Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Rockycoon75 · 03-15-2017, **(Subject: Opinions on gliders )**

I have seen some late model used trucks with bad motors pretty reasonable lately. If the plan was to rip it apart and start over then May be a good route. If I would have had the cash for a good o/h onhand i seen a couple I would have looked into a little more

Rockycoon75 · 03-15-2017, **(Subject: Opinions on gliders )**

(03-15-2017 )Rawze Wrote:
(03-15-2017 )Texasdude74 Wrote: ...
These setups in a car hauler get .7-1.0 mpg better fuel mileage than ANY ISX tuned by Unilever, GearHead, Rawze and some guy named Johnny terrible.
...

I don't agree with that statement at all. Bunch of boasting. Especially since I have only ever seen one or 2 actual car haulers up close enough to touch in my whole trucking career. Last one I looked at the guy was getting in the mid 7's and low 8's with it pretty consistently.

I'm pretty jealous of that.
I never had one get great mileage loaded. Drove both stingers and high mounts. The one with a accert got 4. Last one got 6.5-7 empty 5-5.5 loaded

Rawze · 03-15-2017, **(Subject: Opinions on gliders )**

(03-15-2017 )Rockycoon75 Wrote: I'm pretty jealous of that.
I never had one get great mileage loaded. Drove both stingers and high mounts. The one with a accert got 4. Last one got 6.5-7 empty 5-5.5 loaded

If it is truly that bad then maybe you should look into getting an aero truck with a covered car trailer. That is what the last guy had and he loved it. Said he was rarely over 33k loaded.

The math just don't add up at 4 mpg vs 7+ in an open frame vs aero to me when you look at it like that. Especially when the difference is only a couple extra cars on the top of the cab with all that extra open framework.

Like I said, I just have not been around them at all.

Rockycoon75 · 03-15-2017, **(Subject: Opinions on gliders )**

(03-15-2017 )Rawze Wrote:
(03-15-2017 )Rockycoon75 Wrote: I'm pretty jealous of that.
I never had one get great mileage loaded. Drove both stingers and high mounts. The one with a accert got 4. Last one got 6.5-7 empty 5-5.5 loaded

If it is truly that bad then maybe you should look into getting an aero truck with a covered car trailer. That is what the last guy had and he loved it. Said he was rarely over 33k loaded.

The math just don't add up at 4 mpg vs 7+ in an open frame vs aero to me when you look at it like that. Especially when the difference is only a couple extra cars on the top of the cab with all that extra open framework.

Like I said, I just have not been around them at all.

That truck was sold yrs ago. Guy that owned them is out of business. (Nontrucking related problems) it was that way from the day it was bought new. 3 different drivers all the same result. Fully understand your point. Double the mileage covers tons of costs

Texasdude74 · 03-16-2017, **(Subject: Opinions on gliders )**

(03-15-2017 )Marajin Wrote:
(03-15-2017 )Texasdude74 Wrote: ...

If you must enter the communist state, I'd rather be caught out there in a glider and pay the $500-700 fine than the horror stories we all hear of people with mandate removed trucks out there. Impounded trucks, multi thousand fines, thousands in shop bills to return to stock to get the truck back etc. I doubt the accuracy of these stories, but still.
..

Just letting everyone know that I have not meet or hear from anyone directly that failed a sniff test with MM in their truck. Not to say they can't if they have bad injector or some other problem but usually they pass with better cleaner results after than they did with the mandate. i have heard a few stories however where guys stripped everything off or put manual turbo and manifolds (non-MM) and then wondered why they got fined.

I have heard stories, always second or third hand, friend of a friend kinda thing involving cameras being inserted into exhaust pipes to see if they've been "modified." I don't know anyone that's had this happen to them, and I know a fair amount of CA drivers. But they have all heard the same kinda tales.

Running rough · 03-16-2017, **(Subject: Opinions on gliders )**

(03-15-2017 )Rawze Wrote:
(03-15-2017 )Texasdude74 Wrote: ...
These setups in a car hauler get .7-1.0 mpg better fuel mileage than ANY ISX tuned by Unilever, GearHead, Rawze and some guy named Johnny terrible.
...

I don't agree with that statement at all. Bunch of boasting. Especially since I have only ever seen one or 2 actual car haulers up close enough to touch in my whole trucking career. Last one I looked at (Volvo car hauler) the guy was getting in the mid 7's with it pretty consistently.

I just have not seen but very very few of them up close and of the couple three i have seen, they were aero trucks and not those square nose POS's.

Matter of fact, I have never even sat in the cab of one of those full-out square nose low roof car haulers nonetheless test drove it.

