I have heard plenty of drivers discussing how much they enjoy driving their Volvos, Freightliners and Internationals. But then they start talking about these plastic trucks pulling better than Petes w/CAT's(379/388) and Kenworths w/CAT's(W-9). Can anyone who drives a PLASTIC truck explain to me why every time I'm in NC, TN, NM,AZ or some other mountainous state, and I see a oversized load, steel loads, most flatbed loads, their being pulled(with success) by a 379 or W-9. Sure there is an aero advantage and inside space advantage to the plastic trucks but, if you hauling panty hose and trapperkeeper notebooks to Walmart and you go flying up a mountain at 60mph, that ain't a test. I'm not saying these trucks can't pull the loads, but when I see them with heavy loads, 4-ways on, struggling, truck jerking every 5 second downshifting and jamming up the right lane.

If its not a PETE with a CAT, its a DOG!

 

My Cummins is a far better pulling machine. After all, if Cat was so good, they wouldn't be getting out of the business.

 

Look at it this way, all that extra air you are pushing costs you HP.

 

This topic always cracks me up since all big trucks pretty much get their engines,transmissions, and rear ends from the same manufacturers ...

The freigtliner century I had at Werner had the following...C-15...3.73 geared rockwell rear end ...and an 8spd with 9th gear auto ,which is the same as a 13 or 18 spd just without the splitter for the upper or lower gears .The 379's and w900's were identical set up ,but only had 3.55 gears in the rockwell rear end ...in reality the Freightliner with the deeper 3.73 gears was set up to out pull the pete and KW with only 3.55 ...But it does not matter what brand you drive it's how it's set up ...now looks are a different story .

 

The only difference between one brand of truck and another when it comes to pulling power is the drive train and how it is set up. All trucks are basically the same when it comes to how they operate and function. Aerodynamics can make a difference when it comes to fuel mileage but the gearing and the driver has more to do with fuel mileage than anything else. I have a International that I have consistently gotten around 6.29 average fuel mileage. Most drivers that I have put in that truck seem to get around 5-5.5 mpg. I also own a KW that I usually get around 6.91 mpg. The driver I have in the truck right now is getting 5.5 mpg. Both have CAT 3406E engines. The only difference is the drivers. The International seems to pull a little better but the KW has respectable pulling power. The difference in in the gearing and aerodynamics. I hate to see CAT getting out of the class 8 truck business in the U.S. They were unable to meet the EPA requirements imposed by the feds so they are getting out of the business. I understand they will be doing some sort of joint venture with International using their engines.

 

It's my understanding that Cat is unwilling not unable to meet the EPA requirements because the EGR system thats being forced on them reduces the life of the engine and in reality doesn't improve the emissions.

I've run a lot of trucks over the years and have found that the large engines do better in the mountains, hmmm, go figure.

Most of the "plastic" trucks are large fleet trucks like Wal-Mart, Pensky and Ryder and don't have the C-15 in them. Most of them have cut-back detroits in them or M-11 Cummins. There are many with other engines but my point is that the fleet owners cut the engines back to prevent damage to the trucks and to improve mileage.

Not very many large fleets run the 379 because they don't have the aerodynamics and they cost 10-20% more. Fleet owners pay their drivers by the mile or % of revenue, so they don't care that it takes them an extra few of hours to get from Denver to LA. It's all a matter of economics. As GMAN pointed out, the hired driver doesn't drive the same as the O/O because they don't have to pay for the fuel or the repairs.

In the end, the "plastic" trucks shouldn't be expected to keep up with the 379 with the C-15 especially in the mountains.

Anyway, I'm with Rev, I prefer Cummins though it makes me unhappy that they discontinued the N-14. I haven't run the ISX yet but I've heard a lot of good about it.

 

The N14 is one of the best engines Cummins has made. I know some who plan on keeping them. The ISX doesn't seem to be as strong an engine as the N14. A friend of mine has a N14 and plans to retire with it. Although I prefer CAT I would consider a N14. One thing that I find is that CAT engines don't seem to require a rebuild as quickly as Cummins or Detroit. Of course, you will pay through the nose for parts when you do rebuild it. You can rebuild a Cummins for about $10,000. A CAT will usually cost $15,000 or more. Of course, these figures are dependent on what is replaced during the rebuild.

 

The ISX has come a long way from its shaky beginnings.

 

That pretty much sums it up.

Cat's buisness was ALWAYS in off road and construction equipment anyway, they got into truck engines for the extra money, it is no longer lucrative for them, so they bailed.

Cummins on the other hand is an engine maker, they don't do much else, or have much to fall back on.

There are plenty of "plastic" trucks with big Cat engines in them, I really think its the driver, not the "plastic" truck after all the truck can't operate by itself.

 

Kind of wonder what would happen to a Cummins or Detroit if it was put in a dozer. How long would they last ? Those construction hands climb up, fire it up then push the throttle to the stop and that's where it stays pushing dirt all day.
Over the years I have found Cats are a far tougher engine and will take more abuse than either of the others.
Try re starting a 140,000 lbs load going up Tehachapi with a Detroit and see what gear you are in when you reach the top, first ! Happened to me last trip before I took "winter vacation" Two Swift truck "racing up the hill" one at 14 in the slow lane and one at 15 in the left lane. Slow lane missed a gear and nearly ate 215,000 lbs of truck, trailer and load By the time my little Kitty reached the top we were back in sixth