|
Post by Chris on Jul 30, 2009 1:32:38 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2009 2:28:02 GMT -6
Your right but whats the price on the Prostar compared to the pete ?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 30, 2009 2:47:56 GMT -6
Probably less, maybe the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2009 3:07:59 GMT -6
IDK I'm sure if Peterbilt did the testing, it would throw the results a bit too. I like the 386 for looks better. IDK about confortability though.
|
|
|
Post by danny on Jul 30, 2009 15:12:38 GMT -6
i gotta get me one NOT! its fugly i prefer the pete
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2009 17:29:53 GMT -6
Wow, thats some interesting data, makes we want to buy a Prostar right now.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 30, 2009 18:06:32 GMT -6
I would take the prostar over the pete anyday for comfortability. They handle better than any paccar truck I ever drove, although they're close to being equal. I like the 386 better for looks too, when they're dressed up nicely with side pipes. But overall, I think the prostar looks better if the 386 has all the aerodynamic pieces on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2009 19:38:32 GMT -6
You drove a Prostar?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 30, 2009 20:05:46 GMT -6
Yeah, last year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2009 21:31:47 GMT -6
It seems slightly biased but I can tell you one thing. You wont spend as much on repairs if you have to make them on the Prostar
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2009 14:26:59 GMT -6
Chris, have you driven, or atleast sat in a 386 aswell?
|
|
Dan
Gold Certificate Member
Herder of Nerds
Posts: 3,141
|
Post by Dan on Jul 31, 2009 14:43:37 GMT -6
wow.. thats as objective as bill o' riley but if you look at the stats, it would seem that the prostar owns... makes sense considering the prostar was made after the 386
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 31, 2009 22:23:16 GMT -6
makes sense considering the prostar was made after the 386 Yeah, exactly. In time I'm sure it'll be beat out. Although international always had the most aerodynamic trucks. I mean, the 9400 has been leading aerodynamics for years, I'm pretty sure it's still close to the prostar in terms of aerodynamics, and that truck has been out for years. kwobbler, not in a 386 no, I drove a 379 though which has the same cab and interior. My dad's friend drive's a 386 for arnold bros, I'm hoping to get in the drivers seat in that one day atleast.
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Aug 1, 2009 8:42:00 GMT -6
yea, the international may cost less, but: you get what you payfor, ie. the interior squeeks, i was talking to my Dad and he was in one, and the brand new truck w/ 0 miles, squeeks. now, if you pay a bit more for a pete, you bet a better ride quality, and there is more option parta available. look at the www.chromeshopmafia.com truck of the month its a real nice anreodynamic 386 ;D
|
|
eclipse
Gold Certificate Member
Posts: 320
|
Post by eclipse on Aug 1, 2009 8:49:55 GMT -6
Remember those old pickup commercials with Ford vs Chevy and Chevy vs Ford... ya bais as hell. My 2 cents. We have 4 4300 internationals and 2 8600 internationals at work. All daycabs around 2006. Same cab as a prostar. I use to like internationals I'm not impressed with these trucks at all. They seem cheap to me and stuff breaks easier... IE the mirrors door handles window cranks.. radios are all POS. We have one Peterbilt, its a 1998 with almost 500k. Its a 385 and its a little worn but that truck is way more solid than those internationals and rides more solid if you ask me. I'm over 6 foot and I have way more leg room in that pete than those 8600s. I wouldn't ever get a newer international from my experiences. Id hope since the prostar has a longer hood than a 8600 that it has better leg room than this crap!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2009 14:26:54 GMT -6
Remember those old pickup commercials with Ford vs Chevy and Chevy vs Ford... ya bais as hell. My 2 cents. We have 4 4300 internationals and 2 8600 internationals at work. All daycabs around 2006. Same cab as a prostar. I use to like internationals I'm not impressed with these trucks at all. They seem cheap to me and stuff breaks easier... IE the mirrors door handles window cranks.. radios are all POS. We have one Peterbilt, its a 1998 with almost 500k. Its a 385 and its a little worn but that truck is way more solid than those internationals and rides more solid if you ask me. I'm over 6 foot and I have way more leg room in that pete than those 8600s. I wouldn't ever get a newer international from my experiences. Id hope since the prostar has a longer hood than a 8600 that it has better leg room than this crap! Out where my Dad works they've got a 1988 peterbilt 377 dumptruck, it was a wrecked otr truck, then salvaged and turned into a dumptruck, it's got around 530k miles (not sure if that's one engine or if the mileage count was restarted) on it, and out of all the trucks I've rode in out there I can say that it's the smoothest riding, has the most leg room, cab space etc.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 1, 2009 15:16:08 GMT -6
You must be a small guy, petes have no leg room at all. Same with K-whops, except atleast the aerocab doesn't have that shitty back wall. All petes have the back wall therefor shatty leg room even with the largest bunk size they have, hell every friggin truck that has a back wall has shitty leg room. It's just common knowledge. I had enough room in the prostar, it was smaller than the 9000 series cabs but atleast it was more bearable than the petes and kens. Most definitely way more room between the seats. The prostar was more quiet too, not a sound came through the cab at all and it wasn't even a really new truck. Every seal was tight, no squeaks or rattles. The cab is made of steel on them so you get a nice loud thud when you shut the door. But yeah....the leg room wasn't a wildy huge difference from the pete and kennies I've been in, it's the shape of dash that gives you the extra room. Plus, a daycab....so shitty room anyways because again, that dreaded back wall. And eric, trust me man, those 8600's feel like a piece of garbage compared to the prostar. The only thing I didn't like was the mirror setup and windows. Honestly, this might sound dumb, but I was scared to drive the 8600 over 80 km/h, because it seemed that cheap. The prostar was no problem, actually I felt more confident in that truck than any other to date. It's definitely a good beginner driver's truck, tell you that much.
