Conventional or Cabover. Which looks best?

[BravestDog]

I really like the look of the cabover design when compared to the conventional. This red one here reminds me of a hot rod. The lines are smoother than a conventional. The way the front slopes rearward to the box.
http://truckconversion.net/photopost/showphoto.php?phot...ort=1&cat=500&page=5

http://truckconversion.net/photopost/showphoto.php?phot...edium&cat=500&page=5

Does anyone own a cabover conversion or truck they would convert?

Anyone have photos of cabover conversions they like to post and share?

Anyone agree/disagree?

Thanks

 

[Gary Atsma]

I have to agree on the cabover having definite appeal, though I will more than likely end up using a conventional more for logistical reasons than anything else. But the look of a not-too-long (18-20') coach behind a setback-axle cabover with a sleeper definitely has visual appeal.....

 

[Weramongo]

I prefer the conventional look personally but th main reason I'd stay away from cabover is ride. Never know a trucker that liked them. I also wouldn't want to deal with tilting the front to get ot the motor or the issues that would cause with a seal to the rear.

 

[BravestDog]

Which are easier to work, cabovers or conventionals?

Will a cabover ever ride comfortable or are they doomed because of the seat being over the front axle?

And regarding the seal from the cockpit to cabin, there has got to be something that would work decently, unhook easily...yes?

How about this black show truck. This looks really cool.

http://truckconversion.net/photopost/showphoto.php?phot...ort=1&cat=500&page=1

 

[WalliK]

Just came back from a 1 week trip to (my homecountry of) Austria and realized that 18 wheelers in Europe have 12 wheels, and ... NOT a single conventional cab.
ALL are COE. Volvo, MAN, Mercedes (Freightliner Argosy), Scania, you name it, all of them are COE. I guess they figured out how to deal with the problems.
Mainreason of course is space, nobody wants to "waste" the space the nose needs.
Walter

 

[BravestDog]

Originally posted by WalliK:
Just came back from a 1 week trip to (my homecountry of) Austria and realized that 18 wheelers in Europe have 12 wheels, and ... NOT a single conventional cab.
ALL are COE. Volvo, MAN, Mercedes (Freightliner Argosy), Scania, you name it, all of them are COE. I guess they figured out how to deal with the problems.
Mainreason of course is space, nobody wants to "waste" the space the nose needs.
Walter

Is there a European version website of Truck Conversions like this one?

How much more space do you pick up in a cabover and it is usable?

Anyone have pictures of cabover conversions that they'd like to post and share?

 

[Gary Atsma]

Originally posted by WERA:
I prefer the conventional look personally but th main reason I'd stay away from cabover is ride. Never know a trucker that liked them. I also wouldn't want to deal with tilting the front to get ot the motor or the issues that would cause with a seal to the rear.

I agree. Like I said, the only real reason for the cabover, for me at least, is the visual angle. But for all the reasons you state(the so-called "logistical" ones I referred to) the conventional is clearly the winner. The cabover just has too much going against it.
Gary

 

[KAYE RIVERCITY]

.....I don't want to be the very first one at the accident site.....no way/ no how....looks are secondary to me..."Form Follows Function" I want that 500Hp heavy engine in front of me....If the European designers were so hot-then how come they aren't selling here.....Just like the guy working on the line at the carwash that gives me investment tips....." You Know what You should do....."-is always his opening statement......geofkaye

 

[spooner]

Originally posted by BravestDog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WalliK:
Just came back from a 1 week trip to (my homecountry of) Austria and realized that 18 wheelers in Europe have 12 wheels, and ... NOT a single conventional cab.
ALL are COE. Volvo, MAN, Mercedes (Freightliner Argosy), Scania, you name it, all of them are COE. I guess they figured out how to deal with the problems.
Mainreason of course is space, nobody wants to "waste" the space the nose needs.
Walter

Is there a European version website of Truck Conversions like this one?

How much more space do you pick up in a cabover and it is usable?

Anyone have pictures of cabover conversions that they'd like to post and share? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes i have a pic i like to share:

im from europe too; i can tell you that the eurotrucks drive like a POS (sorry

)
they are fine on a smooth "Autobahn" but add speed, crosswind, bad roads and snow to the picture and you see why here in the west conventionals rule.
as a side note;
the governed speed limit over there is 80 kmh (50 mph)

btw
most euro trucks are 2 axle tractor and 3 axle trailer (with the trailer axles not set back

) very light pin/drive axle weight => a nightmare to drive on slippery roads

.

 

[WalliK]

Wow.. I opened a can of worms there. Did not mean to say cabovers were better, only that over there thats the only thing they are using. So either they figured out a way to deal with all the issues we dont like on COE's, or they never drove conventionals and therefore dont know any better.
Looks scary to me too to drive around in these things on autobahn and be the very front thing in an accident.
How much space you gain? Well, how big is your nose..5 to 7 feet, but thats a lot if you have lengh limitations not as generous as here.
Oh, the 3 axles on trailer are single wheels only, not duals, thats how you come up with "12 wheeler", 6 on the tractor as spooner said, 6 on trailer.
I guess Freightliner tried the market here with the (Mercedes) Argosy and had no success, so i think that answers a lot of questions.

