Kenworth Announces Sunset of the Iconic W900

[TomJD]

Kenworth Trucks

Kenworth Trucks

www.kenworth.com

I share the road with a lot of these and I’m also a fan of Smokey and the Bandit. Emissions is listed as a main reason why Kenworth is ending the production.

 

[Windex]

They can blame it on emissions all they want, but the real reason is that these legacy trucks are too expensive for today's market. Fleets which used to pride themselves on appearances and the ability to recruit skilled drivers are ll but gone.

Nowadays, when I compare the w900 price against KWs more fleet oriented spec the t680, the w900 is 20 to 25% more expensive.

Shippers simply won't pay for that any more.

The emissions angle is a red herring at least for highway trucks. Most of these are sold with the 15L Cummins x15. Same drivetrain in both trucks, both can haul a road legal 40,000 payload just the same. Arguably far more more room under the hood in the w900.... I don't buy the emissions excuse.

The trucks are a legacy design which is no longer competitive in today's market.

 

[J_dude]

Fleets which used to pride themselves on appearances and the ability to recruit skilled drivers are ll but gone.

Ain’t that the truth. The vast majority of drivers and companies today seemingly couldn’t care less about either of those things.

Also @TomJD, that thread title makes no sense.

 

[dieseldonato]

Not surprised and surprised at the same time. Of the 3 the w900 makes the least sense. The t800 and c500 I get. Both kinda target a certain smaller market. I definitely don't buy the emissions excuse one bit. I'd wager it's more to do with slow sales/ high prices compared to other trucks. My Pete 548, 10 wheeler was the last Pete we got, went to western star for smaller dumps after that. I loved the truck, but no one else wanted to shift gears, and they were a lot more expensive then a compariable western star with an allison. (What I was told anyway.)

 

[TomJD]

I corrected the Thread name, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Windex]

The professional drivers who can no-clutch-shift an Eaton 18sp are just not the major market they used to be.

Days of chromed long nose pete 389s powered by a cat c13/15 are over. The question asked by every fleet manager these days with respect to anything past a run of the mill black plastic bumper automatic fleet spec is "is that extra cost needed in order to haul the freight"?
If the answer is no, then it doesn't get spec'd or ordered.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

Should have been retired decades ago, drove some T400s and T600s with the same cab and they were the worst trucks in a fleet that included Freightliner, International. GMC, and Ford. Only half decent KW we had was a little Brazilian built cabover, thanks to having a VW LT cab and Cummins engine. Real reason for dropping the old cab is they came out with a new cab a decade ago that the fleets will buy and probably a lot cheaper to build.

 

[bigsexyTDI]

They can blame it on emissions all they want, but the real reason is that these legacy trucks are too expensive for today's market. Fleets which used to pride themselves on appearances and the ability to recruit skilled drivers are ll but gone.
Nowadays, when I compare the w900 price against KWs more fleet oriented spec the t680, the w900 is 20 to 25% more expensive.
Shippers simply won't pay for that any more.

Ain’t that the truth. The vast majority of drivers and companies today seemingly couldn’t care less about either of those things.

100% on the cost. But to the second point, a lot of the fleets and drivers do care, but everyone's bottom line matters more. The drivers would rather take home more money than drive a prettier truck, same as the fleets. Pride doesn't have anything to do with it.

Not surprised and surprised at the same time. Of the 3 the w900 makes the least sense. The t800 and c500 I get. Both kinda target a certain smaller market. I definitely don't buy the emissions excuse one bit. I'd wager it's more to do with slow sales/ high prices compared to other trucks. My Pete 548, 10 wheeler was the last Pete we got, went to western star for smaller dumps after that. I loved the truck, but no one else wanted to shift gears, and they were a lot more expensive then a compariable western star with an allison. (What I was told anyway.)

No better value in the industry than Western Star dumps even for big tri and quad axles. I have legacy Pete fleets switching to WS.

The professional drivers who can no-clutch-shift an Eaton 18sp are just not the major market they used to be.

Days of chromed long nose pete 389s powered by a cat c13/15 are over. The question asked by every fleet manager these days with respect to anything past a run of the mill black plastic bumper automatic fleet spec is "is that extra cost needed in order to haul the freight"?
If the answer is no, then it doesn't get spec'd or ordered.

Ehh while mostly true, most decent fleets that want to hire and keep good drivers spec the trucks pretty well.

Should have been retired decades ago, drove some T400s and T600s with the same cab and they were the worst trucks in a fleet that included Freightliner, International. GMC, and Ford. Only half decent KW we had was a little Brazilian built cabover, thanks to having a VW LT cab and Cummins engine. Real reason for dropping the old cab is they came out with a new cab a decade ago that the fleets will buy and probably a lot cheaper to build.

