Post flatbed load photos here V2.0

Before the Elog mandate came about,.. One those 2 trucks were actually what my next truck would have been.

The 587 is a bit heavy and pricey,.. so I probably would have went with a CAT powered 386 dressed up like a 389. No farings,.. just polished tanks, stacks,.. similar to the one pictures,.. but with drop visor and big chrome bumper.

This was mine when I first started flatbed. I loved this truck. No problem scaling 49k with 53ft trailer. Unrestricted 475hp C15, 13 spd. Felt really strong climbing hills when heavy.
Main issue was the emissions and the C15 did not play well together. Very problematic truck. I still wouldnt hesitate to get one with the C15. I would do something that we are not allowed to talk about here. Problem solved.

 

Some beauty shots I took today of my "backup" truck (which I'm thinking of switching to permanently, since the one that just got rebuilt is having some mechanical problems other than the clutch... which they haven't even started fixing yet *ugh*).

Not sure if I've posted pictures of it before. 2007 Peterbilt 379 (last year they were made), 475 hp NXS ACERT CAT C-15 twin turbo (gets 40 psi boost!). 18-speed Eaton (with a 8 inch extension on the shifter), Ultracab (the modern style that are in 388/389's) and 48" high rise. A very comfortable truck to drive. And something I would like to run long-term if the other one is going to keep breaking down (I absolutely hate switching trucks). It also doesn't have as many aesthetic maladies either.

 

I love a good 386 done up right (side stacks, square bumper, long hood, etc). The 579's are just so boring to look at. We've started moving towards them and the way the owner has them spec'd out is good for leased trucks (the owner prefers to own equipment outright, but the Paccar motors are trouble with a capital T).

Guys who run hard on the highway seem to really like them. They are huge and comfy on the inside (and they don't have those awful push-button autos either).

Personally, and many drivers and techs agree, we should be looking at the 567 for new trucks as opposed to either the 579 (or KW T680's we got with the last batch of 579's) or 388.

They look better than the 579, are more aerodynamic than the 388 and look really nice when spec'd right:

 

That's a nice 386. And yeah, my company's owner doesn't like the emissions garbage. They even found a way (on the internet no less) to do that which cannot be discussed with brand new Kenworth T680's we got a couple months ago (it's a bit different from the CAT's, as it's entirely software, but it makes things so much easier).

This whole emissions thing is just a cash grab. It's pretty clear now. My company has the numbers to prove that it doesn't improve fuel economy at all, in fact, the regens make it worse.

 

I can't decide if I like these or hate them. Those headlights mess up the flow of the truck

 

Your backup truck is 7 years newer than my main one. My backups an 83.

 

Yeah, they're a little odd, but when it comes to finding a truck that looks better than the 579, is more aerodynamic than the 388 and is still offered by Paccar, there aren't many choices left.

I'd rather have a 389 glider with a fully mechanical CAT and a 359 light kit. But I don't buy the trucks, I just drive them.

An '00 is going to be a better truck than an '07 if well-cared for.

 

Both the winch and cable have WLL's, if the cable doesn't have the tag, you can use the table in the green book.

But that's not the point. The reason it isn't legal is that the two chains in the rear are not adjustable by the driver during transit. CVSA's opinion is that each tie down needs to be independently adjustable by the driver. Pulling the vehicle forward with a winch, or driving it forward to add tension cannot independently adjust those chains, therefore it doesn't count as a tie down.

 

One of 7 moves today. Broken POS.

 

Can you please show me where it states this in the regs?