Considering A Trade

[Underdog]

I would like to gather thoughts and opinions on a truck trade I am considering. I have an opportunity to obtain a very clean 1985 Superliner with an E6 350. This truck is almost completely rebuilt, so age & reliability are not a major concern. I would like to work this truck in place of my 2000 CX Vision, which would be traded or sold.

Sweet Polly has already registered her opinion, that being I am certifiably nuts if I give up my current ride for a truck that is 15 years older. It is somewhat of an emotional decision for me; my CX is a perfectly good truck that has served me well, but I have always wanted a Superliner. Input from all would be greatly appreciated!

[Rob]

I would like to gather thoughts and opinions on a truck trade I am considering. I have an opportunity to obtain a very clean 1985 Superliner with an E6 350. This truck is almost completely rebuilt, so age & reliability are not a major concern. I would like to work this truck in place of my 2000 CX Vision, which would be traded or sold.

Sweet Polly has already registered her opinion, that being I am certifiably nuts if I give up my current ride for a truck that is 15 years older. It is somewhat of an emotional decision for me; my CX is a perfectly good truck that has served me well, but I have always wanted a Superliner. Input from all would be greatly appreciated!

Hi Greg, I probably wouldn't hesitate to make the trade however would retain the old unit, (Vision) for two to three months as a cheap insurance policy. The E6 series engine is as easy to work on as a small block Chevrolet, Ford, or Chrysler and virtually bulletproof if maintained properly with limited abuse. I'm not biased, just know what it takes to make a living. You don't operate a truck for the fun of it so I'd wager that you can't afford the downtime; I understand Polly's bias, but don't side with it as a killing point.

I plan to operate an much older truck using the original components so I'm not really one to talk.......

An RW series is a classy ride in my opinion. Not many still run the roads that look nice and it would be an asset to see another. The Vision is a nice truck also but "run of the mill". They just don't catch my eye when driving like an old "R", or "RW" series does. Hell, I admire all older trucks come to think of it.

Rob

[Underdog]

These are my thoughts as well, Rob. I do most of my own maintenance and repairs, and my CX is now over a million miles, so that part doesn't concern me. An older truck with no computer is simpler to maintain, IMHO and it dont get much simpler than an ol' reliable E6. Polly worries for me that I will be giving up creature comforts for the sake of style. But I am willing to accept the loss of cruise control and power windows. I have always been comfotable diving an R and this one seems to be a viable truck to do my job.

[Superdog]

I ain't felt like saying much in here for quite awhile,but I'm going to add my 2 cents worth on this topic.I went from a '99 CH to a '86 Superliner last year.There's no truck on this earth of any make that drives as good as a Superliner.But I went a different route,my Superliner has no Mack components.It was pretty hard for me to go from Mack power to Cummins,but there was one main reason I did this,Volvo.They are making it harder and harder to get parts for older Macks,and the ones you still can get are way overpriced.Plus,dealers don't stock older parts the way they used to.They don't want you to run older equipment,they want you to buy their new crap.I can go almost anywhere and get parts for my truck,NAPA,Cummins,truck stops,off brand truck dealers,etc.Had to replace the front rear end seal(Mack rear ends) in my '85 Superliner that my son drives a couple weeks ago,got the yoke off and it was grooved pretty bad.Dealer had to order the part,$354 and the truck was down 2 days.Makes me sick as hell but as long as Volvo hold the leash,it's only going to get worse.

[Underdog]

Valid points, indeed, Superdog. I miss my old V8 MH, but would not consider another V8 for the reasons you state. I see the same trouble coming down the line for any pre-EGR truck. E6 engines are still plentiful and reasonable to work on. I also have the benefit of a competent parts dept. at my local Mack dealer that can still get older parts as long as they are available. Although it is rather scary that they are changing over to VOLVO part numbers...

[mackcl96]

I see no problem with the RW trade. The Rw will hold its value longer in history then the newer trucks.the E6 is little weak since you are coming from a 460hp plus truck with a average MPG of close to 7. you can get 6 something out of E6.(you can turn them up) to run with 425 Cats but if its 2-valve,I found valve seats are weak and 4-valve I had cam lobs wear down But I cant leave things stock.Now if it was a E7-400 mech, That would be a potential ANIMAL.

Around here E6 parts are not on the shelf at Mack dealer here.

[Underdog]

I see no problem with the RW trade. The Rw will hold its value longer in history then the newer trucks.the E6 is little weak since you are coming from a 460hp plus truck with a average MPG of close to 7. you can get 6 something out of E6.(you can turn them up) to run with 425 Cats but if its 2-valve,I found valve seats are weak and 4-valve I had cam lobs wear down But I cant leave things stock.Now if it was a E7-400 mech, That would be a potential ANIMAL.

Around here E6 parts are not on the shelf at Mack dealer here.

Resale value has never been my foremost concern. I usually just buy what strikes my fancy at the time, and plan on long term ownership.

