Maxidyne

You made a good decision, 2006 is the last year for (relatively) simple emissions systems and I'd worry about parts supply and just plain material fatigue on 20+ year old trucks. A decade from now 2010 and later trucks will be the best deals. You're right on older trucks getting banned too- Already happened at some ports and at SEMA the EPA pretty much served notice that they're going after "deleted" trucks, so I figure old trucks are next in line.

I don't get into the details that much, I look at the results. Several big fleets have been pooling their data and reporting it via the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE). They report that fuel mileage was around 6 MPG before the 2007 emissions requirements and took a hit until the 2010 emissions regulations. With most of those 2007 and previous emissions standards trucks now flushed out of their fleets fuel mileage is now up to around 7 MPG. They track repair costs too, and while their was a rise with the 2007 emissions trucks those costs came back down with the 2010 emissions trucks. So looks like the 2010 and later trucks get MPG as good as the pre-2007 trucks and the repair costs are no higher. Looking at another pool of data from the hundred truck or so fleet that Joel Morrow of Ploger has been posting about online, their Volvo fleet with the odd Mack is seeing better MPG and less emissions problems from the latest generation of Volvo engines that use Common Rail fuel injection. They've also learned a lot about the care and feeding of emissions systems, for example they're replacing less DPFs since they started preemptively cleaning them before they triggered an alert. As for DEF use, it's all over the map... At 28k miles I just had to buy my 2nd $8 jug to feed my 2015 TDI, so I don't worry much about it. Gets the same 40s MPG as my 2003 TDI and both were an improvement from the high 30s of the 2013 that tried to slide by with no SCR and was doing way too many regens. Like the auto emission controls that everyone struggled with in the 70s and has now forgotten about, the manufacturers are getting better at it and the inventories of rebuildable pre-2007 engines are dwindling, never mind the numbers of rust free trucks to put them in. We're near a decade into SCR, 13 years into DPFs, a couple decades into electronic engine controls, and there will soon be no way back.

Ivanuke and Mack Technician, you're right- For a low mileage operation the overhead cost of a new truck would be crushing. I live in a rural area so a lot of the freight is ag related, for example a farmer might only run 10,000 miles a year with their grain truck to the elevator. On the other hand, theres a good sized fleet here that hauls feed 24/7/365, they put on the miles quick and trade their trucks off before they're 5 years old. They have a food grade tanker operation too, one of their subcontractors is running a 6x2 lift axle Anthem that's getting 9 MPG!

TS7, I never owned my own class 8 trucks because I did the numbers and it was pretty obvious that it was more profitable to drive a truck than own it.

Smart subtle marketing by Autocar! BTW, saw a Ford tractor model today and it said "Ford Authorized" on the packaging. Ford ain't built tractors in almost 20 years... Are they planning on buying CNH and returning to the tractor market?

Every truck needs maintenance, old trucks need more repairs. Most of the companies I drove for ran their trucks two shifts a day and often six or seven days a week, so the technicians only had a couple hours between shifts to work on them as we didn't keep a lot of spare trucks. With the newer trucks they could schedule the maintenance and repairs tended to be lights, tires, etc. that could be done in an hour or so between shifts. Older trucks often needed major component rebuilds that took the truck out of service for days, requiring expensively renting replacement trucks. You can see the runaway costs of double shifting old trucks in the Hostess bankruptcy filings- They last bought new trucks in 2004 and by the time they shut down in 2012 the average fleet age was 18 years. The bankruptcy filings were full of six figure bills owed to ruck rental companies. There's also the cost of obsolete equipment- If Hostess could have replaced the whole transport fleet in 2012 they'd be getting 8 MPG instead of 6 MPG and have increased productivity too.

That's a safety defect, report it: https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/VehicleComplaint/

And for that kinda money we taxpayers should at least get some doors!

Older trucks make sense when you're in a seasonal business like construction, logging, or agriculture where you have an off season to do rebuilding and often nights off to do repairs. But your goal should be to get financially to the point where you can buy new so you can take advantage of the latest technology to improve productivity. While the 7 MPG the last of he Mack engines can achieve is great, if you put on a lot of miles the 9 MPG the new trucks can provide damn near makes the payments.