This is the part that most of us Trucking Industry die hards hate to admit but is a fact. Both the 579 and T680 are just nicer places to be over a week on the road than their 389 and W900 brethren. They don't look as good, but they do just about everything else a fleet needs or wants better on average.

 

[oilhammer]

Isn't Western Star just a slightly reskinned Freightliner?

 

[Windex]

Nowadays yes, the 57x is a reskinned cascadia. The vocational trucks have equivalents on the Freightliner side as well. Detroit integrated power trains for all. Same diagnostics, parts etc save the different cosmetics.

More expensive as well.

 

[oilhammer]

Looks like Mercedes bought Western Star in 2000 and rolled it into Daimler truck with Freightliner...

So yeah, I thought they were the same underneath.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

Western Star is "complicated"- Started by White as a Canadian assembled sub brand in the 60s, then evaded Volvo ownership and was sold off to Canadian mining and lumber interests. Had brief ties with Sisu and ERF and came out with a new cab in the 90s that looked similar to the old one. Daimler bought about 20 years ago, Canadian plant closed, Freightliner cab substituted... You know the story.

 

[d24tdi]

When they say emissions compliance they aren't talking about tailpipe emissions, in the sense of criteria pollutants. They are referring to greenhouse gas emissions (directly tied to fuel economy). No matter what engine is under the hood, the W900L cannot hang with the modern smooth-cab trucks in terms of aero resistance. It must have gotten to the point that they just couldn't tolerate that anymore.

I spent two years working in the powertrain engineering and emissions homologation dept at PACCAR (parent company of KW and Pete) and saw the ins and outs of all this. Granted that was over 10 years ago so no doubt the game has evolved even further since then. But in order to meet the regs, there was a big focus even at that time on ways to incentivize the buyers to choose the aero package options -- fairings, skirts, wheel covers, etc. There were all kinds of interesting new aero technologies under development: systems that would pull the van trailer closer to the cab when driving straight down the highway to reduce the gap space then slide it back again for lower speeds or turns, APUs to reduce idling, etc. One of the ideas I thought was most interesting was a smart "predictive thermostat" in the cooling system that was tied into the truck's navigation system tracking terrain and elevation; it would pre-cool the engine to BELOW operating temperature when it foresaw that there was a long climb ahead, so that the truck would be more likely to be able to get to the top of the grade without needing to engage the fan clutch which would suck extra energy and fuel. Not sure if that ever reached production as I moved on when it was in the concept stage. Lots of people thinking hard about every possible way to save an ounce of fuel though. All of it factored into a scoring model for each tractor that was sold for OTR use/configuration.

And there were constant conversations about how to find a way to phase out the old legacy products that couldn't be made aerodynamically efficient no matter what kind of kit was bolted on (plus the W9 market didn't want aero gear anyway due to appearance). In the overall GHG scoring math, KW had to sell a lot of full-aero T680s to make up for the hit that their score took from every classic W900L that went out the door for on-highway use. Kind of like how Chevy used to have to sell a lot of Cavaliers to offset every Camaro and Corvette for CAFE averages back in the day and probably does something similar with the little Trax, etc. Loss leader models that made it viable to market the big dog models that were profitable. Granted, the premium KW could charge for their long-nose traditional model (which was often sold fully optioned) made the margins fat enough on the W9 that they had reasons to try to keep it in the lineup at almost any cost. And it was such a key part of KW's image as the "driver's truck", and they still had a small but very enthusiastic and steady market for it, that it all penciled out to keep offering it and selling in small numbers.

But when it reaches the point that they require improvements large enough that the W9's aero challenges cannot be overcome with any kind of technology, I think that probably put the writing on the wall. And, as others said, the pool of potential buyers probably shrinks smaller every passing year, and the trucks are expensive to build with a fully riveted cab, which they are just about the only model to still be using now that everything else (even the medium duty chassis) have transitioned over to the new style wider cab.