Conversions on COE? What conversions? Im sure they exist over there if you search really hard, but the bigest thing you usually see on the road are class C with maybe 26 ft total lengh or so...

Walter

 

[Gary Atsma]

Don't feel put on the spot. You didn't cause anything new. Whenever ANYBODY brings up a good subject, you WILL get everyone else's opinion on it, but to me that's the absolute beauty of a forum like this. Don't you agree?
Enjoy! I always do.......

 

[Mark Kovalsky]

Did not mean to say cabovers were better, only that over there thats the only thing they are using. So either they figured out a way to deal with all the issues we dont like on COE's, or they never drove conventionals and therefore dont know any better.

Or that they have length limit laws over there that requires COEs for the trucks to make economic sense.

Driver comfort rates WAY below making a profit. And that makes sense. Who wants to be in the trucking business to move things for less than it costs to operate the truck?

 

[WalliK]

Mark, I guess you hit the nail right on the head. Thats what I ment when I talked about lengh limitations, I just did not make the direct connection to profit and "who cares about driver comfort".

Well, as we have more than enough space here, at least on the west coast, I guess we all can stay with conventionals.....

Walter

 

[spooner]

Is there a European version website of Truck Conversions like this one?

I don't know there is a website, there are for sure some expedition conversion, but most are on chassis we would consider here MDT or smaller.

How much more space do you pick up in a cabover and it is usable?

remember most everything is smaller, even newer towns and streets are not planned and build the way that they could handle a 75 foot conventional/trailer combo. IIRC the max trailer length is about 40 feet and max combination length is something around 56 feet. ALso most trucks run routes we would consider here city delivery runs and they are build for that. there are not many trucks that make 100,000 miles a year. but it is some years ago I was the last time in Europe and it has maybe changed a little.

Before I was the first time here in the US, I was thinking a Hymer (thats the Winnebago for the euros, hymer website actually they got much bigger then they was 15 years ago) is huge monster RV. About a year ago I saw one at Wallyworld in Kingman and the Cruise America Tioga next to it looked like it had double the room (for sure had double the engine, most euro RV's have very undersized engines)

Conversion on big rigs, most likely you will find it in scandinavia. Sweden has a big american car scene, you see there Kenworths (they have dealers up there), some really nice hot rods .... actually about 15 years ago I saw the first fifth wheel travel trailer in my life up there, US build, and was thinking that 28 foot trailer is a huge MF

 

[kblackav8or]

Which looks best? I used to like a nice cabover before. The older bullnose KW's and Freightliners are cool when done right. Practicality and other issues are another matter. Cabovers are more manueverable I think. They are harder to work on and would be much harder to build with a workable living area if you intend to connect the cab to the living area. If you build a trailer living area vice the motor home style it really doesn't matter that much. Cabovers are harder to climb into which can be a big issue for the wife or kids though kids think that sort of thing is cool.

 

[Guest]

I have some issues with the 'I don't want to be the first thing at the scene of the accident' school of thinking.

The injury to yourself is not a function of how much metal there is in front of you, but a function of how much energy the metal thats there absorbs (by bending and giving), 400hp engines don't give very much! They simply channel the energy back into the body and frame, in such a case the engine could bend the cab and firewall trapping/breaking bits of you.

 

[Gary Atsma]

All that frame, engine, radiator, hood, etc. will absorb a heck of a lot of energy that YOU would absorb if you were in front of most of that stuff. It's only logical. Sure, the amount of energy absorbed by all that equipment might be limited compared to what is passed on back, but that is WAY better than YOU absorbing all that energy first-hand. Gimme a conventional. Besides, they're easier to climb into.....

 

[KAYE RIVERCITY]

....the engine on a Volvo is forced down on impact and provides a lot of protection on frontal impact.....you are better off in a truck than any car-with or with out airbags.....Even with the cost of fuel....I'd rather take my Volvo and trailer than any other mode of transportation.....I have a lot of medical stuff and first aid stuff and a whole bunch of protective equipment on board....When I was at the crash site of Value Jet in Florida I did a lot of thinking about my furture plans and about flying ....I'll take the VOLVO and be stuck in traffic!....the last seven minuites for those poor souls must have been the most terrifying thing there could be! .....I'll take a traffic jamb anytime.....geofkaye

 

[Guest]

Building a COE motor home or toter home does create a shorter package. One must face the fact that most truck chassis manufactures are phasing out these COE chassis. The COE does not look as macho for some guy! But in the real world a class A style toterhome on a real truck chassis makes both dollars and sense!

 

[gltech-TC]

Just found the site -- very cool. I have a Peterbilt 362 I'd love to make into an RV.

I love the cabover because of the higher driving position and the clean lines.

The pics BravestDog posted:
372 #1

372 #2

...are of Peterbilt 372s in case anybody wants to know. The 372 had that futuristic look. (and was ironically dubbed the "winnebago" by truckers). Mine is the more "normal" looking model, like this:

362

I think the 362 would make a really cool motorhome. It's a blast to drive and has a great forward view from the big windshield.

I realize the biggest challenge would be opening the cab up to the rear. But I personally wouldn't want it without that. I've visited the "King of the Road" shop here in Georgia and we're exploring options.

Any suggestions or comments are welcome.

-Glenn