Older cabovers OTR?

Here's one with a parts truck included. No flat floor, but a condo.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2-1995-INTERNATIONAL-9600-CUMMINS-M11-EATON-FULLER-10-SPEED-LOW-MILES-/200672853539?pt=Commercial_Trucks&hash=item2eb908be23

 

COEs are inherently good aerodynamically. The less angles and turns the air has to take, the more efficient it is. Once you get that wind around the front end it's smooth sailing the rest of the way.
The last model Pete COE was the most aero-efficient truck ever produced. I don't know if today's slope nose models have it beat or not.
As long as you keep a close gap to the trailer, the old engines and high ratio diffs will be what eats fuel.
If you are up to the task you could drop in a 3406C ( for reliability, power and mileage) and a later model trans and run fast diff gears.
COEs are a lot lighter than conventionals too so if you will get paid by the ton that counts.

Personally I would get cabin fever in one but it is definitely an budget conscious, old school way to go. Great way to start out with little money.

 

Nothing wrong with a cabin over truck, if that is what you have. They made me money back then, and could do so again.

 

I think you're confusing the old two strokes as a mechanical S60. What you describe as far as RPM is characteristic of the 71 and 92 Series two strokes. The S60 has always been electronic since its introduction around 88 or so. There were also some DDEC V92's produced in the later years too.

X2

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Diesel_60

The Detroit Diesel Series 60 is a inline-6 four-cycle Diesel engine that was first produced in 1987. It departed from most on highway engines, by being an overhead camshaft engine and having full "drive by wire" electronic control. In 1993 it became popular on many Charter buses in the US at 11.1 L (677 cu in). In 1993, the 11.1L version was rated at 350 bhp (but would produce 15 more if the cruise control was engaged). It was also available in 12.7 L (775 cu in) at the time. Both engine sizes were also used in truck and tractor trailer applications

 

the first 2 truck i owned were both cabover freightliner. both served me quite well, with the first one having a 300 cummins which i upgraded to a 400. had very few problems, and more than once was very glad to have the shorter wheelbase for tight turning and backing. the second one was a powerliner with a v-8 cat, and it pretty much ruined me on cat engines. parts were rediculous expensive, and near time for a major, i could have bought a decent used truck for less. since i actually sleep in the bunk area (although i could get very comfortable on the doghouse), have never and will never run team, and don't carry a bunch of crap with me, room was never a problem. both of my tractors were plenty warm/cool, and leg room wasn't a problem.

i did drive an old astro for awhile for another guy, and hated the thing.

 

mechanical engines are capable of 6-6.5 mpgs if set up correctly and (this is the most important part) driven correctly

 

Ah yes the cabover misinformation continues.

As you can see by the Avatar, I have owned a 2000 Argosy for 11 years now has 1.3 million miles on it, with a lifetime average of 7mpg. The ride, although not as good as a 275" whatever, is much better than the 4 different Internationals I owned from 1978-2000. That is the yardstick that is used to measure cabovers, old Harvesters.

The last IH cabover, the 9800 flat floor discontinued in the US in 1999 is a design first developed in 1980. It is still in production in South Africa, and exported all over. It was an obsolete design, which is why IH decided to sell the tooling and stop production here.

The Argosy was an all new design, developed on the same platform as the Century Class Freightliner, originally released in 1998. The folks over in Germany had a lot of input in the design

The problem exists in the way trucking companies utilize equipment, and drivers. If you are going to stick a driver on the road and away from home for 2+ weeks, literally living in the truck, the largest conventional sleepers are inadequate. He should not be in a cabover. But if you have an operational situation that includes being home more than once a week and the need for highly maneuverable unit for regional multi stop deliveries, say like Auto Zone, or many fast food distribution runs, where the vehicle is in a non truck friendly environment, a cabover is the ideal choice. I have many drivers come up to me wishing they were still assigned a cabover because of this.

Spec the truck properly according to need, not wishes and you will make money.

 

you do know not all cabovers are OLD. they were still being made in the 90's. i wanted to buy a 92 pete 362 in montanna a few years ago. had a 500hp cat 3406e/18 speed and plenty of rail.

i shoulda bought it.

there is a ton of international cabovers and some petes running around with detroits in them.

 

Buddies dad has a 2003 Peterbilt cabover. He had 2 sleepers on it, back to back and used to run for Trailer Transit. He has since removed the rearmost sleeper and put a box on it and teams with his with for FedEx Custom Critical.