As someone who has also been on the wrenching side of the equation with this kind of equipment, I agree with the comment that the things people love about the old KW and Pete products make them generally miserable to own and maintain. They have a homebuilt feel to them and almost nothing is designed for easy serviceability. Newer style designs do a much better job, but they don't have the look.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

On the GHG emissions, I'm surprised the W900 lasted this long. IIRC the EPA created a "heavy haul tractor" category with less stringent GHG requirements that the W900 could find sanctuary in, but it's kinda hard to pass off a W900 that never pulled a permit load and has a huge sleeper and just 3 axles as a "heavy haul tractor" and the T880 more fits that role. You're right about the crudeness- the T600 with that old cab was the first conventional to invade our cabover fleet at Hostess and it did not go over well. The cab was an ergonomic disaster area- Too narrow to sleep across the seats but the pedals were located about right for a driver about six foot four with long legs- I'm five foot eight and had to make a throttle pedal block to drive the thing! The mechanics didn't like the KW either, a lot of service points like the batteries were buried away and they had to buy a transmission jack- On the cabovers they just tilted the cab forward and used the overhead hoist. Original plan was to replace half the 800 tractor fleet with 400 new KW T600s, after 200 they cancelled the order and went back to Freightliners!

 

[d24tdi]

Yeah that sounds familiar. I never learned the details of that "heavy line haul" category but it sure sounded like a loophole for fleets/operators/manufacturers to try to work around GHG regs with heavy spec or legacy-styled tractors. Not sure how extensively that category has been used, it would be interesting to see some numbers and learn what kind of rigs/operators are running under that classification.

The thing that struck me as interesting on the GHG rules was that, for once, those on the trucking end really had something to gain from the new regulation. Emissions regs up to that point had only led to increasing costs and headaches (EGR, aftertreatment etc) for the end user, but here was a new regulation that was all about improving fuel economy, which puts money right back in the pocket of those operating the equipment. The regulators, owners, and operators were really all on the same side with that one, everyone had something to gain -- including the manufacturers too, since they could market the (mandated) improved FE as a reason for fleets to trade up to a new model and save on fuel.

The fleets aren't dumb in the specs they are choosing. Those 11 and 12 liter aero-cab base-trim automated-trans Cascadias and T680s and 579s that do the bulk of the line haul miles around the country are out there getting MPG that the older trucks would not be able to touch.

@gearheadgrrrl agree on the old KW and Pete cabs, I never could understand why someone would want so little space in something they had to work in every day. Even the early aero KW models like the T600 and T660 still used that old cab. I think when Volvo came out with its new cab design in the late '90s and then FL put out the Century, operators suddenly figured out that making the cab as wide as the rest of the truck really improved the operating environment and the other truck makers had to step up and compete with modern designs. Too bad nobody offers COE configuration tractors anymore. PACCAR's European truck division, DAF out of the Netherlands, sells a great line of COE trucks, as do all the other makers in the rest of the world..... Evidently there is only a market for conventionals here in N America since the last domestic cabovers died off in the late '90s or so. Never have exactly understood why that happened, maybe just fell out of style.

 

[TurboABA]

I worked in the Class 8 bling industry for close to a decade.... over a decade ago....
It always blew my mind how much extra weight & unnecessary useless\expensive bling everyone in the industry was wanting on their already inefficient rigs.... and I'm not even talking about the owner\operator or custom show truck types.... I'm talking about OEMs and dealerships.

Have a look next time you're driving on a freeway.... how many rigs do you ever see without any SS crap all over them?
The bottom line is, the OEMs will only make what sells... and if the market wants blinged up bricks with crap FE, they will offer them as long as they can. When\if the market demands efficiency or anything else, the OEMs will react and make those offerings.

 

[dieseldonato]

Cab overs died because they all sucked. Sitting over top of a hot, noisy engine with a sloppy shifter didn't cut it for most drivers. They weren't very aerodynamic either. (Still arnt tbh.) It made perfect sense that they died off in most applications, spent quite a few years hauling grain in a cornbinder. Hated that truck, didn't like the freightliner version I ran a few times either. Only pluse side was forward visibility and they turned great compared to the forward engine counterparts. Maintenance was easier too.

 

[oilhammer]

Cabovers are alive and well. They just don't sell much here, but if Volkswagen brings the Scania brand here they might. They are highly regarded in other markets.

 

[TurboABA]

Cabover vs Conventional is just like everything else.... there's benefits and drawbacks, and you basically choose the best tool for the job.
This is one of the videos I've seen touch on some of the differences which provides a brief perspective into these.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

American cabovers got a bad rep because they're just plain crude, by and large. Some of the later ones like the Mack MH were a lot better, but by then the industry wanted conventionals so not many were sold. Best riding big truck I ever drove is a tie between a While RX low tilt cabover and a Freightliner FLC conventional with a Mercedes cab, both had air ride and the Freightliner had a neat coil spring and shock cab suspension too. As for the bling, fleets buy over 80% of the new trucks and with their buying power drive the prices down and profits are small. A lot of the owner operators don't shop anything beyond the long nose Petes and KWs and don't care about price, so the manufacturers love 'em.

