Pullin with the dreaded PACCAR Mx13

If you were doing delivery work, the mushy boxes are condensation from having the door open. Otherwise, it’d be from the tray overflowing.

A lot of customers won’t load a multi-temp trailer, because of the ceiling units getting destroyed by forklift operators. Also, some shippers know a multi-temp won’t have the air chute all the way to the back of the trailer, which affects airflow and cooling consistency. You gotta be really careful with your choice, here. Again, the Carrier units are much better at cooling, draining out, and the ceiling unit is lower profile.


Spread axle is for the vibe and ease of scaling, because you’re allowed 40K pounds on the trailer. I’d never spec a trailer with it, because of the fuel efficiency hit.

 

A multi-temp trailer is a huge liability, without that type of work already being your mainstay. Without a distribution customer you regularly work with, who feed you loads because you have the specialized equipment, I’d struggle to ever take the chance.

I wouldn’t spend the money on a stainless exterior. It’s expensive and heavy. Keep it simple and mimic what the fleets do. There’s a reason they do what they do.

A lift axle is worthwhile, especially if you go with a 6X2 tractor, next round. Having only three axles on the ground, when empty, saves fuel along with maintenance advantages.

For aero, if you could mimic what Nussbaum or Henry Albert do, it’d pay dividends. Mainly, you want the skirts to be flush with the side rail, all the way forward; not flared out from the landing gear. Utility have multiple options, so pay attention. For sure, their composite “L” brackets are very solid, almost indestructible. Flow Below wheel covers and fairings on the trailer are useless. I wouldn’t spend the money on any tail treatments, either. Those systems work, in a wind tunnel; not the real world.

Utility have a standard E-track system that works with bulkheads. The dealer will know exactly how to option that.

Reefers are return-style fuel system, so the fuel returns with some warmth in it. However, it’s not truly heated. I’m not sure if there’s a reefer fuel tank heater or not. You’d need to check with the dealer. If there were a lift pump in the tank, that’d help a lot toward keeping the fuel line from gelling up.

I’m not sure where you’re based, but, Craftsmen Utility, in St Charles, MO, are probably the highest volume Utility dealer in the country. They’d be worth reaching out to, when the time comes.

 

Look up Henry Albert. He’s part of Freightliner’s “Run Smart” team, where they directly work with Freightliner on ideas. He uses a Hendrickson lift axle, which is a Freightliner/Western Star option. The middle pic is at MATS, with two of the best MPG trucks in the country representing Freightliner.



I wouldn’t touch the new Volvo/Mack, as they have way too many issues. Give them a couple years to get the bugs worked out and they “might” become a decent truck. However, with the amount of electronics, I’m doubting it. Just too much nanny crap and electronic oversight in them.

IMHO, the turbo-compounding engines are what returns the best fuel economy numbers, while still performing well. PACCAR engines get the mileage they do, because their fuel mapping is set up so soft to the point of not performing. They simply don’t accelerate or pull worth a crap, compared to a TC engine, because the fuel delivery is cut way back. And, a TC engine will pull much harder at very low RPM (<1000RPM), which helps fuel economy. A PACCAR won’t. There’s nothing wrong with a Freightliner and its Detroit Diesel engine, which is TC. They were the first. Nussbaum’s fleet average is in the 9’s and there’s a reason. Plus, they’re active in experimentation with Freightliner involvement.

A couple other reefer things I thought of are interior lighting and interior reefer control panel. Both things are extremely beneficial for you and dock workers.

The Sioux Falls area has a crazy amount of trucking activity, for some reason. I certainly don’t envy you, in the winter.

 

In the interest of full transparency because I’ve had good luck with the 510/1850 mx13’s:

After 818k miles between 3 different engines I’ve had my first failure. Just under 72k on the new truck I’m driving and the #6 injector blew the tip off. The service guy was at our shop today. He bore scoped and said the liner and the head appear good. Now we wait for a decision from warranty. He said next step could be pulling and inspecting the turbo and also pulling the DPF apart, but he also said he’s seen a couple low mileage failures like this where they’ve just sent out a new engine to drop in. Meanwhile I’m in a spare truck with an X15 in it until mine is back on the road.

 

That just sucks….sorry.

 

So, just to be clear...

Your new MX13 at 72K miles blew an injector.

On a new truck with 72k on an MX13.

Ughh. If Kenworth would put a Detroit powertrain option again, I would buy one.

 

Yes, a new truck with 72k on it had an injector that failed and for some reason blew the tip off. I’d say the other 818k miles virtually trouble free before that on the other two more than make up for it. The only downside is that now I have to drive a W9 with a junk x15 in it until they get mine done.

 

It is what it is. I don’t have any complaints, I’d still take one over an x15. The 589 I’m in is at 6.17 lifetime pulling a tank, that includes idle time and PTO time. The best part of this one is I don’t own it and there’s a spare truck for me to drive while mine is down.

I figured if I’m going to talk about the good then I also need to talk about the bad.