any one in here have any experience with either, which is better? which is more rugged, and long lasting, i mean, as long as it has the cat c-15 in there, i'm happy, but tell me the pros and cons, if possible.

thanks

bye

 

Ive driven a T600 Kenworth all over the country it had a Detroit, the only Pete I've driven was an old cab over I've driven the newer Freightliners they are nice but they don't have as tight as turning as the KW. I've hav'nt had a chance to drive the newer T-2000 or any newer Pete's, they both look nice and probley are about the same. I always liked the Eaton-Fuller 13sp myself, Now I drive a Mack w/8speed they're bulletproof but I'd like a 13speed in it.

Just my 2 bits[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

Pete and Kenworth are both Paccar compainies. They are essentially the same as far a quality goes , top notch for sure.
I personally prefer Pete's, but the dealer in my town is a bad dude, so I go with KW.

 

One thing to remember with large trucks is that apart from maybe Mack, the frames,engines,drive trains are the same from company to company. The only real difference between a Kenworth and a Pete , spec'd identically, will be the cabs. Kenworth,Pete,Sterling ( louisville),International, Volvo etc all use common engines ( detroits, or cats or cummins), common trannies ( spicer,eaton,road ranger, etc),, axles, rear ends, tires, brake etc etc The only REAL difference will be found in the cabs. The fit and finish from one brand to the other will vary according to market ( construction, freight etc etc) but even cabs share alot of common parts.

 

most owner operators I know prefer conventional Pete's.I know a guy that has an old 64 needle nose and he has been hauling sand with it daily for around 30 yrs.,it needs paint but it still hauls.The company I work for retired an old kenworth (69)I would choose the pete because it seems to be more well crafted.IMO

 

There is nothing more plush then the KW 8 bag suspension. Oh wait yeah, maybe the air ride Aspen behind me.

Really though, both being Paccar, pick the design. I like KW mirrors and the clutch pedal movement. Some complain about the wing windows blocking the mirrors, but once you learn to look around it, you can see for miles. The Pete clutch is hard on the titanium parts in my left leg.

 

Peterbilts look better. The dashes are set up so that everything is at a comfortable place. Petes also rattle when they get some miles on them(70K)

KW's are built a little better.They don't rattle. The switches n-stuff are placed ok but not as good as a pete. I refuse to drive a KW for one reason. The throttle pedal is too close the the seat. You must drive with your right leg bent to give it throttle. In a Pete you can stretch out.

The KW I drove had the mirrors blocking acess to the airfilters! Stupid design!Ya you cant see out the passengers side morror cause there's a post between the wing and the window right in the way.

How are the C-15's? The trucks I drove had C-12's which ran good but we had too many problems with coolant getting in the oil so Cat bought the engines back and we replaced them with 500hp series 60's which gave us zero problems.

BTW I'm lookin for a needlenose Pete or a 359.

 

they have a c-16 available, that delivers up to a little over 600 hp, and over 2100 ft lbs of torque., its pretty good, pretty heavy, but its all about the logo, i've seen faded peterbilt logos on the front, i like kenworth hood ornament,

Is it an option to get a double sleeper design, which makes it twice as big for cross country driving, i love those kind, its my dream truck, just need around 500,000 dollars, two favorite things in the world are trucks, and hunting.


talk to you later

 

i would think they are the same, and engines, tranny ect, usuall dont vary much in all companies from what i know, but i think VOLVO makes some nice lookin trucks, but KW, just has so much grunt to it, or should i say *****?

 

They have dropped the 600hp C-16 and replaced it with a 625hp C-15.