 

[Windex]

American cabovers got a bad rep because they're just plain crude, by and large. Some of the later ones like the Mack MH were a lot better, but by then the industry wanted conventionals so not many were sold. Best riding big truck I ever drove is a tie between a While RX low tilt cabover and a Freightliner FLC conventional with a Mercedes cab, both had air ride and the Freightliner had a neat coil spring and shock cab suspension too. As for the bling, fleets buy over 80% of the new trucks and with their buying power drive the prices down and profits are small. A lot of the owner operators don't shop anything beyond the long nose Petes and KWs and don't care about price, so the manufacturers love 'em.

As O/O demographics shift over to new immigrants from other countries I find that driver long nose pete 389 preferences are shifting much more to Freight shakers and Volvos over Pete's and KWs

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

Agreed, a lot of immigrant drivers are already familiar with Volvo from their home countries. Other thing I noticed about Volvo owner operators is that they know their business a lot better than the showoffs with the long nose Petes and KWs.

 

[J_dude]

Other thing I noticed about Volvo owner operators is that they know their business a lot better than the showoffs with the long nose Petes and KWs.

Well I can’t say that was my experience, and I dealt with a lot of drivers when I was in shipping/receiving. Perhaps it’s a regional thing.

 

[d24tdi]

Always have wanted to try a FL Argosy, seems like that was just about the only modern domestic cabover that ever made it here and always appeared to me to be a nice design. Don't think they sold many though, and that was really the end of the COE trucks here. I still see them out on the road every now and then, but rare.

I run a couple Isuzu FRR cabovers for Class 6 straight trucks and like the space efficiency and service access and wide sightlines from the cab. No doubt the space considerations are the main driver for tight city conditions in other parts of the world where urban or regional haul operations are common but long haul OTR use is much more unusual than here (smaller countries and much more prevalent use of rail etc). I agree it seems hard to imagine a comeback for them in the N America market though, where long distance line haul use dominates the miles the trucks do. The typical format of a tandem axle conventional with a full size sleeper is not efficient with space on the road and a bad choice for maneuvering in the city, but out on the open American highway who cares. Deliver to a regional warehouse and then use straight trucks for the "final mile" city ops seems to be the system we have here, and the equipment has evolved to suit it.

Seeing the sophisticated COE trucks that are in other markets from MAN, Scania, DAF, Volvo, MB, VW, etc though, it's too bad they aren't here as alternatives. Can't blame the mfrs for not bringing them here for the very limited sales they would see, if any at all, and having to jump through all the emissions and NHTSA certs to do it, then also the aftersales support network for parts and service, and convincing prospective buyers that they were in the game to stay to give people confidence to invest in the equipment. Access to parts and service easily in any location is a huge consideration for vehicles like this -- no one wants to take a risk on a boutique brand that will get stranded somewhere waiting days for parts due to not having any local dealer out in the boondocks, so it's really all or nothing in terms of getting penetration into the Class 8 market. Maybe if one of those mfrs adapted the Cummins X12/15 line and standard Eaton gearboxes to their trucks they would have a shot, since the Cummins engines already have emissions cert and widespread parts support and are trusted even if they are flawed. But of course then that would eliminate the different powertrains that are part of what would make those trucks attractive. Or if one of the existing mfrs in the US market (Volvo for example) brought in something that shares parts with their conventional line and could be serviced through the same network that would also be viable. But doubt we ever see any of that happen either way.

 

[xccoach4ever]

The W900 is not as fuel efficient as others so you not only have upfront expense but back end as well. Still hate to see it go away.

The Volvo cab is the quietest that I have experienced. Even with 500,000 miles they are more quiet than a brand new Freightliner Cascadia.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

Always have wanted to try a FL Argosy, seems like that was just about the only modern domestic cabover that ever made it here and always appeared to me to be a nice design. Don't think they sold many though, and that was really the end of the COE trucks here. I still see them out on the road every now and then, but rare.

I run a couple Isuzu FRR cabovers for Class 6 straight trucks and like the space efficiency and service access and wide sightlines from the cab. No doubt the space considerations are the main driver for tight city conditions in other parts of the world where urban or regional haul operations are common but long haul OTR use is much more unusual than here (smaller countries and much more prevalent use of rail etc). I agree it seems hard to imagine a comeback for them in the N America market though, where long distance line haul use dominates the miles the trucks do. The typical format of a tandem axle conventional with a full size sleeper is not efficient with space on the road and a bad choice for maneuvering in the city, but out on the open American highway who cares. Deliver to a regional warehouse and then use straight trucks for the "final mile" city ops seems to be the system we have here, and the equipment has evolved to suit it.