Given that you found non original parts in the original engine, that may not be the original engine. Or the "original" engine may be only a 300 or 350 horse, "uprated" by an over zealous seller. IIRC some of the 12 liter engines also used an offset cam drive and the could throw the timing off a bit, but even a couple degrees off it should still start. Such are the hassles of 20 year old trucks, and good on the Mack engineers for helping you out.

Council decided unanimously to have our city lawyer send them a cease and desist letter. Guy paid way too much for a dirt floor unheated pole building and an old house, hopefully he won't lose to much reselling it.

Old trucks are great if you get a good one and have a slow season to work on them. When you've got a daily high mileage run, not so much. Tonight our city council will have to decide what to do with a two truck operation that bought a house with a pole building in a residential zoned neighbor hood and thinks they'll turn it into a shop. They have my sympathies, but their business plan makes no sense- running decade or more old Freightliner and Kenworth on a 300 mile round trip bulk haul. Tractors are too heavy and cut into their payload and I'd be surprised if they're even getting 6 MPG. They've already got more money into the building then their trucks are worth, and yesterday they were in the unheated dirt floor shop trying to fix a custom rear of tractor light bar that ain't even DOT required. To be honest, even if we rolled over and gave them a rezoning I doubt they're going to make it... They're competing with a small tank fleet owner whose new Macks are getting 9 MPG hauling similar loads, with that kind of MPG he don't need to fix old trucks.

That's a 19 year old truck, not worth swapping major components around. Once a highway truck is over 10 years old it's not worth enough to justify major repairs or modifications.

Easier to just buy a truck with the transmission you want.

Volvo made the same mistake- Their US/Canada volume of their proprietary engines, especially the 11 liter units, is too low to be profitable. Would make more sense for them to offer the X12 and let Cummins spread the fixed costs over several truck brands.

At the high efficiency highway end of the spectrum Mack has built a couple one off tractors for 4 truck operator Jamie Hagen and small fleet Ploger. Both are one offs, they're not even identical, featuring single drive axles with very long gearing, 14k front axles with thicker frame to suit, air lift pusher axle, and full aero and then some. These trucks are averaging 9-10 MPG!

If you look through the options it's still possible to spec a Mack with some pretty heavy axles, suspension, and frame- For example they've done some 6 axle chassis for concrete placing equipment. But having only 505 Volvo horsepower is holding back the Mack brand in this market.

Sounds like GM ain't quite ready to get back in the work truck biz...

Good points. And while I generally stay out of politics here, if folks wanna talk about politicians, please quit obsessing over candidates who haven't run in years and hold no public office.

Canadians ain't gonna give up their health care to join the U.S.. Same reasons Norwegians ain't migrating here anymore, and a lot of Americans are taking advantage of the offers of dual citizenship from EU countries.

I wasn't planning on buying any FCA products anyway, as they're about the most unreliable vehicles on the market. Peugeot's diesels have a good reputation, perhaps they can improve the FCA products?

A small company has to find a niche and specialize, but Ford is one of the world's largest automakers and can afford to cover most all markets- Cars, SUVs, trucks, big trucks, tractors, etc.. Having a broad line is a big advantage in corporate sales- Daimler will offer the low end Mercedes cars to fleet customers in a package with the trucks to win a big order, Ford can't do that now.

I've had all too much experience with Freightliner "cross cab ventilation", in a blizzard you could see the snow blow right through the cab! Those cabs were so flimsy that a hit in just one corner would tweak the whole cab out of shape, and I've seen a mirror get hooked on something solid and the door would be bent all outa shape while the steel mirror bracket was fine. Those old Freightliners fell apart fast enough on the highway, I don't think they'd survive off road for long!

I'll agree with that, many of the suppliers like Bosch make their products available to everyone and are used by just about everyone. Chrysler still has some engines of it's own and a few contemporary platforms and might be profitable in today's North American market, but if the market turned back to cars they'd be in trouble.

But there a lot of FIAT tech and parts in today's Mopar vehicles.