If aeros R 15% more fuel-efficient then classics, would clas
#1
01-14-2008, 01:25 AM
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles - Austin - Houston - Dallas - San Antonio - Laredo
Posts: 191
If aeros R 15% more fuel-efficient then classics, would clas
Subject: If aero-types are 15% more fuel-efficient then classics, would classics be about 15% more efficient than cabovers :?:
...thus guesstimating aero-types about 30%-40% more efficient than cabovers :wink:
Generally that will be the difference between an aero truck and a non-aero truck.
Put great specs in the aero truck, and the difference will be larger. KeepOnTruckingSAFELY
__________________
TruckingInHighGear .com 
#2
01-14-2008, 02:05 AM
Re: If aeros R 15% more fuel-efficient then classics, would
Originally Posted by Mandilon
Subject: If aero-types are 15% more fuel-efficient then classics, would classics be about 15% more efficient than cabovers :?:
...thus guesstimating aero-types about 30%-40% more efficient than cabovers :wink:
Generally that will be the difference between an aero truck and a non-aero truck.
Put great specs in the aero truck, and the difference will be larger. KeepOnTruckingSAFELY
__________________
"I love college football. It's the only time of year you can walk down the street with a girl in one arm and a blanket in the other, and nobody thinks twice about it." --Duffy Daugherty 
#3
01-14-2008, 02:19 AM
I don't know but a nice looking old school Freightshaker COE blew my doors off the other day. He was pulling a reefer and musta been going about 80 mph.ea
I suppose they get no worse mileage than a hood....same frontal area.
#4
01-16-2008, 12:11 AM
My buddy runs a newer Argosy with a large drom box pulling HHG and will get 5mpg empty and 5mpg loaded at 83,000#
__________________
Mud, sweat, and gears
#5
01-16-2008, 01:40 AM
Re: If aeros R 15% more fuel-efficient then classics, would
Originally Posted by Mandilon
Subject: If aero-types are 15% more fuel-efficient then classics, would classics be about 15% more efficient than cabovers :?:
#7
01-16-2008, 11:42 AM
Originally Posted by allan5oh
6.9 mpg = 15% more then 6 mpg
6.9 mpg = aero truck 6 mpg = classic definitely seems plausible to me, many guys say aeros are worth a full MPG.
#8
01-16-2008, 12:23 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fine Rev I drove a 88 Pete 379 with a 400 Cat it got 5.4 MPG. 88 T600A with a 400 Cat also same trans and rear ends wheel baseboth had full fairings same governer cut off points it got 6.7 MPG same driver and loads everything. In fact Rev the T600 could manage to haul a full ton more than the Pete since it had an Aluminum frame on it. Now tell me that a classic does not get worse MPG than an Areo truck. If that was the case then why are fleets only getting the Areo trucks anymore.
#9
01-16-2008, 12:48 PM
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006
Fine Rev I drove a 88 Pete 379 with a 400 Cat it got 5.4 MPG. 88 T600A with a 400 Cat also same trans and rear ends wheel baseboth had full fairings same governer cut off points it got 6.7 MPG same driver and loads everything. In fact Rev the T600 could manage to haul a full ton more than the Pete since it had an Aluminum frame on it.
Now tell me that a classic does not get worse MPG than an Areo truck.
If that was the case then why are fleets only getting the Areo trucks anymore.
Did you ever haul.........exotic cars?
#10
01-16-2008, 01:44 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shelby Corba 427 Corvette ZR-1 and a Few Others Boss had a van set up to haul them with ramps to unload. Rev I may never have been a stupid Bedbugger No Offense to you Bandits Cousin. However I was the one that was requested so often that my bosses ended up having to bounce me empty to get loads that would pay 4 bucks a mile in the 90's with my deadhead figured in and sometimes it was 900 miles of deadhead on those. Try Denver to Chicago paid to the truck 6 bucks a mile and they bounced me out of Casper to get that one.
|
|