While I agree that cummins needs to work on thier reliabilty, i would have to disagree on the pulling power, I have a turned up c15 with the big turbo and 600 2050 tune, while it pulls good, but my 871 and 2250 custom tuned 600 hp will out work it in the hills, no questions asked, in fact the cat is supposed to be so good on the pull down, the 2250 puts it to shame, and the guy who drives my cat is a cat fan, but we pull the same hills all the time and the cummaparts have always gotten the better of the kitty

Texasdude74 · 03-16-2017, **(Subject: Opinions on gliders )**

(03-15-2017 )Rawze Wrote:
(03-15-2017 )Rockycoon75 Wrote: I'm pretty jealous of that.
I never had one get great mileage loaded. Drove both stingers and high mounts. The one with a accert got 4. Last one got 6.5-7 empty 5-5.5 loaded

If it is truly that bad then maybe you should look into getting an aero truck with a covered car trailer. That is what the last guy had and he loved it. Said he was rarely over 33k loaded.

The math just don't add up at 4 mpg vs 7+ in an open frame vs aero to me when you look at it like that. Especially when the difference is only a couple extra cars on the top of the cab with all that extra open framework.

Like I said, I just have not been around them at all.

They really are that bad on fuel. I know more than a couple of guys that average in the threes, but most are between 4.0-5.3. Year end averages I'm speaking of, not single tank or quarterly.

It's a logical argument: Why not drive a aero truck and pull a high mount? The loss of 3-4 units in capacity could be offset by the fuel savings. Here's why it's wrong:

First, the difference in fuel cost between 4 and 7 mpg is about $.27/mile. The absolute cheapest vehicles I've hauled in my career was $.36/mile. Even by that bottom dollar rate, it's still a loss of $1.08-1.44/mile in revenue to save $.27/mile in fuel. It would be a much bigger loss than that for me in reality.

Second, high mount and enclosed trailers are more limited in the sizes of vehicles that they can haul. Not only do they haul fewer units, but they have to be smaller units. Bigger stuff generally pays more per mile, sometimes many times more.

Lastly, all high mounts are illegal and technically over length unless hooked to a cab over day cab, which they never are. Only three states: CO, CT and MI are militant about it though. High mounts are also not allowed any overhang off the rear of their trailers while stingers are allowed six feet! This further limits the size and combinations of loads they can haul by a lot. But it just gets worse, because the new Fast Act completely rewrote the rules for stingers this year. Allowing an additional five feet of length and even more front and rear overhang. Which makes high mounts even more irrelevant.

Sadly, for my Porsche fund and my wifes' desire for another new SUV for the upcoming birth of our fifth child in August...and possibly some college funds, I just don't know. I am not unaffected by the new length laws. It means....and it brings a tear to my eye to say it....that Daddys' truck is now....sob......LEGAL.
I won't drive, no legal truck. At least not for long. Next thing you know I'd be going into scale houses. Where would it end??? It's lunacy.

So, to the drawing board it is. At my advanced age (42) this will be the last one for me. Something wicked, this way comes.

Texasdude74 · 03-16-2017, **(Subject: Opinions on gliders )**

(03-16-2017 )Running rough Wrote:
(03-15-2017 )Rawze Wrote:
(03-15-2017 )Texasdude74 Wrote: ...
These setups in a car hauler get .7-1.0 mpg better fuel mileage than ANY ISX tuned by Unilever, GearHead, Rawze and some guy named Johnny terrible.
...

I don't agree with that statement at all. Bunch of boasting. Especially since I have only ever seen one or 2 actual car haulers up close enough to touch in my whole trucking career. Last one I looked at (Volvo car hauler) the guy was getting in the mid 7's with it pretty consistently.

I just have not seen but very very few of them up close and of the couple three i have seen, they were aero trucks and not those square nose POS's.

Matter of fact, I have never even sat in the cab of one of those full-out square nose low roof car haulers nonetheless test drove it.
While I agree that cummins needs to work on thier reliabilty, i would have to disagree on the pulling power, I have a turned up c15 with the big turbo and 600 2050 tune, while it pulls good, but my 871 and 2250 custom tuned 600 hp will out work it in the hills, no questions asked, in fact the cat is supposed to be so good on the pull down, the 2250 puts it to shame, and the guy who drives my cat is a cat fan, but we pull the same hills all the time and the cummaparts have always gotten the better of the kitty

This is an excellent example of why I don't like the 6nz. You have to chose your power band by the size of turbo you go with. You can put the BIG turbo on it, but it kills the low end grunt which Cats are known for and raises exhaust temps down low too. Now, you've gotta drive it like a Detroit in the mountains and spin the bejeesus out of it.

Rawze · 03-16-2017, **(Subject: Opinions on gliders )**

(03-16-2017 )Texasdude74 Wrote:
(03-15-2017 )Rawze Wrote: If it is truly that bad then maybe you should look into getting an aero truck with a covered car trailer. That is what the last guy had and he loved it. Said he was rarely over 33k loaded.

