WHAT DID you do today?

[Sparkie77]

yeah I always thought the T600 had an advantage in gas mileage due to its aerodynamic design & narrow cab

The anteater is about as aerodynamic as a brick wall compared to the 386.......

[Brickman]

I had a weird dream again. lol

I was driving (the dream, not actually driving while sleeping) in a rural area about to merge onto a highway. Someone yelled the red light doesnt work, and im like Do'h and went ahead. Then I saw my self driving using my G27 wheel and shifter. I was on a bumpy highway with some curves and then im driving the SISU. Shifting gears and some traffic. Graphics were pretty good . I guess it was a dream


I was using my G27 wheel yesterday. Some dreams I have are caused my certain events in the day or if im playing games before I went to bed. Had a pretty nasty Skyrim nightmare one time lol. Cant remember most of it, but I remember it was bloody and lots of swords a slashin 1st time for a RoR related dream though.

[White Death]

Procrastinating at work.Nothing to do, since we decided to open up on a bank holiday most of our usual crowd already bought their usual supply of BBs gas batteries,etc..
Only thing to do is mess with the Barret M82 in the stock room XD.

[danny529]

Woke up, cleaned up my yard from hurricane sandy, ate lunch, practiced piano, did homework (no school yesterday and today), here I am.

[White Death]

Went to do da jorb and maked da monies,came home played games and eateded da foodz.

[Sparkie77]

Cleaned some pistons and connecting rods. Scotchbrited a head. Pulled a radiator off a 378.

[asyed]

drove my Car in a "Tropical Storm" :|

[Jeepster]

The truck design doesn't effect the mpg that much, its usually all about whats under the hood. Our grey Superliner gets around 8 and it's about as aerodynamic as a brick wall.
And I don't think a T600 is that much, if any, more aerodynamic than a Peterbilt 386, and they both have basically the same drive line.

It does and it doesn't. We don't hit a high enough speed for aero dynamics to really come into play, but like all things in life, every little thing helps.

The slope of the hood is the least important thing; you've got to move that air, and a Peterbilt long nose doesnt really have much more square footage on the grill than a 386 or a Cascadia. What it does have is air breathers, cab side stacks, lack of side skirts, etc. The T600 os probably still the most aero dynamic mid roof truck on the market, but I hate the look of the T660. If they still made the T600 i might consider it, but i'd rather not drive a 660.

There are more aero dynamic trucks than the 386, but you losenout on having rhe resale value of a pete.


Yesterday, fought all morning to keep my truck on the road, delivered a load of stone slabs north of toronto, came home and hung out with the girlfriend, slept, now playing minecraft360

[Mercedestrucker]

It does and it doesn't. We don't hit a high enough speed for aero dynamics to really come into play, but like all things in life, every little thing helps.

The slope of the hood is the least important thing; you've got to move that air, and a Peterbilt long nose doesnt really have much more square footage on the grill than a 386 or a Cascadia. What it does have is air breathers, cab side stacks, lack of side skirts, etc. The T600 os probably still the most aero dynamic mid roof truck on the market, but I hate the look of the T660. If they still made the T600 i might consider it, but i'd rather not drive a 660.

There are more aero dynamic trucks than the 386, but you losenout on having rhe resale value of a pete.


Yesterday, fought all morning to keep my truck on the road, delivered a load of stone slabs north of toronto, came home and hung out with the girlfriend, slept, now playing minecraft360

Jeepster,
While your right that you don't reach really high speeds and need a more aerodynamic body shape, a well designed aerodynamic truck will invetibly reduce fuel consumption, provided your comparing apples to apples, not trucks with completely different specs. Am I wrong? The reason the EV1 was honed until it had little drag was because even at 70kph it adds a lot of resistance. On a truck the difference isn't so big because of the mass your moving, but nevertheless the air resistance effects your mpg. So what is better on a suqare pete then on a n aerodynamic one? Would there be a reason to buy a model like yours instead of say the 579 etc?

[BadgerRidge719]

It does and it doesn't. We don't hit a high enough speed for aero dynamics to really come into play, but like all things in life, every little thing helps.

The slope of the hood is the least important thing; you've got to move that air, and a Peterbilt long nose doesnt really have much more square footage on the grill than a 386 or a Cascadia. What it does have is air breathers, cab side stacks, lack of side skirts, etc. The T600 os probably still the most aero dynamic mid roof truck on the market, but I hate the look of the T660. If they still made the T600 i might consider it, but i'd rather not drive a 660.

There are more aero dynamic trucks than the 386, but you losenout on having rhe resale value of a pete.

ah now makes sense...yeah Peterbilts are prob tops in resale value. can't imagine buying a new Cascadia and then watching the resale value go in the toilet. i know alot of people don't like the new T660 at all, although the styling doesn't bother me.

what about the International LoneStar? nice classic styling and it looks like it would get decent mpg.

[CrownVicFan2012]

Today , i had an interview at Ford , i think im hired

[Jeepster]

Jeepster, While your right that you don't reach really high speeds and need a more aerodynamic body shape, a well designed aerodynamic truck will invetibly reduce fuel consumption, provided your comparing apples to apples, not trucks with completely different specs. Am I wrong? The reason the EV1 was honed until it had little drag was because even at 70kph it adds a lot of resistance. On a truck the difference isn't so big because of the mass your moving, but nevertheless the air resistance effects your mpg. So what is better on a suqare pete then on a n aerodynamic one? Would there be a reason to buy a model like yours instead of say the 579 etc?

