And as I stated, it is a common misconception that cabovers died because of the EPA. The EPA has never made any sort of regulations regarding fuel economy in class 8 vehicles. They have only regulated emissions, which affects engine manufacturers, not truck manufacturers.

 

If they ever decide to shorten length laws again you will probably see more carriers go back to cabovers. You have much better visibility with a cabover than a hood. The first cabover that I drove had a 36" sleeper. There are still a few drivers who prefer a cabover. You mostly see most cabovers on the west coast. A cabover can get into tight spaces much easier than a hood. The old cabovers didn't ride as well as the hoods because of the suspensions. We didn't have air ride on either when I first started driving. That changed in later years but the stigma stayed with them. I think it was more the look that killed the cabovers. Most drivers prefered the look of a long hood to the flat nose cabover. That old Peterbilt was a very aerodynamic truck. It was way before it's time. If that truck could deliver that fuel mileage and was available today dealers could not keep them on their lots.

 

You must be old, Pete had their air leaf in the late 60's, still very similar to todays Pete suspension, and KW had that great torsion bar suspension. I wonder how many drivers today have never even been in a cabover but still talk bad about them. It was much better to take a nap on the doghouse than the steering wheel. Empty weights with a steel 40 ft flat were around 27,000, under 55 ft long.. Maybe if we went back to 55 ft length laws there would be more room to park

The big improvement in fuel mileage came from improvements other than cab design, things like radial tires, clutch fans, synthetic lube and electronics


How many would be willing to drive a CO if the money was right?

 

I would. At one point, I was actually thinking about getting a cabover, and stretching it to put a big bunk on it. Since a CO is so much shorter than its conventional counterpart, I could get away with a lot more, and not have to worry about the excessive wheelbase.

HD, you know the Landstar driver who has the red cabover, pulling the flat with the red curtain. I'd be proud to drive that truck.

 

>How many would be willing to drive a CO if the money was right?
I would too. Heck they must weigh at least 2,000 lbs less than anything else. That's more payload baby.

 

I too had thoughts of buying a cabover and having it stretched,but I heard parts are getting harder to find.

My first truck was a cabover IH single screw that I used to run from MI to the east coast every week,and that was back when I-80 was really bad,I mean REALLY bad!.......my back and kidneys are still scared I'm sure.

 

Freightliner still makes them. There is an outfit, I think out of the Seattle area, that runs
them up and down the left coast. Strange thing is though they are built with about the same
WB as my 4 axle W900L, great big gap between cab and trailer, you could launch aircraft off
the back deck

 

There are a couple of companies here in Calif running the Freightliner Argosy with stretched frames, to allow for Droms behind the cab. One of them is Green Valley Trans (40 trucks) who haul military munitions and other hazmat specialty. I believe the ride must be pretty good given the amount of bombs they haul?

Here take a look (hope it shows the pics)… :> http://www.gvtd.com/FSequipment.html ....click on trucks at the top of the list when you get there.

It's surprising how much room there is in them. No more doghouse. You can walk around just like any other truck today.

I don’t think they made them after 2004. If the EPA CARB-KYOTO-emissions get implemented here in Cal they’ll have to spend a lot of money to retrofit the motors to meet the requirements. Thankfully, It looks like CARB is on hold thru 2009 for now. If Calif keeps deficit spending, (40 Bil in the hole) the way they are, it may never get put in force (I hope).

 

Are al Volvos crap? Yes they are. The company I work for has been going Volvo for a little while now. We still have some T800s, T600s T660s and a few W900s along with some 379s and other Petes. The boss has been trying the Volvos because the few that he started out with were getting 1 to 2 mpg better then the other trucks. That is alot of money being saved each month when you have better then 70 trucks in the fleet on the local side only.

The only problems are he can't keep the Volvos on the road. Between electrical problems and problems with the regeneration function etc. Not to mention that the 5 newest Volvos (purchased just a couple months ago) are blowing egrs and Turbos like they are going out of style. Can't keep them out of the shop for more then a week at a time.

Seems Volvo is now getting Titanium bearinged turbos or something because the heat is tearing the turbos apart.

 

Here's an easy formula:
EPA emissions Eng loss of mpg + Areo truck improvements= Improved or offset mpg
Vs
Non-areo truck w/EPA Eng - loss of mpg= added loss in mpg

To me, what's the obvious conclusion?....Run those older trucks (pre-2004) as long as you can. Before the EPA requires all to be retrofitted to 07/08 Eng standards. Then the proverbial you know what hits the resale-value-fan. Eight other states have said they'll follow Cal with the same CARB provisions! I think that means they'll all go for it eventually?

While they can, I know many who are rebuilding older engines rather than getting into the EPA-emissions engine problems. The 2004 to 2006 ISX has proven itself to be a good motor. Problem is, all Eng manufacturers attempting to meet the 07/08 next generation EPA requirements are having trouble….as Rat stated

It's why CAT got out. They're sick of the unrealistic EPA nonsense!