So we are specing out a new truck to pull our RGN the truck will be grossing up to 160,000lbs in NC, SC, and VA maybe some TN but not much. Here is what we are thinking.

2013 Peterbilt 388 or 389 with extended cab.

ISX15 Cummins 600HP 2,050lbs of torque.

18spd Eaton Fuller.

3.73 rears.

18,000lb Front Axle.

46,000lb Rear Axle.

20,000lb Steerable Pusher Axle.

Heavy single frame with double frame insert at rear for 46,000lb axles.

All aluminum wheels.

315/24.5 Tires on the front 24.5Tires on the rear with a 315/24.5 on the pusher.

Now here is the dilemma with the 389 if we go with one 100gal tank and a 50/50 tank for fuel and hydraulic oil we are looking at close to a 280" wheel base which is okay but, is kind of long for some places we go in. The 388 if I remember right is only going to shorten us up about six inches. One other option we are looking at is going with a single 100gal tank on the drivers side mounting the hydraulic tank behind the cab and moving the battery box to the passenger side which should shorten us up quite a bit. But you are only carrying 100gal of fuel which could put us in a bind sometimes. I guess the happy medium would be a truck like this(http://www.truckpaper.com/listingsde...?OHID=3611945&) with a 100gal tank on one side and a 50gal on the other. This is one of the trucks that we had been considering but the length and rear end ratio have made us back off of it.http://www.truckpaper.com/listingsde...?OHID=3797079&

So I guess what I'm really doing is seeing if anyone could recommend anything different with the specs so we could get this truck shorter. Or if you just see something that needs to be changed.

 

3.70 rears are way too fast for that kind of weight imho> 2 speed rear ends would be a HUGE advantage and would give you excellent startability.

150 gallons will barely be enough fuel some days

 

We have demoed a couple of trucks that have been specd with 550HP and 1,850ft lbs of torque with 4.10 rears and they have done good but, the fuel millage isn't that good. So that is the thought with going with the bigger 600HP engine with 2,050ft lbs and the 3.73 rears. Also 160,000lbs is on the way hi end may only move a load like that a couple times a year the majority of loads will be in the 90,000lb to 132,000lb range.

Yeah the fuel tanks is going to be a big issue. If we go with 200gal tanks we will be looking a 280" wheel base which will make it extremely hard to maneuver in some of the Caterpillar yards we move equipment from.

 

2 speed rears are the way to go>ask your sales rep about the cost. I had 3:55's on the high side and 4:88's on the bottom side. You can shift them on the fly so you're not sruck in one ratio. You're going to be running in the hills and the 2 speeds will really shine in that geographic area.

 

Well you have got my curiosity up. I'll ask the salesman next time I see him.

 

why not go 3.90's?

 

If the wheelbase is an issue I'd go with a different model truck. A t800 would shorten you up a ton and probably give you more heavy haul options as well. You can also get split hydraulic/fuel tanks straight from Kenworth. Hell take this a step further and make it a glider so you don't need that stupid DEF tank. Look at all that unused space in front of the steps on those trucks.

 

This would be our second choice if the 3.70's wouldn't work.

 

We have talked about a T800 but, it really doesn't shorten the wheel base that much. Another thing with the T800 was that it cost more than one of the 389's. Right now we around $153,000 with Fet. for a Pete 389 the KW would be $144,000 plus Fet. which puts it around $161,000 plus $10,000 worth of options that the Pete dealer is willing to cover half of on the 389.

Oh and probably the main reason for buying a Pete is because that what the boss want's. Even though he will never emit to it.

 

i remember reading that the t800 was paccars toughest truck. hell my paccar of choice anyway.