My Vision is a 427, and pulling bucket I average around 6 mpg now, so I would expect similar fuel economy with an E6. Truthfully, the fuel economy on my Vision has always been somewhat disappointing. I bought this truck new in 2000 when fuel first went over $2 a gallon, trading in my V8 MH cabover. That V8 would get 5 mpg no problem. Now to jump from 5 to 6 mpg has saved me a good deal of money, but I would think electronic controls and aerodynamics would yield better economy than 6 mpg. A good driver on an older mechanical engine can match that. Technology ain't all it's cracked up to be.

My priorities have adjusted over the years as well. I am in this to make money, but I am financially comfortable at the moment and don't have to kill myself working. A little downtime at home waiting for parts isn't the end of the world. My home dealer, TransEdge(Allentown Mack) is still pretty good at finding older parts.

[Double L]

Yeah Underdog you would think with all the advances in technology trucks would be getting over 10 mpg right and same with cars you would think they would be getting 50-60 mpg. Oh wait that would cause the oil companies to lose money. So all this talk about fuel efficiency is a complete bunch of BS.

[daveigou]

Re-sale is probably a wash here. From a dealer standpoint, even though your CX looks to be in outstanding condition, the fact is the mileage and the configuration hurts the value. If the RW and the CX were sitting side by side, I'd rather have the RW on my used lot. I also think whatever you may lose in fuel economy, and some creature comfort, will be off-set because the RW is so relatively easy to maintain yourself verses going back to the dealer every time the dreaded "lightning volt" appears on the dash. The RW has no lightning volt!!

And after that all said, you can have a really good day looking out over hood of an RW. I agree with the rest here that an RW is about as good as it gets.

Dave

[Underdog]

Yeah Underdog you would think with all the advances in technology trucks would be getting over 10 mpg right and same with cars you would think they would be getting 50-60 mpg. Oh wait that would cause the oil companies to lose money. So all this talk about fuel efficiency is a complete bunch of BS.

In my own twisted way of thinking, I like to make some kind of statement by running older equipment and being profitable. I'm not buying into the new pollution technology either. I could buy a brand new truck, but risk the same downtime(possibly more) than a 20 year old truck, all while trying to make a payment every month. I have seen many of my colleagues lose everything trying to make truck payments.

[Double L]

In my own twisted way of thinking, I like to make some kind of statement by running older equipment and being profitable. I'm not buying into the new pollution technology either. I could buy a brand new truck, but risk the same downtime(possibly more) than a 20 year old truck, all while trying to make a payment every month. I have seen many of my colleagues lose everything trying to make truck payments.

My point exactly and the same with pick up trucks. Mine may not get the best gas mileage in the world but neither will a 2009. Wow a whopping 25 mpg which is an estimate. By the time you figure in driving style, how much weight you put on it or what you two on a daily basis you'll round out to about 15 mpg so your not really saving any money. Like you said the only difference is your making a payment on it every month and not really seeing a savings. I noticed that with new trucks is there seems to be so many problems with them mainly engines/emission control crap that no wonder why so many guys are going out of business. Blame California and their over regulated emissions crap.

[Double L]

Honestly who cares about resale value really? Most owner's keep their trucks for a million miles then some and they run just as great as fleets who upgrade every 500,000 miles. I don't see the point in selling trucks every 500,000 miles and buying new ones. Oh wait dang it I forgot they don't want to own them after the warranty expires on them.

[Underdog]

That is one more reason I may change trucks, to trade off my Vision while it is still worth something. Pre- EGR trucks are getting a good price right now, before they are completely outlawed.

I would like to keep them all and just add to my stable, but Sweet Polly objects if I have more trucks than I can drive at one time!

[Double L]

I don't understand how they can outlaw something that there is a huge supply of. Not everyone can afford to upgrade to a new emission truck. But the Government doesn't care at all!

[daveigou]

In this economy about the last thing I would invest in is a new truck. The cost to replace your CX with a new comparable would be about 110 - $120k depending on equipment, plus the cost per mile to maintain goes up about 300%.

You pay a lot of money for two thing you don't want, Federal Excise tax, and all the emissions add-ons. Right now the first years depreciation on a new sleeper truck in some cases is probably getting up to 25-30%.

We're seeing a lot of owner-operators & small fleets buying used pre EPA 2007 equipment, even pre EPA 2004.

Dave

[Double L]

In most cases most fleets are not even upgrading at all which hell I don't blame them.

[Underdog]

I don't understand how they can outlaw something that there is a huge supply of. Not everyone can afford to upgrade to a new emission truck. But the Government doesn't care at all!

They are already starting out in California. Jan 1,2010 anything older than 1993 will be banned from the ports of L.A. and Long Beach. Anything older than 2003 will need emissions upgrades. And what starts in CA. usually spreads nationwide eventually.

[Underdog]

In most cases most fleets are not even upgrading at all which hell I don't blame them.

That is why the new truck market is in the tank. It has more to do with EPA regs as it does the economy.

