I have a company and I do buy/sell, scrap and machinery moving. I have a Freightliner FLD112 and it works well for what I do. A very good basic truck, daycab, A/C, 10 speed, and everything is working. I have a wet kit on it. However, I feel a business need to add a second tractor unit, as I feel that I can make much more money with two semi tractors. I also feel that it would be beneficial if that second unit was suitable for overweight loads, say capable of hauling 70-90,000 lbs loads or some such, with a triaxle trailer (which I also do not have at the moment). So, I thought, I could look for trucks with a third rear pusher axle. Are all tri-axle trucks have that third axle as a pusher, or are some of them permanent? How much harder is it to turn with three axles? I buy only used equipment. I would, I think prefer pre-emission trucks up to 2007, does it make sense? Any suggestions for what brands to prefer or avoid?
Find yourself something in the 1998-2002 range with a Cummins or Detroit. I personally would stay away from Caterpillar power, but that's a personal view. If you want to add a pusher, you need truck with at least a 250" wheelbase if it's a sleeper, or 200" if a daycab. Make sure it has a 13 speed and you should be good to go. Do not worry about finding one with big rubber or a heavy front axle because unless you plan on buying an RGN with an extended neck, using a pusher you aren't going to be able to get more than 12,000 on the steer anyway.
Sometimes the easy way to get the wheelbase you want is to buy a sleeper cab and then take off the bunk. Often times these trucks are reasonably priced especially if they are in the 15 yo range. +1 on the N14 Cummins. 13 speed, maybe, for off road activities I would prefer a 15 speed although finding one would be hard to do.
I kind of set my eye on this peterbilt with a long hood. 2007, 280k miles. Assuming it is a good working truck, what do you guys think. Is that an oilfield only truck or it can be useful in an urban setting? It is kind of pretty looking, long hood peterbilt with a big cat engine.
In 2007, Cat was having a lot of issues with their truck engines. That truck was probably built about 2 miles from my house here. There were almost brand new Petes, being hauled back in to the factory on lowboys and behind wreckers due to failure of the Cat engines. The plant had new trucks sitting in rows out back waiting on engines that Cat could not deliver, due to manufacturing and engineering problems. This was all happening in the 2007-2009 time period. The Cat engines, from about 2006, until the end of Cat highway truck engines, are some of the worst engines ever built by Cat. In fact, this engine disaster, which the 2007's are part of, convinced Cat to abandon the whole on-highway engine market. I would not buy that truck.
Thanks for a great piece of warning, I had literally no idea but I am sure that you are right. Any idea what was wrong with those engines?
lets count some problems #1 egr issues #2 twin turbo's #3 exhuast valves operated with an actuater not a rocker arm and camshaft. these are the issues I saw in short time I was around the 2007 truck engines . Company I worked for had a fleet of pre 2005 sterlings with C-15 and 3406E cats 475hp those were excellent engines very few problems engine wise just cheap truck issues mostly
After 2002, when everybody else went to EGR and moved on with their lives, Cat thought they had a Better Idea and came up with the awful ACERT engine which was hyper complicated. Off the top of my head it had staged twin turbos and some kind of Rube Goldberg electric hydraulic valve actuators that allowed exhaust back into the cylinder under some conditions so they could say it did not have EGR. There were other systems too. As the years went by they just got worse and worse until Cat threw in the towel. Some of them may have been OK but most people consider them a time bomb and you never know which one you will get.
With the right deletes and a tuner the Acert will flat pull. Basically turns it into a pre-emission 6NZ. I've had several acert motors, still have one. It's a BSX. MSX are later model and tend to be more reliable. For sure stay away from 07 on and anything with that darn ARD head. Spark plug on a diesel? Wth? I had on 09 Pete with one. What a POS. Now back to the original post..... Not sure where in the US you are but your local laws may determine how many axles you need to legally scale 90k payload. Around here 260" wheelbase with a drop axle is the magic number for making weight. Do a setback front axle like a KW T800 or similar. 14,600 front is acceptable. 46k rears are better if you happen onto a truck with them but 40's will work. Need to stay low geared. No taller than 3.90's depending on tire size. I prefer 4.11 with low pro 22.5 and 4.56 with tall 24.5. Don't need to be in a hurry grossing 130-150k and it helps reduce driveline stress with a lower rear end. 18 speed is the transmission of choice. Resist the urge to throw a truck together that's not meant for the job. Small drivelines, small radiators, tall gears and a flimsy frame will not hold up long term. Throw in a cowboy for a driver and it may come apart quick. Trailers are a whole other subject we can get into! If the truck is loaded right and the neck is long enough to load the pusher and the steer axle turning is not bad. Not as easy and short as with it up and truck empty but not bad. Look for a steerable pusher, not a 12k but a true 20k. They're nice to get around with. I've had two trucks with them. It'll be like any other decision, budget vs potential income etc. I could absolutely overload you with information. In my former life I ran a heavy haul company and still consult on some of the super heavy loads from time to time. On ocassion a few trailer manufacturers ask for help too! Haha Junkayrd
If you are occasionally only going to haul a heavy load I wouldn't get a trio tri drive like that one it looks like more maintenance and tire wear to me. We have 2005 Kenworth with 240" wheelbase and 13,200 front and 46,000 rears with 13,200 steerable lift axle C15 acert msx with I think stage 1 pdi tune and 18 SPD with 4.11 rears things I would like different would be 20,000 lb front axle and 20,000 lb lift axle Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
A Cat powered from 2004 down would be Ok. But like others have said and truthfully 05 and up with Cat power your looking for trouble IMO. The N14 525 hp is a good engine the Cat 5EK through the 6NZ numbers are good. Here is one that's a little high priced but It has very good specifications, the 461 rear drives are real tough and the extended leaf walking beam is hard to beat. Truck Shop http://eastoregon.craigslist.org/hvo/5716678142.html
So, okay, all cats from 2005 and up are presumed to be bad? Is that right?
2005 and 2006 are liveable. Acert but not the extra crap the last models had. They can be a pain with the intake valve actuators and twin turbos. The later MSX are supposed to be better, I've had the earlier BSX and they haven't been any worse. Have one now in a 2005 KW that would make a good truck for you. It's about to get a new head and it will NOT have the actuators or twins, it'll be a 6NZ essentially. Maybe even a PDI ECM. If the price is right don't shy away from one. The 2004's can be turds if they have the "bridge" engine that Cat used as a stopgap before the Acert was ready. I don't recall the serial prefix for those. I've done a lot of hauling with a 3406B mechanical. They do the job but they're not quite as stout as an electronic model and if you turn the fuel to them you gotta watch the pyro. Low gears help. Junkyard
1200 calle ichudov, Thanks for sharing.
Yeah O think so. ___________________ Avalan Logistics Inc.