Am i wrong to want one?

Now that my drive is down to five miles I could probably keep fuel in it,

One more styling fad (retro design cues) that heavy truck manufacturers have borrowed from passenger cars. Thank heavens they never put any fake convertible tops on these things.

That thing is godawful ugly. My favorite part is that it's just a tacky front end tacked onto an otherwise standard cab. The cab remains boxy, this is just some rush job to get some funky styling bit out. One thing is for sure, it is targeting a very small niche in the trucking market.

Bryce

It's coo'

I think the bottom grille needs to be changed though... too much like a weird little smiley face

i actually think that could be pretty popular, i have seen a few rigs that the drivers have slightly modded, and that thing screams get out the way.

Reminds me of a really bad Stephen King movie.

Heh. Maybe not quite.

• J

I saw some data someplace where they talked about fuel mileage gains from that front end, but I can't find the data now.

nah....I like the old MAC trucks myself.

Looks like there was a PT Cruiser in the woodpile...

I like it. The Cadillac Edge design theme upsized.

So THAT'S why I hate going near a Toys-R-US...?

geomiata wrote: i actually think that could be pretty popular, i have seen a few rigs that the drivers have slightly modded, and that thing screams get out the way.

That's why I think this truck has a very small market, it's a very polarizing vehicle that would be aimed towards people who had older trucks they modified and wanted to replace. It would only be owner-operators buying it, and owner operators are running really tight budgets right now. When the budget gets tight (especially with fuel being so high) the first thing to go is considering buying a new truck. If somebody is buying a new truck now, they'd most likely be buying it for either better reliability, better fuel economy, or for a new look. This truck only caters well to the new look thing, which means they're catering to a small percentage (people buying for new look) of a small percentage (people buying new trucks when margins are so low) of a small percentage (owner-operators) of the market.

ignorant wrote: I saw some data someplace where they talked about fuel mileage gains from that front end, but I can't find the data now.

I think you're thinking of a different International, as those air filters, exhaust stacks, brow, etc. are all huge no-nos when working towards aerodynamic improvements. I haven't seen any without the air filters like that, so I ASSumed it was standard with that front end. I don't think International would have to guts (stupidity?) to call this truck aerodynamic, but I also haven't looked at much of their advertising either.

Bryce

Better looking trucks means a better looking world. I dig it, along with some of the "aero" looking Volvo's I've seen lately.

My brother has a new Volvo "aero" it gets something like 8mpg thats right 8.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4248351.html

So it gets better total mileage than 2 Suburbans. You think you could cram as much stuff into 2 suburbans?

I'll take one of those new Mack "Titan Series" tractors please..

http://www.truckpaper.com/images/Truck/fullsize/77556241.jpg

... something like 605hp and 2,060lb-ft torque at 1200rpm's

I think the Peterbilt 386's are the best looking aero's at the moment, though I saw a batch of Sterlings on the road the other day and they had the most wicked looking roof fairing.

Here is an article on classic vs. aero tractors.. http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=47566

PHeller wrote: http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4248351.html

For reference, the quote on fuel economy reads:

As part of Navistar’s Advanced Classics line of Class 8 trucks designed with advanced aerodynamics, the LoneStar is projected to be 5 to 15-percent more fuel efficient than traditional trucks.

A "traditional" truck is the kind that looks like this:

They aren't saying the truck gets decent fuel economy, they're saying that it gets better fuel economy than a 30 year old truck design does. Heh, of course it does, but how does it compare to something like the Peterbilt 387, Freightliner Cascadia, and International ProStar?

Bryce

just buy an International CSX(?), not like your gonna be hauling a trailer

Volksroddin wrote: My brother has a new Volvo "aero" it gets something like 8mpg thats right 8.

That's damn good. Do you know what engine/trans/axel ratios he has in that thing?