2014 Pete 386

[Rawze]

CON: Significantly less fuel efficient than a prostar or cascadia. 0.3 - 0.4mpg on average. = a cost of several thousand dollars a year in fuel consumption. If a person is trying to be competitive in the market, this may or may not be significant.

You made no mention on the type of freight, operation, etc. or anything that actually counts towards long term profitability. Things like proper rear end ratio, and other specs that could cost or save a person thousands a year, and potentially be the difference form someone who struggles, and someone who does not.

Personally, I like my 8+ mpg prostar (3:55 rears/ISX 871). It is just about the best solution for mostly highway dry-van and refer markets out there, but I understand it is not for everyone. Not everyone is looking for a highway truck. Just something to heavily consider for those who might be reading this thread.

- Making a poor choice with a truck can cost someone a lot of grief and lost revenue if they can't make it into something competitive. Spec'ing a truck for best profitability should be the very first thing a person considers any more in trucking (fuel efficiency for the market your in being #1, all others secondary) ... anything less and your only going to struggle any more, because people like me (or some low-rent mega-fleece) will come along and under-cut your customers and drive you out of the market.


Just some things to consider past what the equipment looks like, no one has to agree.