I don’t know how PACCAR keeps two strong brands in the US without internal competition. A truck market Hyundai/Kia????
Talking PACCAR, isn’t the Spanish coachbuilder Irizar using PACCAR engines and electrics in their self-branded buses now? Based on the brochure, that steering wheel looks a lot like a DAF one…
I used to work there. It is no different than GM keeping both Chevy Trucks and GMC going.
Paccar Purchasing is working very hard to make KW and Peterbilt use as many identical parts as possible, so they can get part volumes up and costs down. So in that respect, we’ll see the differences between their trucks diminish over time.
I used to work for the PACCAR “family” when they owned an auto parts chain here in the USA. They eventually unloaded the company and it was purchased by another major parts chain.
As a driver of a paccar product, a 2008 peterbilt 389, I can verify that both KWs and petes share many parts between their models. While the Pete 388/389 and w900 have unique bodies and interiors, alot of their switch gear, latches, and most electronics interchange. The new 579 and t680 share even more components.
Another example of how regulations (or their lack) drive vehicle form – “conventional” trucks have now almost 99.9% disappeared from the EU; conversely, no Class 8 COEs are available for sale in the US.
On the other hand, DAF’s full focus has always been on cabovers since they started to build trucks in 1949. Their few conventional models were more like niche-products during the short periods they were built in the past 67 years.
Apart from regulations, cabovers just work better in Europe given their maneuverability and turning radius compared with conventionals. It’s also quite common that a rig with 6 axles has 4 steerable axles.
… Yes, but my point is a lot of this is derived from EU max length rules – even if you worked on routes where maneuverability and turning radius are no factor so that your prime consideration would have been lower fuel consumption, you would have to sacrifice payload. A conventional with a set back front axle (like the last Scania Torpedo) is almost as maneuverable as a COE, but again, unless your load is of the type not requiring a long trailer (fluids, for example) the regs make it a non-option.
Under what circumstances would a conventional be preferred over a cabover for European operations? The only thing I can think of is that a conventional *might* have better aerodynamics, making it more economical for long-haul routes. But that’s just a wild guess on my part.
Heavy haulage / long loads. When a part of the load hangs above the cab, for example when transporting a big crane. The cab of a conventional is lower than a COE’s cab. Meanwhile, there a cabovers with custom built lowered cabs for this line of business.
Conventionals were mainly used in combination with short semi-trailers, like in bulk hauling, earth moving, tanker transport and such.
Nowadays not one truck maker offers a conventional model for the Euro-market . But if you really want one there are dealerships and coachbuilders that build a conventional DAF, Iveco or Scania.
I worked for Peterbilt as a design engineer from 1977 to 1982. Though both companies shared a technical center (test lab only, not design) in Washington state, and leveraged corporate purchasing volume with major suppliers, there were no shared parts or designs at the time. In fact, I got the impression PACCAR corporate encouraged completion and rivalry. I know things have changed in the last 30+ years, but I don’t think Chevy/GMC is a good analogy. Unlike the GM twins, everyone knows that a Peterbilt is better in every way than that plastic truck from Renton. ?
A few years ago, I visited the Paccar plant in Ste-Thérèse QC (just next to where the GM Camaro/Firebird assembly plant was) where they make the smaller Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks on the same line. I thought the different processes for assembling both truck lines were a bit complicated. I remember the doors of Kenworth and Peterbilt versions were protected by covers that were very different (soft material for the Peterbilt and molded for the Kenworth if I remember well) while on the assembly line and I wondered why since these these covers don’t quit the assembly line and the shape of the doors didn’t seem to require different covers!
I would take a Kenworth, please! Although all are really nice trucks.
I don’t know how PACCAR keeps two strong brands in the US without internal competition. A truck market Hyundai/Kia????
Talking PACCAR, isn’t the Spanish coachbuilder Irizar using PACCAR engines and electrics in their self-branded buses now? Based on the brochure, that steering wheel looks a lot like a DAF one…
I used to work there. It is no different than GM keeping both Chevy Trucks and GMC going.
Paccar Purchasing is working very hard to make KW and Peterbilt use as many identical parts as possible, so they can get part volumes up and costs down. So in that respect, we’ll see the differences between their trucks diminish over time.
That way it’s probably more expensive to axe a brand than to keep them. Sort of a win-win, right?
Yup. Just a matter of time before Kenworth and Peterbuilt are the same truck, with the emblems attached by velcro…
I used to work for the PACCAR “family” when they owned an auto parts chain here in the USA. They eventually unloaded the company and it was purchased by another major parts chain.
Great photo – interesting colors…
Dafs are nice trucks to drive especially with a 18 speed manual Kenworths ride on the same chassis.
As a driver of a paccar product, a 2008 peterbilt 389, I can verify that both KWs and petes share many parts between their models. While the Pete 388/389 and w900 have unique bodies and interiors, alot of their switch gear, latches, and most electronics interchange. The new 579 and t680 share even more components.
Another example of how regulations (or their lack) drive vehicle form – “conventional” trucks have now almost 99.9% disappeared from the EU; conversely, no Class 8 COEs are available for sale in the US.
On the other hand, DAF’s full focus has always been on cabovers since they started to build trucks in 1949. Their few conventional models were more like niche-products during the short periods they were built in the past 67 years.
Apart from regulations, cabovers just work better in Europe given their maneuverability and turning radius compared with conventionals. It’s also quite common that a rig with 6 axles has 4 steerable axles.
… Yes, but my point is a lot of this is derived from EU max length rules – even if you worked on routes where maneuverability and turning radius are no factor so that your prime consideration would have been lower fuel consumption, you would have to sacrifice payload. A conventional with a set back front axle (like the last Scania Torpedo) is almost as maneuverable as a COE, but again, unless your load is of the type not requiring a long trailer (fluids, for example) the regs make it a non-option.
Under what circumstances would a conventional be preferred over a cabover for European operations? The only thing I can think of is that a conventional *might* have better aerodynamics, making it more economical for long-haul routes. But that’s just a wild guess on my part.
Heavy haulage / long loads. When a part of the load hangs above the cab, for example when transporting a big crane. The cab of a conventional is lower than a COE’s cab. Meanwhile, there a cabovers with custom built lowered cabs for this line of business.
Conventionals were mainly used in combination with short semi-trailers, like in bulk hauling, earth moving, tanker transport and such.
Nowadays not one truck maker offers a conventional model for the Euro-market . But if you really want one there are dealerships and coachbuilders that build a conventional DAF, Iveco or Scania.
I worked for Peterbilt as a design engineer from 1977 to 1982. Though both companies shared a technical center (test lab only, not design) in Washington state, and leveraged corporate purchasing volume with major suppliers, there were no shared parts or designs at the time. In fact, I got the impression PACCAR corporate encouraged completion and rivalry. I know things have changed in the last 30+ years, but I don’t think Chevy/GMC is a good analogy. Unlike the GM twins, everyone knows that a Peterbilt is better in every way than that plastic truck from Renton. ?
A few years ago, I visited the Paccar plant in Ste-Thérèse QC (just next to where the GM Camaro/Firebird assembly plant was) where they make the smaller Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks on the same line. I thought the different processes for assembling both truck lines were a bit complicated. I remember the doors of Kenworth and Peterbilt versions were protected by covers that were very different (soft material for the Peterbilt and molded for the Kenworth if I remember well) while on the assembly line and I wondered why since these these covers don’t quit the assembly line and the shape of the doors didn’t seem to require different covers!