Sleeper Size Matter??

Over all burky are you impressed with your Mack, I am thinking about selling my KW the way fuel is going up i am not going to be able to make it. I thought about purchasing a Mack Attack.

 

Overall, I am very impressed with it. In looking at trucks, I had made out a list of my preferences, taking into account the various models and the availability of the truck in the wheelbase length and engine power that I would need. And when I initially made the list out, Mack was listed at #4 on the list, behind IH, with F/L and Volvo tied pretty close for second choice. At the time, I was driving a 2000 CH-600 model. I moved up to a 2006 CX Vision, and the interior difference was enough to move it up on my list from 4th to a tie for first. With the CH, I liked them for the available power since you can go up to a 460 hp engine without paying any extra weight penalty, and the trucks are solidly built and durable. What I hated was that the Mack philosophy that any truck could be converted to a daycab for the secondary market. That resulted in a smaller opening to the sleeper, and that meant that the back of the seat rode up against the back of the cab structure, and the ride was terrible because the seat suspension couldn't operate properly since it was bound up in the cab contact.

When I got the Vision, the seat problem went away, and though I have the same suspension and seat I had in the previous truck, the ride is the difference between night and day. And, with the fuill opening, I can flop the seat back and take a nap without getting into the bunk.

I also like the guage and switch positions, ease of cleaning the interior, and many of the other features of the newer truck. I know it may seem silly to harp on the interior of the truck as an important issue, but that is the place where you spend so much of your time and the interface between yourself and the truck. Since most trucks can be specced mechanically to suit your needs, if you are unhappy with the interior, you are going to be an unhappy driver.

Basically, when I buy a truck in the future, the choices right now boil down to a Mack Vision, or an IH 9200/9400 at this time. And if all goes well, I am going to spend some time in an IH tomorrow, since there is a 2005 sitting at our shop with a note on it inviting anyone who wants to drive it to feel free to do so. If I can get in there tomorrow, I am going to take it for a ride, and stop by the scale and weigh it, among other things. then I'll calculate the weight with full fuel tanks, removal of the air shield, and the addition of a blower and equipment. We won't lease on any trucks over 18k ready to run weight, so I want to see what the IH with the 72" sleeper weighs.

 

Hey,

Burky thanks for the come back, I am going to the Mack dealer and take a good look at one, but yeah the cornbinders aren't bad at all sharp looking trucks. But good luck I guess let me know how your ride tommarow goes, I want to go see what I can get for my kenworth.


Good Luck

 

By the way, when I stated my mileage earlier, I said that I get about 5.75 pulling the tanks I do, which tend to have about 48-50k inside the tank at any given time. When I have hooked up to a van, I have jumped up to a little better than 7 mpg. But, let me point out that I have a flattop, and non of the areo aids for pulling a van. I do not have side skirting, cab extenders, or a rooftop fairing, and was not able to get the van into the 30" range where aero aids would work on my truck. So a Mack set up for a van, with all the needed equipment, should exceed the fuel mieage that I got, based on better aerodynamics. I mention this because a van is the standard yardstick used for comparing fuel mileage between various trucks.

The pneumatic trailers I pull are air hogs, and we accept that as a consequence of the kind of work that we do.