Classic Trucks

Not really at least I don't think so I believe I can net $1.10-1.20 a mile. Though the rates aren't as high as an o/o with authority, but nor are the fixed costs. There's a lot of things that o/o's with authority deal with from working with brokers, permits, ifta, the list goes on, that's a large responsibility, and I've got a lot of respect for you folks for that. Right now these aren't things that I want to deal with, though I'm comfortable enough with a new engine to take a risk on it, I'm fairly conservative in business and I want to take it slow. Six months or a year from now I just maybe pursuing that path. When that time comes I feel the best way for me to decide whether that's the right decision for my business maybe just to join a load board so I can more become familiar with rates lanes and the freight I'd like to run, this way I can allow the potential revenue gained to make the decision for me. Though I haven't yet pursued that path I've heard from others that they had trouble joining a load broad without a dot #, does anyone have any input on how I can get around this?

That's a good analogy. Me, I want to be player two driving player ones truck. I realize it will take some time to get there but I'm willing to do the work involved.

 

Since you asked about KW's I assume your asking about chassis not engines so I'll say the T800 Aero cab with the bunk bed studio (couch) is my favorite because it has no fairings to fall off and trap salt. Tall bunk allows you to stand up. Desk and couch make it easier to get paperwork done. Mid roof is OK too but less room for microwave, coffee maker etc.

 

I'm really starting to think that it doesn't matter what shape the truck is vs the motor and drive train when it comes to mpgs like I've said I've gotten consistently 5.8-6.7 on pump to pump. Pulling a flat. I have a 475hp 3406e with a eaton18 speed and 3:70 gear which I'm sure this truck isn't spec'd for fuel mileage but whoever owned it before I bought it did a pretty good jump with it for it to get the fuel mileage I'm getting because before starting out I knew I was gonna avg 5.0-5.5 mpg. But once again I pull a flat so it'll vary. Only reason why I picked a hood for my first truck was because with pulling a flat it's not gonna make a difference what kinda truck you got because of the loads. I will say if I were pulling reefer or van I'd might take @double yellow approach after reading his thread and make sure the truck was set up for fuel mileage.

 

1. Most of the open deck work goes on during bankers hours, Monday-Friday. To me, Thursday is the most important day of the week, because what happens on Thursday will tell you what your entire weekend until Monday morning will look like.
2. The majority of the loads I pull are OSOW. For the most part, OSOW loads can only be ran during daylight hours, and off peak traffic hours. No Sundays on the east coast, no weekends most places when you get wider than 14 ft.
3. There are 2 safe places for high value loads: a. Shipper b. Receiver. The sooner you get from shipper to receiver, the less likely something bad will happen to your load.

Now, the Beancounter was telling me that I could save $400/week in fuel and only spend 7 more hours driving. If the vast majority of your customers are closed on the weekend, what would you rather have on Friday...7 more hours to grab a load and run over the weekend or $400 in fuel savings? BTW, the average load will pay better than 6 weeks of fuel savings.

That reminds me...I got grandfathered in on a cellphone plan years ago. Something like 5000 minutes for $20/month. Well,I as running up the bigroad and getting charged $30-40/month for roaming fees. Had a Beancounter from the cellular service call me and offer me a deal for 3000 minutes and no roaming for $99/month. That way, I wouldn't get hit with the roaming charges. I then had to explain to her why that wasn't a good deal. She's looking at saving money on roaming fees, and I'm looking at avoiding doubling my phone bill. I told her that I'd rather continue paying for roaming.

 

My cousin just sold his 06 W9, it had an Acert Cat rated at 650 HP, 3:36 rears, 18 spd. Running hopper from MO - NY and back, he averaged 6.2 - 6.8 mpg. We have another friend with a Pete 379 and he gets between 6.8 - 7.2 for the same run. If I was to take my Volvo and run the same run, I get 6.1 - 6.5, 3:58 rears, 13 spd. But when we hook that same Volvo up to the dry van, 7.2 - 8.5. So those guys that think you can't get fuel mileage with the old school trucks are the same guys that would not get fuel mileage with the Aerodyne trucks. I have taken our Pete out and gotten 7 - 7.5, when I put a driver in the truck he gets 5 - 5.7. The same with the Volvo, I can average 8.5 - 10, when I put a driver in the truck he gets 5.8 - 6.3. It is about having the right tool for the job, the right operator to operate that tool. It is true that the new trucks get better fuel mileage, but if you take into consideration how much down time occurs due to EGR, DPF issues, you will find that the older trucks end up making more money. For all those that want to use the MPG argument, the savings start to diminish at around 7.5 MPG. At that time you will need to run your numbers based upon time vs. savings. Those that like the old school look and feel have adapted and continue to make money with those trucks. I personally like the Volvo 780, but know that the resale of the Pete or KW is better so I will by the best tool for the trade. All of them can get good fuel mileage with the proper HP, Ratio, Trani, and most of all operator behind the wheel.

 

Interesting; thanks for posting. That is exactly how I tracked fuel use. Given the variety of trailers my trucks pulled (flat, step, trombone, RGN, etc), loads (up to 20' H, 20' W and 100' L) and weights (up to 140,000 lbs... sometimes plus), MPG was pretty much meaningless, but fuel as a percentage of revenue was. My target was 25% (acceptable for the frozen north oil patch) and over six trucks it averaged 23-28%.

Besides, if I track it as percentage of revenue I don't have to decide between MPG (US or Imperial?) or L/100 km.

 

Yes very interesting, but like I said the savings start to diminish at about 7.5 mpg, so the percentage target that he has will be impossible if the rate per mile does not come up to compensate. I will show you what I mean

Both trucks will run 1000 miles in this scenario:

Truck A gets 7.5 mpg running 70 mph. 133.33 gallons used @ $3 per gal = $399.99 cost 14.28 hrs to drive route.

Truck B gets 8.5 mpg running 60 mph. 117.65 gallons used @ $3 per gal = $352.95 cost 16.66 hrs to drive route.

If your per mile average was $2 per mile then you would take that times 23.8 extra miles truck A can drive over B that would give you $47.60.

Your fuel savings would be $47.04, it would actually cost you .56 more to slow down. Amazing how that works when the MPG is above 7.5

 

This is a far more important, and under-discussed, topic.

 

Why not get a shower and toilet in there as well. The extra weight won't effect your fuel economy, nor your ability to haul loads. I have seen those type of RV trucks, one day when I grow up I will get one of those.

 

My 1996 379 was averaging high sixes, pump to pump. When it needed to be rebuilt, I started with '11 Columbia, and got low sixes.