[Underdog]

In this economy about the last thing I would invest in is a new truck. The cost to replace your CX with a new comparable would be about 110 - $120k depending on equipment, plus the cost per mile to maintain goes up about 300%.

You pay a lot of money for two thing you don't want, Federal Excise tax, and all the emissions add-ons. Right now the first years depreciation on a new sleeper truck in some cases is probably getting up to 25-30%.

We're seeing a lot of owner-operators & small fleets buying used pre EPA 2007 equipment, even pre EPA 2004.

Dave

This is why I am not even considering a new truck. I have found a couple CHN's that are very close to what I would spec, but I don't want to accept the financial risk of being a guinea pig.

I figure I will get the truck I want now(Superliner), and in the future if the EPA says no way, I can put antique plates on it and go back to turning wrenches.

[Double L]

They are already starting out in California. Jan 1,2010 anything older than 1993 will be banned from the ports of L.A. and Long Beach. Anything older than 2003 will need emissions upgrades. And what starts in CA. usually spreads nationwide eventually.

As far as I know you have to have a 2007 and newer truck by 2014 I believe. Hell at the costs it costs to retrofit an older truck with this crap around $30,000 I believe you can have a newer truck. They get ya coming and they get ya going.

[mackcl96]

Resale value has never been my foremost concern. I usually just buy what strikes my fancy at the time, and plan on long term ownership.

My Vision is a 427, and pulling bucket I average around 6 mpg now, so I would expect similar fuel economy with an E6. Truthfully, the fuel economy on my Vision has always been somewhat disappointing. I bought this truck new in 2000 when fuel first went over $2 a gallon, trading in my V8 MH cabover. That V8 would get 5 mpg no problem. Now to jump from 5 to 6 mpg has saved me a good deal of money, but I would think electronic controls and aerodynamics would yield better economy than 6 mpg. A good driver on an older mechanical engine can match that. Technology ain't all it's cracked up to be.

My priorities have adjusted over the years as well. I am in this to make money, but I am financially comfortable at the moment and don't have to kill myself working. A little downtime at home waiting for parts isn't the end of the world. My home dealer, TransEdge(Allentown Mack) is still pretty good at finding older parts.

Very true I deal with Blue Mountain same group,but was thinking with one truck you don't want to delay your customers load waiting on parts.Also I had problems years ago with liability insurance on older (Dump trailers) check to make sure a 25 year old truck wont give problems on your policy.

I know you had a V8 and this 427 but I would really hook the RW to your dump and see what you think I ran both 350s and they are not powerhouses

One last Thing, Is the Superliner a one or two early or late 85 and where is the PICTURE's

[Underdog]

I drove a half worn out RW 350 years ago and dont remember complaining about the power. I am not a power junkie; I have always been happy with a 300 or 350. Reliability is more important to me. Of course a test run under my trailer & load is a must.

This truck is on Truckpaper.com and I am surprised it hasn't sold yet. Decent RW's are getting harder to find.

[other dog]

My point exactly and the same with pick up trucks. Mine may not get the best gas mileage in the world but neither will a 2009. Wow a whopping 25 mpg which is an estimate. By the time you figure in driving style, how much weight you put on it or what you two on a daily basis you'll round out to about 15 mpg so your not really saving any money. Like you said the only difference is your making a payment on it every month and not really seeing a savings. I noticed that with new trucks is there seems to be so many problems with them mainly engines/emission control crap that no wonder why so many guys are going out of business. Blame California and their over regulated emissions crap.

That's the biggest problem we have with a fairly new fleet of trucks- "emission control crap". I pick up the free newspapers at truckstops, "Movin' Out". The "Pittsburgh Power" (pittsburghpower.com) guys have an article in it every month and they explain how they can get 8-10 mpg. out of an engine along with 700+ hp. Good stuff. Expensive i'm sure, but you can tell they know their stuff, no Pelosi.

[Double L]

That's the biggest problem we have with a fairly new fleet of trucks- "emission control crap". I pick up the free newspapers at truckstops, "Movin' Out". The "Pittsburgh Power" (pittsburghpower.com) guys have an article in it every month and they explain how they can get 8-10 mpg. out of an engine along with 700+ hp. Good stuff. Expensive i'm sure, but you can tell they know their stuff, no Pelosi.

Yeah man them Pittsburgh Power boys sure know what they are doing. I think there was a Mack Superliner that is used in the tractor pulls was modified by Pittsburgh Power.

[mackcl96]

I drove a half worn out RW 350 years ago and don't remember complaining about the power. I am not a power junkie; I have always been happy with a 300 or 350. Reliability is more important to me. Of course a test run under my trailer & load is a must.

This truck is on Truckpaper.com and I am surprised it hasn't sold yet. Decent RW's are getting harder to find.

That is a sweet ride,seen it in the Truckpaper before with a higher price I think.

IT will turn my head if I seen it hooked to a Mac going the other way

This truck would have to be seen in person because $70,000 into the truck is allot and really cant see it in the one picture and little info they give