Cabovers

I have owned 3 cabovers... the first two were Freightshakers from 84 and 86. The last one I owned (never got it on the raod) was a 1968 Mack B model that I had planned on restoring but got an offer on it and sold it to a guy in Wisconsin. He has had the truck for 3 years now and almost has it done.

I do plan on finding an old KW bottle-nose or a nice Pete here soon and redoing it and going to make it my retirement rig (drive it for the last part of my career) and I honestly can't wait!!!

 

those shakers with the fold in steps had a bad habit of deploying while going down the road
i drove the flat floor ih a couple of times---seemed way to wide for me---stubby little mirrors and too big inside--i like something like a t-600 where it is nice and cozy

but yes you can turn them around quick---especially with a b-train--they can do a u-turn right on a small highway----umm so i have heard--not that i would ever do that when i am lost and just starting out as a newbie--and i didnt have a good map

 

Cabovers are gone because drivers wanted conventionals for the comfort.

I drove and rode in a cabover K100 aerodyne that rode better than any conventional I've ever been in. You also might be surprised about the aerodynamics of cabovers. I had heard something a long time ago, it could all be BS, but it stated that the cabovers formed a bubble of air in front as it got moving. Now there is more to it than that but hopefully you get the point.

My dad had some older cabovers with Cummins in them that got better MPG's than his W900B with a Cat. Yeah I know, go figure.....

 

I remember when seeing a hood on the road was rare. Nealy 100% COE.
I like a cab-over. Would prefer to drive one with a longer wheelbase than a short WB hood.
Plenty of room, could lay across dogbox and sleep, good visibility, and looked great. Loved the cabover KW's.

 

I'm gonna go with a CB story on this one, You cannot maintain a bubble of air infront of a moveing object. Now if by Bubble you mean more of a low pressure area like on top of a wing while moving that would make sense BUT it order for that to happen the truck would have to have a big curved front end and be going up or down in order to have the low pressure zone in front.

Like with a Wing the way it works is the Bottom side of an wing is flat from front to back, and has a curve the the front and slopes back to a point on the back side of the wing So if you were to make a dot in the center of a wing Top to bottom on the front side (on the curve) and measure from the dot to the point on the back side of the wing you would see that is a longer distance across the top, then across the bottom.

So what happends is when the air hits the front of the wing the air molocules split half go over the wing and half go under the wing, but they both HAVE to meet on the backside of the wing to rejoin eachother. So in order for that to happen the air going over the top has to travel faster to cover the longer distance and in doing that creates a low pressure area above the wing and a high pressure area below the wing createing Lift......


Or like in NASCAR in the draft the first car breaks the air, and again just like a wing the air spilts and meets a few feet behind the car since it doesnt come to a point like a wing. So when your right behind the first car the top of your hood or anlged windsheild will catch the air that went over the top and go over your car. So by doing that you loose all the resistance of the air hitting the flat front of the car and allot of the drag of the air going around it, thus giving you the ability to go faster then the car in front of you....



Ok i'll step off my little box now.... Class Dissmissed!






American Trucker

 

When I said heard, I meant read in an article. Sorry I was in a hurry to get in the shower.

But you still didn't explain why the cabover got better MPG's than the conventional that I stated. It don't make sense... A brick versus a bullet and the brick used less fuel....lol

 

if its actully true that they did somehow get better MPG's. this would be my guess:

1) Smaller Cab/sleeper so less mass for the air to go around and over....
2) Smaller trailer same as above (if we're talking about the 45' trailer days
3) Smaller lower HP engines.....
4) better caliber of drivers back then lol


I donno I would like to see some real numbers because if COE's can really get better mpg's I would like to know how and or why.....




American Trucker

 

arnt CAT's known for bad MPG's and Cummins known for Great MPG's?





American Trucker

 

They became dinosaurs when the Feds allowed longer combinations... than the old 55' length law was a money maker for the sates but once that was gone the switch to conventionals was inevitable.

Actually, if you look at the average 'conventional' today, they are really just a long nose cabover... you almost sit above the front wheels anyway......