Like I said, every little bit helps. A Kenworth T700 with the same driveline as a Kenworth K1000 Cabover is obviously going to get better mileage. But the difference between say a Peterbilt 386 and a Kenworth T660 or Freightliner Cascadia is negligable. But you also have to consider other factors into buying a new truck than fuel mileage alone; see next part.

ah now makes sense...yeah Peterbilts are prob tops in resale value. can't imagine buying a new Cascadia and then watching the resale value go in the toilet. i know alot of people don't like the new T660 at all, although the styling doesn't bother me.

what about the International LoneStar? nice classic styling and it looks like it would get decent mpg.

The resale on a lonestar isn't great either. Better than a prostar for sure, but in the end, all a lonestar is is a prostar with a fancy hood.

The best trucks for resale value are the Peterbilt 379 (389), and the Kenworth W900. Other models from those manufacturers don't necessarily have as good value in resale. The Peterbilt 387 has shit resale value, for example.

Lets look at a direct real life comparison. 2005 Pete 379, and 2005 Freightliner Columbia. The Pete gets an average of 7.02 mpg, and the Freightliner I think averaged 8.6 last quarter. The pete is currently worth about $50,000. The Freightliner is worth about $25,000. (mileage considered).


I think the 386 gives you the best of both worlds. It's not going to resale as good as a 379 or 389, but it's going to be better than a Cascadia or ProStar. And it's better looking then a T660 imho.

I would actually prefer to have a DD15 in a freightliner, but apparently the 13 litre Paccar engine is supposed to be really good, and get good mileage. It's rated at 475 hp and 1,650 ft-lbs, so it's not underpowered either.


ON-TOPIC: I took pics of the girls today. And the rare T600 of our fleet, caught in Caruthersville MO.

[Mercedestrucker]

Like I said, every little bit helps. A Kenworth T700 with the same driveline as a Kenworth K1000 Cabover is obviously going to get better mileage. But the difference between say a Peterbilt 386 and a Kenworth T660 or Freightliner Cascadia is negligable. But you also have to consider other factors into buying a new truck than fuel mileage alone; see next part.



The resale on a lonestar isn't great either. Better than a prostar for sure, but in the end, all a lonestar is is a prostar with a fancy hood.

The best trucks for resale value are the Peterbilt 379 (389), and the Kenworth W900. Other models from those manufacturers don't necessarily have as good value in resale. The Peterbilt 387 has shit resale value, for example.

Lets look at a direct real life comparison. 2005 Pete 379, and 2005 Freightliner Columbia. The Pete gets an average of 7.02 mpg, and the Freightliner I think averaged 8.6 last quarter. The pete is currently worth about $50,000. The Freightliner is worth about $25,000. (mileage considered).


I think the 386 gives you the best of both worlds. It's not going to resale as good as a 379 or 389, but it's going to be better than a Cascadia or ProStar. And it's better looking then a T660 imho.

I would actually prefer to have a DD15 in a freightliner, but apparently the 13 litre Paccar engine is supposed to be really good, and get good mileage. It's rated at 475 hp and 1,650 ft-lbs, so it's not underpowered either.


ON-TOPIC: I took pics of the girls today. And the rare T600 of our fleet, caught in Caruthersville MO.

Thanks Jeepster! You have a great looking truck btw.

[White Death]

Cleaning up the stock room and getting ready to go home,Myself and a few friends are going out to town in our airsoft gear later on.

[BadgerRidge719]

ON-TOPIC: I took pics of the girls today. And the rare T600 of our fleet, caught in Caruthersville MO.

nice rigs, Jeepster. I like the clean lines, without all that excessive pep boys chrome shit

today i worked on school (bleh).

[Sparkie77]

Jeepster you need the fill in plates for the blinkers... Well I guess since you're getting rid of it, it doesn't really matter... But it'd look sweet

[Jeepster]

Jeepster you need the fill in plates for the blinkers... Well I guess since you're getting rid of it, it doesn't really matter... But it'd look sweet

Fill in plates? Do you mean those chrome covers that go over the signal lights? Not a fan of those :/

[Iceman [U.S.]]

Dug up 50 lbs of potatoes.
Put a 2001 VW Passat 1.8T on blocks and leveled the transmission pan. Took off the front wheels and discovered that the front left hub doesn't rotate very easily like it should.
Other miscellaneous manual labor.
Played a bit of Battlefield: P4F.
Posted here.
Went to bed.

Plans to start off tomorrow.
Dig the other 50 lbs of potatoes.
Check transmission fluid level.
Remove brake calipers on the front left wheel.
Continue from there if the problem is not solved.

I'm really starting to hate this car.

[Sparkie77]

Fill in plates? Do you mean those chrome covers that go over the signal lights? Not a fan of those :/

Like you take the signal off and they go on the end of the headlight.. I think it looks cleaner personally... But to each their own.


I haven't done anything so far.. Waiting for our parts to come.

[Jeepster]

Like you take the signal off and they go on the end of the headlight.. I think it looks cleaner personally... But to each their own.


I haven't done anything so far.. Waiting for our parts to come.

Oh I got ya. Nah, then I'd have to put signals on the bumper or fender. No way in hell i'm drilling my fender, and i'll probably destroy the light on the bumper once the snow banks start growing. I don't have enough experience with a long nose and a spead axle trailer to confidently say i wont hit my bumper.