It's not really biased in some points made here, there's alot of truth to what was said in comparison of both trucks. IE: flat panel windscreens break easier and more often than a full piece windshield that's designed to deflect debris. I think it's kinda biased a few opinions only went to the peterbilt, because it's a peterbilt and the prostar doesn't have a long skinny hood.
|
|
|
Post by danny on Aug 1, 2009 21:42:31 GMT -6
but it has a big fat ass hood you can barely see
|
|
|
Post by PiñaKolata on Aug 1, 2009 21:49:53 GMT -6
ProStars are way overrated, besides almost every freaking company out there has them now, I'm getting really sick of seeing ProStars and Cascadias
My brother drove Internationals for years and didn't like them, that's also when he realized that the ISX Cummins sucks balls, nothing but problems with those trucks and that motor
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Aug 1, 2009 23:14:19 GMT -6
i kinda have to like cummins , seeing as my uncle is a cummins mechanic, but yea, know what im saying, i like cat, 'specially da 3406 and c-15, know what im sayin?
|
|
|
Post by PiñaKolata on Aug 1, 2009 23:21:21 GMT -6
I'm 6' 4" and I've never had problems with leg rooms in Peterbilts and Kenworths, and I've driven a 2007 short nose Peterbilt 379 and a 2007 Kenworth T600, I've also driven a 2005 International 9400i Eagle and out of all the trucks I'd say the KW had the most room, the Peterbilt was also nice on the drivers side, and the International I didn't like at all, the center counsel thing kept jabbing my knee and just uncomfortable for me, and on all 3 of them the leg room totally sucks on the passenger seat for a guy my size, but I guess if you are driving them neither of them were that bad, but the KW was by far the most comfortable, but the Pete rode the best and had the best seats
Edit:
I've also sat in several trucks that I never actually drove, and the most leg room I've ever experienced was in a Peterbilt 387 and a Kenworth T2000, both driver and passenger room was outstanding in those trucks
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Aug 1, 2009 23:24:05 GMT -6
what kind of seats in the pete? my dad has bostrom wide rides there really comfy, you know what im sayin?
|
|
|
Post by PiñaKolata on Aug 1, 2009 23:26:30 GMT -6
Would you stop saying that, and IDK they were just typical Peterbilt leather seats idk other than that, know what I'm sayin?
|
|
eclipse
Gold Certificate Member
Posts: 320
|
Post by eclipse on Aug 2, 2009 0:03:23 GMT -6
I'm 6ft4 as well and got plenty of leg room in a pete daycab, especially compared to the international daycab, but never driven a truck with a sleeper only daycabs. I sure hope the prostars seem better than the 8600 cause they suckass. I'm just saying I rather drive the pete that is 10 years older with 400k miles more than the crappy ass international.
Oh and those door window setup internationals piss me off. I can't get if my whole arm in the window sill with the window down. ALso if your ac goes out, you get zero air flow from that crap ass little window.
ps... had a few beers, I aint proof reading shit toonight
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 2, 2009 4:34:28 GMT -6
Well, I guess we all have different tastes. But that back wall on them petes and kens is a bigtime hassle, my knees are always kissing the dash. I dunno why you had that problem in the I-nat, They have more legroom than any of the kens had that I been in. And I dunno, about your theory with peterbilt having nice seats...... they certainly don't compare to the newer model kenworth seats. My dad has em in his truck, way nicer than the peterbilt seats. Not as wide on the ass part but definitely nicer to look at, they got wicked lumbar support for just a standard seat and they're made of nice material. I'm pretty sure they were changed to a newer model in 08 as my dad's 07 t8 at j&r hall had different ones.
And about ISX engines, that engine was probably abused beyond recognition aaron. My dad's 08 t800 has a 475 cummins ISX dual cam, I haven't seen an engine run any better than that does. Although, once they';re abused, they'll have problems. The ONLY problem with the on in my dad's truck is it spits black soot and makes a weird noise if you leave the jakes on full for too long when you're not usin them. And that's because the previous driver ran the bag out of the truck and didn't service anything properly, and used fucking ether all the time to start it in the winter. If you don't know what that is, it's a can of engine starting fluid you spray into the breathers when you turn the key over if the truck is too cold to start. The truck even has a wabasto preheater but the previous idiot (same guy who ran the truck full speed into the side of a body job) didn't bother to use it. Yeah fuck, a bit off topic here, but that just shows how much bullshit ice road truckers is played out. They don't use ether to start their trucks. Here it gets so cold sometimes you must in the wintertime. Sheesh. Played up much?
Anyways, saumel lee, you can see the whole hood when you're sitting in the driver seat.... so, I dunno....well, we all have our own tastes anyway. It's just in comparison, the prostar really does have better features than the 386. It's obvious features too. That's why they made the prostar the way it is, to go above competition.
|
|