Classic Trucks

They are doing something drastically wrong...?

 

About two months ago we replaced the DPF on a '08 T660 to the tune of $5,000. We spent another couple grand on an EGR cooler in the same truck a few weeks ago. Now it has oil in the coolant. Not sure what that's about yet. So yeah.....my '86 is a profit killer*.

I should say that I also have a '98 T800 Celect + that is pretty reliable but not as good as the '86 due mostly to ABS issues.

 

Had a Beancounter from the office come into a room with a bunch of drivers, mostly lease drivers and a few owner operators. She told us that their fuel surcharge was set up for 6.5 mpg and that if we averaged 6.5 or better, we would actually make money on the fuel surcharge. She then handed us a printout of the previous year's average mpg. The lease trucks were Columbias and 386 Pete's with 430 Detroit and 455 Cummins. I got the same fuel average fuel economy as them, but no one got better than 5.9 mpg. So she told us how much fuel we would save if we ran 55 mph. She said that we would save $400/week and only lose 7 hours a week.

I told her that I'd prefer the 7 hours. She didn't like that. She asked why I said that, and I tried to explain to her that TIME was more important. It's the difference between getting empty Friday morning or Friday afternoon. Or Thursday afternoon and Friday morning. She didn't understand that, I guess her book didn't cover that part.

So she goes back to her original attack and tells me that I averaged 5.5 mpg and asks if there was anything I could do to get better fuel economy, and I told her, "Absolutely, quit pulling 14+wide loads. Quit pulling any kind of OSOW, and my fuel economy will go up." She looked stumped, guess her book didn't cover that either.

I didn't bother to tell her that the company pays 2x FSC for superloads, because I bet her Beancounter book didn't cover that either.

 

Oh, Brucesmith, where to start? 1st, older trucks are NOT fuel guzzling monsters. Truth be known, modern trucks don't get a heck of a lot better mileage. I consistently got around 6 mpg with my '72 Pete, 359 (if I babied it) and what do modern trucks get, 7, maybe 8?
2nd, profit doesn't necessarily come from fuel mileage, but more, saving money on repairs ( biggest profit killer), good tax accounting, and efficient trip planning.
3rd, unless you've ever driven an older truck, in my opinion ( and several others here), there's nothing else like it, and I would never drive a plastic truck.

 

The open deck load I'm under currently sits 12 wide and 14 - 4 high. A Cascadia or Volvo won't do much for my mileage on this load.

As for most flatbed loads....shingles, bricks, lumber....you'll notice they're usually 4 ft high....in that situation a truck with a 13-6 roof fairing is only pushing more wind and costing you fuel vs a "non aero" truck.

It's not the long hood that causes drag that you associate with poor fuel economy. It's really the frontal area...i.e the big square grill and all the other stuff that's perpendicular to the wind. If you look at a long hood.....I mean really look.....you'll notice they start narrow and taper out wider as they go aft towards the cab. Freightliners and W9's especially.

We have had T800, T600, T660, T2000. Can't say I've noticed any fuel mileage difference that can be attributed to the body style. Fuel mileage numbers seem to follow the driver.

 

When your hauling for good rates you tend to not worry about the little bit of fuel mileage you lose because of your hood. I pull a flat and I can tell you that aerodynamics are the last thing on my mind because loads vary so much. I will say that my long good rides way better and smoother than any aero truck I've had. But that's my personal assessment.

 

That's a good explanation.

 

I've got a Columbia and dont get any better mpg than a 379 or W9. I pull flatbed as well.

I look for ways to be more efficient,.. but I'll take a more reliable truck over a more efficient truck any day of the week.

Hurst