" >
Aerodyne can only come from aerodynamic. Some people have noted that they are seeing less of these K100 trucks. Owners also note that they can sometimes load more than most because their light weight is lighter. But you have to be careful about the front axle weight. Another thing to weigh for those considering buying one of these vintage trailers is that they have lower costs to buy, but their engines are more inefficient.
The reason they’re cheaper than conventionals might be that less people want to run them, so it might be possible to get them cheaper for a newer model with less miles than a conventional at its initial price. But the other thing is that a lot of these have been worn right out and scrapped. They also look very attractive — sometimes luxurious — with big sleeper units attached to them. They become almost like RVs and sell for much more.
One trucker online put the difference between COEs and conventionals in these terms: “The difference between aero of a COE and a conventional (especially if you’re comparing an 80s K100 against a 90s T6 for example) is not cut and dry. Europeans drive cab overs for length not aero reasons, but because they have to drive COEs they have made a number of improvements in aero for them. The old cab overs in the US were never designed to be efficient like modern aero trucks have been.”
Are cabovers in North America sort of being held back in design because they are not popular with drivers and owners? I should say not as popular, because there are a lot of people who are extremely enthusiastic about cabover trucks. Or are cabovers in the States and Canada benefiting from design improvements developed n Europe?
The milage on these is around 6.5 mpg.
One thing a lot of people say about these trucks, though. They look very cool coming down the road, especially when they have those long custom sleepers, whether stock or modifications.