The math just don't add up at 4 mpg vs 7+ in an
...
Like I said, I just have not been around them at all.

They really are that bad on fuel. I know more than a couple of guys that average in the threes, but most are between 4.0-5.3. Year end averages I'm speaking of, not single tank or quarterly.

It's a logical argument: Why not drive a aero truck and pull a high mount? The loss of 3-4 units in capacity could be offset by the fuel savings. Here's why it's wrong:

First, the difference in fuel cost between 4 and 7 mpg is about $.27/mile. The absolute cheapest vehicles I've hauled in my career was $.36/mile. Even by that bottom dollar rate, it's still a loss of $1.08-1.44/mile in revenue to save $.27/mile in fuel. It would be a much bigger loss than that for me in reality.

Second, high mount and enclosed trailers are more limited in the sizes of vehicles that they can haul. Not only do they haul fewer units, but they have to be smaller units. Bigger stuff generally pays more per mile, sometimes many times more.

Lastly, all high mounts are illegal and technically over length unless hooked to a cab over day cab, which they never are. Only three states: CO, CT and MI are militant about it though. High mounts are also not allowed any overhang off the rear of their trailers while stingers are allowed six feet! This further limits the size and combinations of loads they can haul by a lot. But it just gets worse, because the new Fast Act completely rewrote the rules for stingers this year. Allowing an additional five feet of length and even more front and rear overhang. Which makes high mounts even more irrelevant.

Sadly, for my Porsche fund and my wifes' desire for another new SUV for the upcoming birth of our fifth child in August...and possibly some college funds, I just don't know. I am not unaffected by the new length laws. It means....and it brings a tear to my eye to say it....that Daddys' truck is now....sob......LEGAL.
I won't drive, no legal truck. At least not for long. Next thing you know I'd be going into scale houses. Where would it end??? It's lunacy.

So, to the drawing board it is. At my advanced age (42) this will be the last one for me. Something wicked, this way comes.

If the fuel mileage is truly only about 3-4 mpg, that is the equivalent fuel consumption as a heavy road train. I would suspect that the engines would not hold up nearly as long under those kinds of heavy torque conditions and the average torque loads would be very high too. If this is the case then I would suspect all the other thgings seen with this type of operation would apply too.

For an ISX ...

* Engine worn out in 600k miles instead of a million.

* Having to change oil every 8,000 miles or so max.

* Turbocharger always running slightly hotter making them only last 400-500k miles instead of 600+k miles.

* bottom end due at 400k miles unless oil pressure is stepped up and/or gear lube was used.

* 1650 would be the optimum rpm at all times while loaded, so truck would have to be geared as such.

=====

Personally, if I was forced to drive something that used 80%+ engine load all the time i would first and foremost do everything in my power to reduce this and bring the efficiency up as much as possible. That is your biggest expense, not just from fuel mileage but all the damn wear in the engine and other components.

Sure you get a bit more for a few extra cars but what offset in wear and other costs is it setting you back? -- I still don't much see it. All your costs on the engine, drive train, and every thing else come 40% quicker on average. This means you will do TWO inframes at 1.2 million miles instead of one and also have 2x the down-time due to problems. All those costs plus the lower fuel economy still don't add up if you ask me unless your getting very top dollar for every vehicle put on the thing.

For this reason, I would focus very very strongly on lowering these costs by gearing the truck much lower and traveling much slower then other trucks too. - I.E. i would certianly would not be any kind of cow-boy trucker barreling down the roads at 65+ all day long with it, the differences in costs just don't add up.

This would also mean to me that for every car hauler I see on the roads is going 70+ and even 75 some of them out west and if their freight is that tight to have to go that fast (I seriously doubt it because much better management of time would prevail) then it is sheer stupidity to push the equipment that hard. -- Next time I see one pass me, I will shake my head and know they are just simply dumb-asses pissing up wind as hard as they can, wearing out their truck and wasting fuel, etc. just to make ends meet. -- What a shame.

====

There is absolutely no substitute for knuckling down full force and becoming more profitable in what you do. Optimizing your pickup/delivery times, lowering speeds, minimizing torque load on the engine from better gearing, and everything else to reduce expenses and wear use on your equipment . So for all those cow-boy car haulers out there hell bent on 70+ mph and big power,... My own opinion is that it is JUST A STUPID THING TO DO THAT ONLY HAS ITS BASIS ON WHAT THE NEXT GUY IS DOING and not what makes you the most money.

You had better believe I would figure out how to overcome those odds and it would not involve going fast at all, especially if it was that much harder on the equipment.

Just my own BS single-minded view of it, no one has to agree at all. Remember, I am full of S##it.