TeamsterGrrrl

There's a group of carriers that pool data on MPG and other operating costs, they're averaging around 7 MPG with 2010 and newer trucks. That's with less than 80k#s average weights, but they're pulling van trailers which push more air around than a flatbed. There's also a group of carriers and OOs on facebook who are shooting for 9 MPG, some are already getting that and most are over 8 MPG. Their favored specs are a new Volvo or Freightliner with a low RPM engine like the MP7, automated direct drive transmission, super singles with a single drive axle, and every available aerodynamic option on both tractor and trailer.

An 80s truck, even one specced for fuel economy, will do around 5 to 6 MPG at the then current 55 MPH speed limit. Up the speed to the current 65 MPH limit and you'll be down to 4 to 5 MPG. The MH has good aerodynamics for an axle forward cabover, but unless you can convert that short BBC into more payload you'd be better off with a CX conventional. A tandem drive and 18 conventional tires will eat more MPG, so you'll be down around 5 MPG while your competitors will be slashing rates because they're getting 8 MPG. And sure, you've no complex emissions hardware to break, but having an MH only component like a windshield busted could put you out of business for weeks, unless you run local and have a stash of spares. Support for even common components on a 30+ year old truck is getting scarce, for example how many shops still have an old timer and the equipment to rebuild mechanical injection pumps?

So you're fighting a noble but quixotic battle, but ultimately a loosing one...

Not if you're getting 8 MPG in a newer truck vs. 6 MPG in an old truck.

You're probably right about the delay, but trying to make a living with a 1985 truck, even one of the best like a Mack MH, is a tougher job than any ELD mandate.

The problem is one of incompatibility- UPS has an ELD system that fulfilled the legal logbook requirements and worked fine for decades. Instead of using UPS system as a model, DOT cranked out their own requirements.

Not so much greedy as driven (too hard)- VW like many European companies stock is more like a share in the Green Bay Packers than a profitable stock. VW is paying plenty too, on the order of $25,000,000,000 in damages, buybacks, repairs, and fines.

You're headed in the right direction, though you may have overshot the mark by a fair bit! The shortcoming of all the "super trucks" is that they're built for the U.S.' obsolete 36 ton (metric) weight limits- to get real ton/mile efficiency we need bigger and heavier trucks. For example, a multi axle doubles combination fitting within the STAA ~25 meter dimensional envelope given a 10% weight increase for road friendly (air) suspension could have twice the payload of the current STAA 36 ton combinations. Cutting the same sized hole through the air means that fuel use would increase only due to weight, giving our 75 ton real supertruck 100% more payload while using only 50% more fuel. For operations on 4 lane highways where passing distances are not a concern, even longer combinations could be used- A 100 ton combination with 3 times the payload of a 36 ton STAA truck would give even higher efficiency gains.

Bought a new Deere "fawn" tractor recently, even though it goes only 9 MPH tops it came with a ROPS and seat belt and I use them. Neighbor thought he couldn't get into any trouble with his old Case WD with neither 3 point hitch or ROPS, he rolled it and was lucky he only wrecked his shoulder. Never ceases to amaze me the people who race around on jacked up golf carts, ATVs, and worse and are oblivious to how easily they tip over.

VW chose a poor way to protest excessive regulation, and it's backfired badly.

The Taliban agree with your sentiments...

Sorry, thought you were thinking of a swap for your CH. Still wouldn't be easy with a Superliner, wonder if there's any way you could access a parts book and see what the differences were between Mack 6 and Cummins N14 engined Superliners?

I believe Dog Rescue is talking about his CH, an N14 won't fit there. The N14 will fit a Superliner, Mack even installed some... Which is the easiest way to get an N14 powered Superliner.

N14 is longer than a Mack 6 and won't fit in a CH- That's why Mack built the CL. Makes more sense to rebuild what's already in the truck or swap like for like- Putting an N14 where it was never designed to fit would involve modifying the firewall and doghouse or moving the cab back and lengthening the hood, changing both the engine and trans mounts, fabricating intake and exhaust plumbing and adapting to the Mack radiator, etc.. If the transmission and final drives are a mismatch, figure on changing those too. Probably be easier just to build your own truck...

Quite the opposite- Ever heard of the massive CalTrans operation to keep Donner Pass open in the winter? CalTrans employees volunteer to come there from all over the state- They even use seniority to volunteer for these tough jobs!

If your state workers weren't union they'd go south for the winter and your roads wouldn't get plowed!

Are you building a work truck or play truck? Spending months re-engineering or even botching a major engine swap is wasting months you could have spent earning a living running the truck. If you're just playing around and have too much spare time on your hands, have at it!

More like Trump managing to stick both his feet and hands too in his mouth and bite them!

Be easier to just buy a truck with the Cummins engine you like already in it and running.

Trucking in the U.S. grew thanks to cheap access to an incredible highway system while the railroads deteriorated. That situation is now reversed, with our highway system being slowly abandoned while the surviving railroads are hauling more freight at higher profits then ever. Add in the shift of manufacturing to Asia and now the super-sized Panama Canal, and trucking is pretty much left with the short haul scraps the container ships and intermodal trains leave behind.

The new PanaMax container ships will now have access to ports within a days drive of most of America's population and will be making the transportation market for decades to come... Even the railroads are worried. Meanwhile, trucking is as asleep at the wheel as the railroads were as the Interstate System subsidized their trucking competitors. I'm still amazed that trucking is still satisfied with their obsolete 53 foot containers while those PanaMax container ships will be unloading literally thousands of 40 foot boxes in the ports... Double 40 combinations are doable on the American highway system, but trucking was too busy gutting drivers wages to bother lobbying for them.

Makes one wonder if a bad oil pump or something else blocking the oil circuit or leaking off oil pressure caused both this and the previous failures?

I'm in agreement too- OTR pay sounds good until you deduct for the high cost of truckstop food, motels when it's too hot and humid and freezing to sleep in the truck, etc..

Not a good sign for Navistar... They'll need those skilled techs to put the Scania V8s into Navistar chassis and start up production of the VW Transporter and Crafter vans, etc..

Good points, Roger- Thanks for detailing some of the reasons this Yank prefers a cabover!

Your political inexperience is showing- All kinds of crap gets read into the Congressional Record, doesn't mean it's true. And the crap in question got dumped into the federal record over half a century ago. Back then, communism was a real threat... Today, it's almost a joke. Some of you need to catch up with the times...

OK, hopefully we have finally laid communism to rest. Now you're telling me you want polluted water, unsafe food, overpriced energy, no education, and slave labor?