ISX or ACERT, can't win?

As I said, I figured she didn't have enough of a load to require more then 30 pounds of boost.

I just honestly have heard very little good things about the ACERT Cat engines. My biggest problem with them is fuel mileage. No one can survive on 5 - 6 MPG Canadian, that is just a serious waste of money. All the ACERT owners I have talked to report this kind of fuel mileage.

 

I am willing to sacrifice some fuel mileage to drive a real truck, I will not ever give up air cleaners, stacks, a long and tall hood, and a narrow cab, not ever. It is what I am most comfortable in. I tried a Volvo for one trip and I absolutely hated it, I almost quit that day, I was honestly depressed and it just turned me around 360 degrees, I hate, hate, hate...HATE, tupperware trucks.

I would like to average about 7 MPG Canadian, which is about 5.8 US I think, anywhere in that range and I would be happy. If I knew I was on a shorter trip and I had a spare day to get somewhere, I would run 90 KM/H to save fuel. The company I am trying to get on with, if you average equal to or better then the company MPG average for that month, you get an extra 4 cents per mile added onto your paycheque.

I know a guy with a 2007 Freightliner Classic, series 60. He pulls about 40,000 in a tridem reefer to Winnipeg, twice a week, and he pulls very light LTL's or cupboard loads back here. He only averages about 5 MPG Canadian, sometimes in the 4's. Detroit says nothing is wrong. Engine computer was updated, everything tested, it's doing what it is suppose to according to Detroit. Every time I see him he is pissed right off, not making any money, but stuck with the truck, feel bad for him there.

 

YES!! haha

The Freightliner is running 22.5 rubber, pre DPF, 3:70 or 3:90 ratio, I cannot remember which.

The problem with the Series 60 from 2004 to current, is they took an old engine design, and they slapped emissions technology on it, and they expected it to work. They did not redesign the engine to work with the emissions technology they put on it. I have heard absolutely horrid horrid things about Series 60 engines from 04 to current. The current company I run for has about 100 of these engines in Freightliners, and every single driver I have talked to says they spend a ton of time in the shop, or on the hook, for engine related items. Just a overall bad engine IMO. The Series 60 2003 and older, were extremely reliable and very good on fuel.

I truly believe you make money back to compensate for lower fuel mileage on conventional long nose trucks for 2 reasons. Number one is, repairs on that engine, are so, much, easier. I have worked on set-back axles, and long noses, and I cannot tell you, how much easier it is to get to everything on a long nose. Need to change a fuel line on the back of the engine? NO PROBLEM ON A LONG NOSE!! To do that in a Volvo, you might as well pull the engine out. Reason number two, resale value. Once you high mile, or even somewhat mile out a Volvo or a Freightliner, it's even more junk than the first day of it's life, and you can't sell it for anything except maybe to a farmer to haul bales. I have seen KW's and Pete's with 1,600,000 KM, 2,000,000 KM, still sell without problems. Paccar products always sell, they hold up through anything, and are cheaper to fix, and they just look so incredible to boot.