Kenworth K100 weight?

I have a 95' intl coe. I have always experienced great m.p.g. 6.5 m.p.g. I still am not sure why? at 65 m.p.h. my rpm's are at 1700 if I drop to 60- 62 m.p.h. I can get 6.8-7.6 m.p.g. I thought with a brick wall going down the road it would not get good m.p.g. I also have a very short wheel base. cab is close to trailer leaving a very narrow wind gap. I have a 11.1 ser 60 detroit. when I bought mine all the hoods were going for twice the price with higher mileage. mine was cheaper, cause nobody wanted to be seen in one. after over 11 years I am still driving it. just had inframe done 4 months ago with over 1.3 mil miles on it. the inframe was done just because. I do as much work as I can myself. I go from front to back, top to bottom every wknd. I have taught myself a lot of tips & tricks over the years as well as tips from others. it is nice to hear some one looking to buy a truck who does not have champagne taste on a beer budget. I am not saying you have to buy the cheapest or even a old cabover. when I bought mine things were so different. now, trucks are extremely cheap. you can get a conventional at a great deal. you just have to look around. I think if one could get an old cabover for just a couple or few thousand to start, that may work. I was told, or should say read that the 262 cabover pete was one of the trucks with the best m.p.g. & the most aerodynamic, though dont ask me how that was calculated. when I used to haul heavy weight loads but low loads like skidded coils or brick, something that did not catch the wind going from in to grand rapids mi & back at 60-62 m.p.h. I would ave 7.6 -7.8 m.p.g. that was on flat land, but still at that time I figured 2 rounds a week would save me 800.00 a month compared to 65-70 m.p.h. my truck has always been good with the mileage even up into 1.3 million miles. best of luck. take your time deciding.

 

The problem is comparing apples to oranges. Low displacement in a COE isn't the same as a big bore in a conventional. Put a tiny 11L or 12L in a conventional and you get great MPG... you just don't get anywhere fast. Most people just don't like driving the 11L and 12L trucks which is why they are so cheap once the fleets are done with them

 

If you find something more aerodynamic than this on an18 wheeler I want to see it.

 

i drove a k-100 for a while. i loved the looks of it but it got old fast having to crawl into and out of the sleepr everynight. Anyways:

1) i want to say between 13,000 and 17,000 for weight. i know that does not tell you much, but i think wheelbase has alot to do with it. Also, if you have aluminum wheels vs. steel this could make a difference.

2) i'm pretty sure i was getting at least 6mpg (was governed to 65) and mine like some other k-100's had a detroit engine. But alot has to do with how you drive.

a) 13" is actually the "magic" number for distance between tractor back and trailer. But in general, the closer you can get the trailer to the tractor the better for mpg.

3) i think cabovers make engine work easier----inframing, overhauls etc.

We really need to bring cabovers back into trucking. This is yet another problem with society.

 

i had a 1990 372 just like this.400 big cam 9 spd. everywhere i went guys would always say"man that is one ugly ##&*$! truck!". made money tho!!!!

 

I have a super 10 trans. been flawless it is original. new cluth at 1.1 million miles. dont know the rear ratio.