Tire/Wheel Thread

When i had my 379ex-hood i loved it that was my first truck and didnt know any better my buddy talk me in to it his truck is fine as hell i went with him to get a 400 trackhoe one day his truck has a 625 cat with a 18 speed and we ran 80mph all the way home and never slowed down so i had to have one
I got a 98 475hp c15 10 speed with 342 rears and ran it for years 5-5.5mpg had 986,xxx miles on it when i sold it the motor was on its last leg it had a new head on it before i got it and a turbo but was not well taking care of a inframe was going to cost me $18,000 so i just went and got a new truck
You can buy two freightliners for what you can one pete and no it dont take two freightliners to do what that pete will
My freightliner has way more room i can change my clothes with out having to lay on the bed i can stand up and walk around and rides way better and twice as quiet would i go back ya!!! i would but i love my 7mpg and the room

 

These companies haul freight in trailers that lend themselves to be being a total aerodynamic package when coupled to an aerodynamic truck. The fuel savings make an aerodynamic truck a more cost effective solution in this case. Some people pull trailers that don't lend themselves to being aerodynamically friendly, no matter what kind of aerodynamics the truck has. Some of the folks that pull these non-aerodynamic trailers might find that the non-aerodynamic truck is the most cost effective truck to operate because of the decrease in maintenance cost, the ability to work on the truck themselves (saving time and money), and the eventual resale value/desirability of the truck.

I'll go even further and say there are some heavy-use applications where a non-aerodynamic truck would get better fuel mileage than an aerodynamic one because of the larger radiator, which keeps the fan from having to run as much, and the external air cleaners, which provide a larger volume of air with less restriction for an engine that spends a lot of its time working at high output levels.

 

Again, finally someone gets it. Not everyone is a door slammer. Some of us haul freight that actually pays, on trailers that are not aerodynamic. Some of us like not paying for that extra shop labor time removing plastic to find an engine. If none of this applies to you and you love your plastic truck, great! There are people who like to eat dogs which is fine for them, just don't push it on me or call me the idiot for not joining them at the table.

 

Dont try to convence me tell kenworth
http://www.kenworth.com/FuelEconomyWhitePaper.pdf
And Peterbilt
http://www.thepetestore.com/Peterbilt%20Fuel%20Efficiency.pdf

And as far as air flow and engine only require 1300 cf of air 3400 will not make it run any better well accually it cant draw no more than 1300 wide open so you can put 10 of them on there and you will only use the air flow of 1 unless you run dirty filters

 

Every single example in both of those links is with a dry box. You understand there are other kinds of freight besides the freight that goes in a van, right? Nobody's disputing that, everything else being equal, you get better fuel mileage pulling a dry box with an aero truck than a non-aero. When you're pulling a non-aero load, the aerodynamics of the whole unit go out the window, the aerodynamics of the truck don't matter at that point. I really don't understand what is so hard to grasp about that concept.

The airflow issue isn't about how much airflow a given setup can provide, it's about how much resistance the engine has to overcome to get that required airflow out of the setup.

All I've tried to say here is that both kinds of trucks have their place in this industry. If I pulled a dry box, reefer, doubles, hopper, or maybe even a dump wagon, I would do well to look into an aero truck. Since I don't, other factors weigh more heavily in my operation.

 

Don't waste your time, he won't get it and won't even acknowledge you posted this. Just watch and see.

 

Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons here.
Do you realize that the most fuel efficient and aerodynamic trucks are cab over's.
I did not believe it myself , but do a bit of research.
See what trucks holds the records , admittedly in test conditions but they are COE trucks.

 

And that covers about 80% of the freight and an aero truck will draw that 1300 cf of airflow just as easy as the big twin filters now the areo truck wont draw 3400 cf but no truck needs that much.

I get a lot more than you think in an eariler post you indicated that a areo truck pulling a hopper wont get better fuel mileage now you agree with josh that it will do you accually get it make up your mind

 

Are you talking about the Peterbilt 372? I've heard that somewhere too.

It probably is 80% or so, the only point I've been trying to make here is that aero trucks aren't the hands down best truck for everyone. On the air filters, sure, the dual air cleaners might be capable of providing more air than a truck engine can use, but they still provide less restriction than a single underhood air cleaner. I'm not saying that makes them the best choice for every application, I'm just sayin'.

Jfaulk's the one running the hoppers, not me, and he's getting 7mpg out of the W900 in that application. I'd be inclined to trust his judgement for what best suits his needs over mine.