What do you think of the new aerodynamic trucks vs the old long hood

I wish you did, i could use the entertainment! I hear McDonalds is going to start putting them in their Happy Meals to continue the tradition of giving away junk plastic crap.

 

I like the old Petes. If you get one before the accert engines you can get 6-7 mpg.

The big condos are super nice but I don't live in a truck. In every week when I'm on the road.

Get a Suspension with the tall airbags on a pete and they ride real good.

 

If I were to have an Areo truck it would be a T660 or Pete 386. None of that international or freightliner stuff. I drove most of them and I have a big dislike of the new cascadia's and prostars.

 

There is an inflatable boat tail out there. They claim to save 5.3% in fuel costs. I think it would be better than taking a chance with the side skirts cracking from brittleness. Who wants to spend all that money on a new trailer to save five percent when you have other alternatives that could save you even more.
I think this one will catch on pretty quick.
Its got a GPS unit that can detect the trailer speed and will automatically deploy. Then, when you get off the highway it stows itself. Without the driver doing a thing.

http://www.ats-green.com

 

Since the thread is back, I like the older non aero trucks more. Recently started to run a short nose 379 on occasion. I got in and was all shocked as I could see over the hood.

List of trucks I run from time to time.

379L
CH613
W900
379

I wouldn't mind tryin a Coranado, it's kind of areo.

 

I've seen these and other attachments to the rear of the trailer . Wouldn't they cause problems with LEO's with over length or lack of lights as required ?

 

I wonder the same thing. Lots of reasons I can justify a hood, but mileage concerns me.

Really, just how much difference is there in fuel mileage between a similarly equipped hood vs. an aero truck for a typical OTR van driver?

 

About ½mpg. For a truck going 120K miles per year and averaging a (generous) 6mpg with a hood, that's 20K gallons of fuel/year. At $3.75/gallon, he's spending $75K/year on fuel. At 6.5mpg, an aero truck will use 18,461 gallons/year, costing $69,228.75. That's $5,771.25 less.

Just sayin.


There are applications where a long hood is almost necessary. I believe that has been demonstrated in this thread. For some, it's personal preference. I prefer my aero hood. Doesn't make me less of a trucker. It just means I prefer a different style. If someone else wants to spend the extra purchase price for a long hood and then spend a little more for fuel, it's his business. I couldn't care less.

 

I love how you toss out these estimated numbers as though they're facts...
My numbers are always WAY better than those that you tossed out there.
How do you figure that 6 MPG is "generous", I easily do 6.5 to 7 and have even broken 8 on a number of occasions.

A long hood truck cost about the same as a droopy nosed truck and the difference in fuel is nominal at best.

The real difference between these trucks is the longevity....Long after the "plastic droopers" have cracked and broken and died the better quality of the long hoods will keep them on the road making money.

 

it depends what you do with them a truck must fit the job and an areo truck might be great for fuel pulling a van down the road but aerodynamics don't mean zip running a PTO or dragging a belly dumb were ease of maintenance means much more and all those pieces of plastic are expensive when ya tear them of in the dirt