Companies That Use Peterbilts And/or Kenworths:

Wait a minute, how is throwing in your high-horsepower trucks pulling oversized and overweight loads on specialized trailers that for one, almost double in weight of what I haul and two, are bigger and longer than the reefers I pull with my completely stock truck, into this sub-discussion supposed to give you the right to call me ignorant??

Before you posted this very reply that I am quoting, we were'nt talking about this kind of tractor-trailer/load and weight configuration. Seems to me that you are the one being ignorant at this particular moment in time.

Lemmie guess, you feel this same, sense of triumph when you take candy from a baby, don't you?

Well, if my truck wasn't governed and if it was modded to 700HP like yours, it'd be an interesting test, now wouldn't it?

I'm sure you could but you won't raise it by much.

I drove a pre-emissions W9, 13-speed, C-15 CAT for a couple months loaded to 80,000 max for most of the loads I ran and the best mileage we ever got out of it was 5.8. And no, even though it was a company truck for the outfit I run for, it wasn't governed, wasn't derated in power and, it had no idle limitation crap on it as well. In other words, it wasn't screwed with and this was the best it would do.

Apparently, you don't get it.

 

Hmm, sounds a lot like what I do, well, except for the 70 mile an hour thing, and I get 6.1 on a bad day, like, goin across 70 on the west side of Denver over the mountains......

Lol, how is this relevant? I don't have an APU and I idle all the time and I still get that.... Sometimes, better than that.

A disclaimer though, I can only run 62, but really, I think we can all agree on the fact another three miles an hour really don't mean much.

Yeah, ok.

If looking better is what's important to you, than I guess I have nothing more to say.

 

You're quite ignorant, aren't you? The APU and not idling is very relevant to fuel mileage. If you think the above upgrades wouldn't significantly improve mileage, you are a fool. Finally, all of this is while running faster than you. Not all of us creep down the road at 62.

The point is, I can take one of those supposedly horrible mileage trucks and run over 7, which is more than profitable.

Your condescending comments of the upgrades leads me to believe you need to do significantly more research in industry tech. I don't even know what to say to that. I think I'm just going to quit debating with the foolish.

 

Lol, since you obviously did not read and comprehend my reply in the manner in which it was intended, I'm afraid the pointer on the ignorance wheel just got spun right back around to you....

Of course, they are, but that's not what I meant. My pointing out the irrelevance to your comment had to do with the fact that you claimed high mileage numbers with brick trucks that were'nt idling due to the luxury of an APU..... I get those numbers, and sometimes better numbers WITHOUT an APU. Without wide-base tires, and all that other stuff you mentioned.

Again, this is the product of not paying attention....

But the sad thing is, I don't have to do upgrades like that on my "bubble truck" to get good mileage numbers; I can and I DO achieve it while being bone stock.

I hate to burst your bubble but if this truck were allowed to run over 70, it's mileage really wouldn't suffer much at all.

You got a weird way of proving points....... But.........

You might get close to 7mpg in that cinder block by not idling at all, keeping your speed down, loads light, tail winds most of the time, and all that other stuff you mentioned but again, look at what you gotta go through and what you have to do to get it.

 

Hmm, this part wasn't in your message when I was responding to it earlier......

Well, either way, my previous post covers this "add-on" as well.

As far as the condescending accusation, I'm not being such.

Just pointing out that aerodynamic trucks were invented for reason; when diesel was cheap, long, long ago, the shape of the truck didn't matter. How much fuel your square truck consumed wasn't an issue. Now it does/is, and the fact still remains that aero trucks don't have to have anything special added to them to get decent mileage.

But whatever, we've drifted away from the original topic subject for long enough, carry on with the regular scheduled discussion.

 

Pissing match!!!!!!!

 

Oh trust me, I get it!

 

I'm not ignorant, you just assume I am because I don't share your same views. It's a classic repeat of the same discussion we got into last time.

Lol... You just keep thinking that.

Need I wonder anymore??

It is more less, spec'ed for mileage, but my point was merely stating that the playing field be leveled.

Stock for stock, normal loads, normal trailers, I probly won't be buying as much fuel as you but what difference does it make??

Below, you proceed to tell me that your non-aerodynamic truck can get the same mileage as my truck that was designed to cut through the wind, not force it's way through it, so, why drag this out any further?

I've already said it once about the fuel-hungry W9 I drove before, I'm not saying it again.

Excuse me?.... I gave you a personal experience and you have the audacity to claim I get my information from the radio? Wow, and you call me ignorant?

This just proves my point that the only reason you involved yourself in this discussion is because you can't stand it when someone has a difference of opinion, especially when it comes to trucks.

Uh, you just keep telling yourself that.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much what its turning into. People and their inferiority complexes never cease to amaze me.

 

Right?.......what one man knows another knows more. Always!