that time was up I was back in Indiana with about 54 DOT and other related shop gripes that needed the attentions of the company shop. THAT took a weekend. And I was home for a glorious month off. (Things came apart rather quick after that....) they did not like that month off I suppose. You can argue I saved them some money nursing on that thing myself and finally it's enough of the big stuff to let the Company fix it right rather than a reman in a 76 or whatever.

It WAS a nice little truck.

It WILL act like a goat on tight trail situations with tippy coils.

It WILL drain off batteries the minute you turn away to go eat. SO. Idle the hell out of it. I refuse to add up the fuel that year. It was 300 gallons as much as I can get all the time. Sheesh.

It WILL eat a alternator for a snack three times a year. Bonus Alternator is easy fix. Had a 18 year old mech in the GA FL line drop a new complete in within one hour at 2 am on a saturday. He would have preferred to be out chasing girls or whatever, but I stood over him and monitored his work quietly. He did it so well that was the end of alternator munching.

It liked it's grease. grease, grease grease grease grease grease grease MFG grease....

IF you did NOT grease it now and then? SNAOP broke. I know the factory designed that truck to be sparing in bulk. But it's BS. You don't load a 6 horse wagon load onto a couple of yearlings not yet beefy enough to get it.

It was not a BAD truck, just one that needed nursing, clucking, attention and petting by money and parts. Fix fix fix fix fix. Toggles plastic, snap. WIres fray, break out the 6 gauge spool wire and snips and bypass then wrap. Get yelled at by shop when they see it. Airleak, doct it with airplane tape. 400 mph kind. Tell shop to mind that leak. Get yelled at again. Sheesh, Im here fixing that leak arent I? Maybe they yell too much and I call them to send out road service while I pout for a day. See about their yelling.

The last volvo before that was a 89 model. Intergrated Sleeper E model with a big CAT and a couple of other things. Ran a whole mountain winter with it teamed to auto glass for GM Baltimore. We didnt do a #### thing to that Volvo. Body was steel.

The one volvo I will not abide is the old COE white commanders. It's all one solid concrete block on square wheels with a turbo that sticks a ice pick in your ear if you don't shift already. If you did shift it's all wrong and falls down on it'\s hands and knees.

 

Volvos are not my favourite truck to drive, not to say they are a bad truck.

I find them too mushy riding and too highly isolated for my liking, more like a motorhome than a truck.
My opinion, they don't translate road feel as well other trucks I have driven, and I like to hear and feel what's going on when I drive a truck.

Back in the mid 90's through 2001 I drove part time for a group of O/O's at several different companies I was cleared to drive for, as well as the companie's trucks on occasion.

There were 5 trucks I drove regularly.
Early 90's T600, 444 Cummins, 13 spd, 24.5 rubber, 3:70 rears, full fairing package.

A loaded 1995 KW 900L Aero, Cat 3406E @ 550 hp, 13 spd, 3:25 rears, low pro 22.5 rubber, one of these.
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a290/steelerfan123/Canadian/Trappers1.jpg

A 1997 KW W900L with 60" flat top, Series 60 @ 425 hp, 13 spd, 3:70 rears, 24.5 Rubber, bunk extenders and Verishield deflector on the bunk roof.

A loaded 1996 IH 9400 Eagle with full fairings, Cummins N14 @ 460 hp, 13 spd, 3:70 rears, 24.5 rubber.

A loaded 2001 Volvo 780, D13 @ 460 hp, 13 spd, 3:70 rears, 24.5 rubber.

Interestingly, all these trucks turned in similar average fuel mileage numbers, all were within 2 or 3 tenths of a mpg, except the W900L with the Series 60 was top of the heap in that respect, also my favourite in the bunch to drive, followed by the IH 9400, even though I'm not a fan of Cummins engines.

The T600 with the 444 was my least favourite, followed by the Volvo, only because it was long in the tooth and ready to be traded in.

That 9400 IH got traded off on the Volvo because the dealership was run by a bunch of buffoons.

The Volvo was purchased because the owner's wife wanted to go OTR with her hubby.
She picked the Volvo because it was easiest for her to drive, but after a year or two she had enough of driving trucks and chose to stay at home.
The Volvo was around 3 years old when it was traded for a new T600 with all the bells and whistles, 550 hp Cat, 13 spd, 3:36 rears and 24.4 rubber.
He retired with this truck a couple tears ago, was well maintained and got top dollar for it when he sold it.

So the moral of the story is, 9 out of 10 housewives prefer Volvo over any other truck.

 

Had a 9400 for several years. Had a Cummins in it, but it was a good engine. Must have been built on a Wednesday.

 

Whelp....I kinda feel like a ##### now lol