Waiting on New Trucks thread.

If he were to trade 579 vs 579, I wonder what the difference would be? A fair bit greater I would guess.

 

Keep the 89 and enjoy it…….

 

They are already doing it and its not working. Look at stellantis.they were selling all their vehicles at high cost point and now they have so much inventory that they are dropping prices left and right .and manufacturers cant just cut supply. For them any profit is good profit as they are publically traded companies too.

 

Fuel is the #1 operating cost. When a 579 gets roughly 30% better fuel economy than a 389, extrapolated over the lifetime, the number is huge.

For example:
600,000 miles at trade is what I’ll use.
389 gets ~6mpg which is 100,000 gallons.
579 gets ~8mpg which is 75,000 gallons.
25,000 gallons at $4/gal is $100,000.

• For simplicity, I’m not going to delve into the depths of fuel tax, fuel filters, tire wear, etc, of which there is nothing to show for the money.

$100,000 is NOT “neck and neck”.

 

You do have a point here but most 389s or similar trucks are used for pulling flat step tanker etc . I would say 30 percent pull dry or reefer. those are the ones that get 6mpg. Pulling a flat or tanker you can do close to 7mpg if you are easy on the pedal and drive under 70.

 

That doesn’t change much because an aero truck is still going to do that much better pulling those trailers provided it has the proper bunk. If a brick can get “close to” 7 with a flatbed then an aero truck should get “close to” 8.5-9 with those trailers. I gained 2mpg with my new 579 over my old one just by going to an auto with 2.79 rears, an Ultraloft instead of the regular raises roof, and I shortened the wheelbase by 17”. I’m guessing most of that is from losing 43” total on the sleeper to trailer gap.

 

Fair enough, but you won't do that hauling our stuff on an RGN.

 

Everyone keeps moving the goalposts. Lol.

 

That’s the frustration of this place. Even in the face of facts, some people just can’t accept they’re wrong. It makes reading comments in the 9+ group frustrating, as well. Facts are facts!

 

I don’t trade at 600k, I trade at 300k. That narrows the fuel savings down to nothing in my cycle versus the resale. At “30%” better than 6 mpg, which is 7.8 not 8, a 579 would have just shy of $154000 in fuel expense where the 389 would have $200000.

Believe me, a three year old 389 will have greater resale than the $46000 fuel savings over the 579. And that’s to say the 579 will get 7.8 mpg doing what I do, which I highly doubt.

I’ve played this game for a few decades. There’s more to it than fuel economy.