What's new

Estes | MPG?

nightowl

nightowl

TB Veteran
PREMIUM
Credits
446
I know Estes runs PeopleNet and was just wondering what it shows for your average MPG each night. I have PeopleNet at my current employer and I usually get 7.0 - 7.4, sometimes a little more sometimes a little less depending on the circumstances. I just wonder this because we’re told that turning our trucks up would send fuel mileage skyrocketing. I can’t believe we’re getting that much better fuel mileage than you guys are with your trucks turned up....
 
I get 7.0-7.5 with a glider kit on a bid run on flat ground. My buddy at RL carriers claims his gets similar MPG running 5 mph faster than I on a regular basis.
 
Frootloop said:
I get 7.0-7.5 with a glider kit on a bid run on flat ground. My buddy at RL carriers claims his gets similar MPG running 5 mph faster than I on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Automatics get les MPGs from my experience. 10spd manual with about 75k gvw I can get 7.5-8 with just a few hills.
 
The only way I can even sniff a 7mpg day is pulling vans or empty set.Quite a few hills and a couple mountain pulls on my run,though.Usually low to mid six,depending on weather and weight.
 
Cummins 10 spd. Hilly terrain half the trip. 6.8-7.5 depending on how heavy I am. Usually over 7 pretty consistent. Truck runs 67 on cruise and I can bump it up to 69 for a few miles to get around the ABF drivers a little quicker. I shift around 1500 and run it up to 1600-1700 on steep hills if I'm heavy.
 
Loaded I'm usually right around 7.3 at 67mph for a majority of my trip. If I'm empty or have a light van I've seen it get up to 8.3.
 
We tried out some Freightliners with 15 liter Detroit motors. Mine was set to 67 and got almost 8mpg every day and pulled like crazy. I don't know what they didn't like about them but we're still stuck on these ISX Cummins. Better than the Volvo motors at least. And the MaxxForce motors but a 4 cylinder gas motor would be better than those.
 
NiteVizion said:
I’m thinking it doesn’t. If it did why would Estes bump them up like that?
Click to expand...
Estes bumped their trucks up in 2000 because of terminal 029. The mileage and cost was also their excuse before that though. I also figure if it made that much of a difference in cost, UPS would not run their trucks the way they do. They are one of the biggest cost efficient company there is.
 
nightowl said:
Estes bumped their trucks up in 2000 because of terminal 029. The mileage and cost was also their excuse before that though. I also figure if it made that much of a difference in cost, UPS would not run their trucks the way they do. They are one of the biggest cost efficient company there is.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they turned them down to 65-66 about 5-6 years ago and turned them back up last year.
 
nightowl said:
Estes bumped their trucks up in 2000 because of terminal 029. The mileage and cost was also their excuse before that though. I also figure if it made that much of a difference in cost, UPS would not run their trucks the way they do. They are one of the biggest cost efficient company there is.
Click to expand...
What do you mean turned up because of 029?
 
NiteVizion said:
Yeah but they turned them down to 65-66 about 5-6 years ago and turned them back up last year.
Click to expand...
But 65-66 was still faster than they were prior to 2000, and the fact they turned them up higher proves to me that there’s not much difference in the MPG....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top