There is money to be made with 9+ mpg trucks

He may have to drive a lot longer to get the same revenue, but how does his NET compare. If you are saving a batch of money on how you operate, then maybe the revenue may not be as good, but the net is actually better. It is not what you make, but what you keep that counts.

 

why do I still have a subscription to this thread?

If I can drive the same miles in 6 to 8 weeks less time, that also will give me the time to run an additional 2 months to generate that much more revenue than someone doing 58-62.

If I can run an additional two months, it means I am either NOT having the variable expense because I can shut it down as my fixed costs are already covered, or all of the money that WOULD have been used for fixed costs is now pure profit.

So not only would a guy have that $6500 that WAS profit, but the fixed cost that is no longer "needed" because it was covered now becomes another $6900 profit bringing the earned revenue for that time to $27,000 PROFIT in just those two months.

Considering you have pretty much been a wash the rest of the year.

Go ahead and continue to push it down the road at 58 MPH on the big road.

It's delusional at best since you refuse to see the cost of lost productivity.

 

To argue the point, if you don't have freight available to run to your maximum potential each and every week, wouldn't it make sense to slow it down and save on fuel costs?

 

Because the biggest difference i see in mileage is in how much weight you pull

 

It's a balance. I say that if you have the freight available and can earn more profit (dollars, not percentage wise) by getting that extra load or two squeezed into your 70, then it makes sense to run faster. Why save $1 to earn $2 when spending $1 earns you $5?


If you know that you only have X number of loads to run this week, then slow it down, spread it out over your 70 and bank the fuel savings.

 

no its not a balance.

many people have the mentality of " run more miles and make more money" while the people who have the " run for the most revenue for the least miles traveled " end up with the best bottom line.

if i can gross 5000 on 2000 miles run, i dang sure aint gonna go for for a gross of 6000 dollars on 3000 miles ran.

you shoot for more revenue per mile, not more miles for the same revenue.

and when you get to the point of generating good revenue for little miles ran, then you slow down and increase the profit margin, get it?

 

And it's not that simple.

You get better mileage off less weight than you do slowing down.

You get better mileage by keeping a steady speed and keeping the left door closed.

You get get better mileage by making sure your truck is running properly and better maintenance.

You get better mileage by avoiding stop n go driving.

Any of those will have a bigger impact than 62 vs 66 :

 

not in all cases mndriver, a high load of can am 4 wheelers weighing 17,00 pounds may very well get less mileage than a load of steel bars at 42,000 1 foot off trl.


but in any event, i try to hit my target gross with the least amount of miles possible. i would avg1.95 for all miles driven and run2000 miles a week total

than avg 1.50 a mile and drive 3000 miles.

 

there's a difference in that you are pulling a deck and I am pulling a box. My "load" never changes shape to the wind where yours will.

Under 40K net weight, I am getting better than 6.6 mpg. Over 42K, I suck down to about 5.8-5.9 now. Doesn't matter if I am doing two lane or big road.

Two weeks ago, taking all two lane across MN into WI, I actually got 5.7 mpg and I was at 44,6K for net. 45,3K is my max load with less than half a tank of fuel.