Opinions Mack Vs Kenworth

Sterling_owner · Apr 4, 2004

http://adcache.trucktraderonline.com/4/8/2/67610082.htm
2001 Mack

vs

http://adcache.trucktraderonline.com/4/0/8/67607208.htm
1999 Kenworth

Any opinions, experiences or insights would be greatly appreciated!

2 1999 Sterling Semis
2000 Ford F650 24ft box truck
Now hiring driver in Cleveland, Ohio area.

Lawrence · Apr 4, 2004

I have to defer the technical stuff to the Weave-meister - but for what it's worth, the KW is an awesome looking drive.

Lawrence,
Expediters Online.com

-----------------------------------------
Thanks For Visiting EO!
[p]
http://www.expeditersonline.com/hotnews/sterling_eo_forum.jpg

Please Help Us Get The Word
Out About Expediters Online.com!
-----------------------------------------

Weave · Apr 4, 2004

They are both good trucks. Macks are durable, but seem to be underpowered for highway trucks. Still a great price for an '01 Vision, and Macks hold their value well.
They didn't mention the mileage on the KW, but it too looks like a good deal. I've heard a little whining from KW fanatics that the T2000 is harder to service than other KW's. That set aside if it checked over OK, it wouldn't hold me back.
The Macks that were fleet maintained might have records you can look over. That would be a selling point for me. Looks like either-or in this showdown.
-Weave-

guest · Apr 4, 2004

I've been told that the Mack engines get very good fuel mileage. No way to comfirm that as I've never owned one. I think either truck is probably very reliable.

Sterling_owner · Apr 4, 2004

Weave,

The millage on the kenworth is I believe 500k as well, I'll have to call and double check Monday. Anyway to bump up power on the mack? I think I could get one for $19,500 but the biggest complaint from my drivers are underpowered trucks.

2 1999 Sterling Semis
2000 Ford F650 24ft box truck
Now hiring driver in Cleveland, Ohio area.

Sterling_owner · Apr 4, 2004

Just got an email from the seller, seems that the macks have ~800k miles on them (of the 4 he checked: 802k,804k,801k,806k)

2 1999 Sterling Semis
2000 Ford F650 24ft box truck
Now hiring driver in Cleveland, Ohio area.

Weave · Apr 4, 2004

I can say this with all honesty- if your drivers hate underpowered trucks, don't buy a Mack-- unless you hate your drivers:7
There are a lot of CB-trucker jokes about Macks, but I can't think of one that is clean enough to post

-Weave-

pelicn · Apr 5, 2004

We have a friend that drives a Mack and really likes it. Hubby drove a 2000 KW T2000 (autoshift) with the same engine as the one in the ad. He now drives a 2004 T2000 500 Cat (both company trucks, both governed at 68 mph) Yes, the first one was slower on hills, but averaged 6-7 mpg. The newer one averages 4-6 mpg.

E7mack96 · Apr 10, 2004

Well I have to disagree about macks

I have a 2000 Mack Cl 713 and it has a 460XT engine (487 HP @ 1800)(1760 Tq @ 1700) This engine is in front of a 13 speed transmission and runs like a scalded dog. I can actually outrun cars from a stop when empty. It pulls loads up the Ky cut in the hill at 55-60 grossing 80,000 lbs.

None of my other engines runs like this one, including CAT and Detroit.

Performance is solely dependant on specs.

davekc · Apr 12, 2004

having the truck spec'ed correctly has more to do with its performance than the make.

Sterling_owner · Apr 12, 2004

Well the seller of mack's called and said a dealer just bought his entire fleet of them. Now to look into that kenworth.

2 1999 Sterling Semis
2000 Ford F650 24ft box truck
Now hiring driver in Cleveland, Ohio area.

Weave · Apr 16, 2004

Out of curiosity for the specs on Macks. Why are they spec'ed more for high torque applications (Dump trucks, fuel haulers, bulk haulers, etc.) than get up and go highway trucks?
-Weave-

Sterling_owner · Apr 16, 2004

I have no idea, it was a fleet of at least 25 trucks hauling US mail.

2 1999 Sterling Semis
2000 Ford F650 24ft box truck
Now hiring driver in Cleveland, Ohio area.