TeamsterGrrrl

For a tow truck a long wheelbase gives a longer lever arm so the weight of the front of the truck can more effectively counteract the weight of the towed load behind the rear axle. But a 300" wheelbase is mostly a fashion statement...

Ford is kinda headed that direction in the U.S. market- Sales of the Fiesta and Focus have slumped to the point that Ford cancelled a new plant and the Focus will join the Fiesta in Mexican production. The Fusion still sells well, but the Taurus is slumping badly. So Ford is bring the Ranger and Bronco back to replace the Focus at Michigan Assembly, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Fiesta exit the U.S. market.

Looks like the fall of Trump has the conspiracy theorists working overtime...

When in doubt, Trump blames the media. That worked so well for Nixon...

Then how come Hillary has never been charged?

Helps that he got to fire the head of the agency investigating him...

Ford wanted out of the big truck biz because the margins were so thin, and they could make more Super Duties at higher profits in the same plant.

Because she hasn't committed any crime.

Volvo is just playing to the environmentalists and the stock markets, their diesel is a new design and will be around for decades. While cheap throwaway electric cars are almost viable in cities, in most of America they can't match the range of diesel and gas engines. Electrics aren't sustainable either, as the cost of replacing their batteries after only a decade or so of use is usually more than the electric vehicle's value and results in the electric vehicle being scrapped while diesels soldier on for another decade or more.

Fortunately when Nixon was in power we had republicans with the integrity to impeach a republican president. Today, not so much...

58,500# on a 265" wheelbase 4 axle tractor? That sounds like Bridge Formula B, and with only 43,500# allowed on your "tridem", that could be at least 15,000# on the steer axle? Lift the pusher to get some traction, and even more weight could be transferred to the front axle. That's if you can get that much weight transferred forward, unless your landing gear is set way back it's hard to transfer more than a few thousand pounds to the front axle, especially if it's set forward. That leads me to suspect these failed pusher axles are overloaded. Keep in mind too that the drive tandems may be sagging under load at different rates than the pusher- For example a 44,000 pound tandem on steel springs will settle less under load than the air sprung pusher, transferring more weight to the pusher than stationary weighting would suggest.

Kinda surprising, given that VW pretty much sold out their inventory of new 2015 TDIs in a couple weeks with no advertising.

Deregulation refers to the end of joint rate setting by carriers, which took effect in the late 70s. Before that, carriers agreed on a rate from point a to point b, with the type of freight also adjusting the rate up or down. This set a minimum rate which discouraged undercutting and forced the carriers to compete on the basis of service. Once deregulation ended, cutthroat competition ensued with an epidemic of carriers going out of business and only a few big common carriers surviving.

By and large, fleets have never really cared much about driver comfort and appearance, before or since deregulation. Condo sleepers are not specced on trucks to benefit the drivers, they're specced to avoid paying for decent motel accommodations for the drivers. And most large fleets didn't have purchasing agents spec their trucks, they usually assigned that critical task to veteran technicians and even engineers. Take a look at an old UPS or CF tractor- It's an engineering tour de force! Today I look at some of the crap the big fleets are buying and shake my head- All they seem to spec is a massive sleeper that adds weight and devours cube when they have enough freight density to run a relay operation with day cabs if they got their dispatching act together. 15-16 liter engine when an 11 liter would handle their "balloon freight" more efficiently, automatic transmission so they can hire the cheapest and least qualified drivers, and 18 skinny tires when 10 would do the job with super singles and better economy and lighter weight to boot. While we're at it, why not drive just one axle and lift a couple when running light? As for the owner operators, many have indeed specced driver comfort and appearance features, to a fault ("Chrome won't get ya home"). But when I got into trucking a half century ago they were around 25% of the market, now they're down to 15% and falling.

Dumb no matter what the political orientation! Crazy people can buy all the fanciest weapons the gun shops carry, but the police and military will still have intelligence and weaponry that will swiftly put down any rebellion.

Obviously we need to take additional steps to secure our trucks- Many trucks don't even have steering column locks or other anti-theft devices.

Your Mack's telling you it wants to be a 6x2... (Just kidding).

Keep an eye on the river guages... Looked at them this afternoon on the NWS website and the river at St.Genevieve is forecast to crest at almost record level.

Think positive... You're getting a chance to see how your truck would work as a 6 x 2!

Like it or not, technology usually improves. Just bought a 7th generation VW Golf diesel, and have owned the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th generation diesels for comparison. The new Golf beats the previous Golfs on almost any measure- even beats the 4th generation on fuel economy by a bit. Other than a few nitpicks like the plasticy interior and hiding of the door locks I'm more than happy with it. Even the increased computerization ain't all bad- while I don't like having to dig through menus in the On Board Computer to change basic settings, the OBC will change settings that used to require the factory service tool or VCDS to change.

"Peanuts" in the inter-axle differential worn out? Range shift? Would be interesting to see what it does in reverse, but might not want to try reverse until you get 'er home!

It's the best of 1980s technology, and even manages to beat Volvo's decade newer cab on aerodynamics and durability. But if they took advantages of the advances in materials science, computer aided design, etc. made since the 80s a new cab would be a genuine improvement.

What's really troubling, especially for Volvo, is the lack of investment in a new cab. Both the Volvo and Mack cabs are now over 20 years old, and Volvo has been known to come out with a new cab every 10 years or less. Even Paccar has a new cab now, Daimler's newest is barely 10 years old, and even broke Navistar has a mere 14 year or so old cab. This lack of investment in a new cab suggests that Volvo is preparing to pull out of the North American market...

Might be some 98s, I've seen 99s. But if I see an "Argosy" claimed to be 99 or earlier advertised, usually it's an FLB which ain't an Argosy.

Argosy wasn't introduced until 2000 or so.