Seeing the sophisticated COE trucks that are in other markets from MAN, Scania, DAF, Volvo, MB, VW, etc though, it's too bad they aren't here as alternatives. Can't blame the mfrs for not bringing them here for the very limited sales they would see, if any at all, and having to jump through all the emissions and NHTSA certs to do it, then also the aftersales support network for parts and service, and convincing prospective buyers that they were in the game to stay to give people confidence to invest in the equipment. Access to parts and service easily in any location is a huge consideration for vehicles like this -- no one wants to take a risk on a boutique brand that will get stranded somewhere waiting days for parts due to not having any local dealer out in the boondocks, so it's really all or nothing in terms of getting penetration into the Class 8 market. Maybe if one of those mfrs adapted the Cummins X12/15 line and standard Eaton gearboxes to their trucks they would have a shot, since the Cummins engines already have emissions cert and widespread parts support and are trusted even if they are flawed. But of course then that would eliminate the different powertrains that are part of what would make those trucks attractive. Or if one of the existing mfrs in the US market (Volvo for example) brought in something that shares parts with their conventional line and could be serviced through the same network that would also be viable. But doubt we ever see any of that happen either way.

Was real tempted to try an Argosy, never got a chance. Hostess probably had the largest fleet of them and while I last worked for them in 1992 I had recall rights if I moved to another location that was still open and was tempted to do so just to drive the Argosy and some of the oddball configurations they used like drom boxes on the tractor and double trailers. They were also popular as auto carriers, set up Euro style with 2 cars long and 2 high on the truck and the same on the trailer with a top deck that went up and down and curtain sides. The switch to taller SUVs made them obsolete and cheap to buy... I figured they'd make a perfect "whistle stop" rig for a political campaign what with a stage on the trailer complete with curtains and rigging for lights and sound on the trailer and park a travel trailer for a mobile office on the truck- Hell, it was built to carry vehicles. Unfortunately the campaign managers preferred to spend their money enriching TV station owners so the idea went nowhere...

 

[d24tdi]

The Volvo cab is the quietest that I have experienced. Even with 500,000 miles they are more quiet than a brand new Freightliner Cascadia.

I wonder how much of that is the cab and how much is the Volvo engine. The VED12 Volvo motor (or whatever evolution it is on now) seems like one of the quietest running engines in that size class. I have always wanted to have one but out in my rural area the challenge is that there are only a couple of Volvo heavy truck dealers and both are far away. Hate the idea of a loaded truck getting stuck at a small town repair shop waiting for parts to come in from hundreds of miles away. That factor pretty much locks us into FL and IH trucks here.

A Volvo with a Cummins (or an old one with a Detroit S60) would be easier in terms of parts access from other truck dlrs, at least for the engine related systems, but then you have to tolerate listening to the racket those engines make.

I have heard the Volvo cab is one of the most comfortable and easy to use as well. Seems like they nailed the ergonomics.

 

[dieseldonato]

I wonder how much of that is the cab and how much is the Volvo engine. The VED12 Volvo motor (or whatever evolution it is on now) seems like one of the quietest running engines in that size class. I have always wanted to have one but out in my rural area the challenge is that there are only a couple of Volvo heavy truck dealers and both are far away. Hate the idea of a loaded truck getting stuck at a small town repair shop waiting for parts to come in from hundreds of miles away. That factor pretty much locks us into FL and IH trucks here.

A Volvo with a Cummins (or an old one with a Detroit S60) would be easier in terms of parts access from other truck dlrs, at least for the engine related systems, but then you have to tolerate listening to the racket those engines make.

I have heard the Volvo cab is one of the most comfortable and easy to use as well. Seems like they nailed the ergonomics.

As far as I knew the dc12 was getting phased out for a 13L engine. ( basically the same engine.) I'm not really up to date, as we were a Volvo penta (industrial) engine dealer, but a lot of the smaller engines spilled over to the truck world. They were darn good engines, easy to work on quite good on fuel and powerful. With some irony, I usually didn't have issues with them till they had high hours, or newer t4f had aftertreatment issues. (Which was supplied by cummins emission solutions.) I did work on a few mack trucks that had Volvo engines. Basically the same as an industrial engine, save they had Jake brake assemblies under the valve cover.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

Same situation here with service access, 20 miles from Cummins, International, and Freightliner/Western Star but 70 miles from Mack/Volvo and Kenworth/Peterbuilt. Volvo and Mack engines are the same, but Volvo won't let Mack dealers work on Volvo and vice versa!