# So this is a question to the professionals: Traction, Weight to Power Ratio, Mobility



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

So here is my question what do you feel is the most important balance of features in a commercial plow truck? Are you more into the idea of maximizing your truck's traction with say locking differentials or other traction control systems? Or, does power to weight ratio concern you more so you look for a truck with the biggest engine for a specific GVW? And how does mobility factor into your decision?


----------



## thelettuceman (Nov 23, 2010)

Just me speaking here and there will be much disagreement with the following:
I wish I had never sold my my Jeep CJ7. Great vehicle for driveways which is mostly what I do. My Ford F250 can't get into tight spots like the Jeep but the Jeep can't haul junk like the Ford.
Mobility is more important to me than the other factors you ask about.
Having said that, If I plowed Walmarts, I would not have either of the above mentioned vehicles.
So to answer your question ... It all depends on what type of plowing you do.


----------



## tjjn06 (Oct 28, 2010)

thelettuceman;1390771 said:


> So to answer your question ... It all depends on what type of plowing you do.


Perfectly put!!


----------



## KGRlandscapeing (May 2, 2007)

Its a blance between all of the above. Type of plowing and the weather you encounter. But the most important things would be efficency and traction. So find what best suits your needs, put good tires on it and proper ballast and then learn what it can handel and what it wont.


----------



## geer hed (Nov 22, 2010)

The previous reply's are right on the money. As far as traction control devices such as lockers, can help but they can also hinder. You need to get used to driving with them because the vehicle will handle differently, when traveling. All you need is a good set of snow tires, and the proper amount of weight, and you'll be set.


----------



## Philbilly2 (Aug 25, 2007)

every truck has it's own perfect spot to do work.

Where in one spot one setup is great... it is terrible in another.


----------



## tjctransport (Nov 22, 2008)

since i do 99% municipal roads, fuel efficiency is where it is at for me. most of my work is done in 2 wheel drive with the hubs locked, and i use about 1 gallon per hour with the diesels. when i had the gas trucks, i was using 3-4 gallons per hour.
i use good snow tires instead of weight for traction.


----------



## V_Scapes (Jan 1, 2011)

tjctransport;1390923 said:


> since i do 99% municipal roads, fuel efficiency is where it is at for me. most of my work is done in 2 wheel drive with the hubs locked, and i use about 1 gallon per hour with the diesels. when i had the gas trucks, i was using 3-4 gallons per hour.
> i use good snow tires instead of weight for traction.


Are you using mason dumps or duallys for plowing? What kind of tires do you use, im thinking about putting new tires on my truck but want to get something thats good in the snow. i was looking at hankook dynapro atm.


----------



## hunt 444e (Oct 1, 2011)

i ran 6 rf 10s or hankook dynapros on my one ton dump good grippy tire making it great for snow but to soft a compound to make it a good all year tire for a heavier truck. i opted to take the 4 rears off and run them on another 1 ton single wheel pickup, and ran 4 caps from treadwright on the back of the dump keeping the hankooks for steering


----------



## tjctransport (Nov 22, 2008)

i use dayton timberline mt 265X75X16 tires on the superdutys, and 12.5X36X16.5 BFG mud terrain ta tires on the older trucks.
8.5 ft plows on the superdutys and the 88, 8 ft plows on the 78 and 79


----------



## leon (Nov 18, 2008)

*plow vehicles*



TatraFan;1390684 said:


> So here is my question what do you feel is the most important balance of features in a commercial plow truck? Are you more into the idea of maximizing your truck's traction with say locking differentials or other traction control systems? Or, does power to weight ratio concern you more so you look for a truck with the biggest engine for a specific GVW? And how does mobility factor into your decision?


Number one will always, always, always be Adhesion,
since with out adhesion you will have zero tractive effort.

That skinny little bit of rubber touching the ground is all 
you have period and that is where you get all or none 
of your traction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

thats the nice thing about those crazy chains that can 
drop down and give you traction when you need it and 
be retracted when not needed.

www.onspot.com

A soft snow tire like a Nokia is always good as well as 
properly siped tires to increase tread contact.

No spin differentials are no benefit on ice period UNLESS 
they have chains installed on the tires.

In prder to have traction it requires adhesion and without 
weight, good tread and or snow chains you have little adhesion 
if ice or deep snow is encountered.


----------



## hunt 444e (Oct 1, 2011)

plowing is like drag racing in a sense you could have all the power or torque but if you cant apply it to the ground its useless.knowing when to get in and out of the throttle makes a world of difference


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

Personally, I think everything starts with traction.


----------



## leon (Nov 18, 2008)

*power/adhesion/traction*

Without useable torque you have no tractive effort
without adhesion you have no traction, 
without weight you have no adhesion,

This is why you see locomotives of all sizes using 
sand to create adhesion/traction under those skinny
little wheel sets of the 4 and 6 axle locomotives.

That is one of biggest plusses for the automatic tire chains 
for any vehicle that is 2 wheel, 4 wheel drive. single axle.
or mutliple axle.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

leon;1392590 said:


> Without useable torque you have no tractive effort
> without adhesion you have no traction,
> without weight you have no adhesion,
> 
> ...


If I were designing a snow plow truck the first feature I would put into it would be: selectable lockable transfer case, selectable lockable differentials front, and rear. This way when you lock it up you have equal power front, rear, left and right. This way as the topography of the road shifts you don't have to worry about one side actually having more load than the other.

I agree that adhesion is going to be important. But again if one side has more adhesion than the other with an open differential then you don't go anywhere. A limited slip will help- but it will never provide the same level of potential traction that a fully selectable locking differential will.

Automatic chains they are okay-- but, I think when you need to get extra traction then it is best to use lockers with a set of really good chains.

As for mobility-- this is probably in my opinion the most important factor after traction control has been maximized. What good is a truck that won't go where you need it?

Power to weight ratio is important- but I think it is nothing more than pure absurdity that a 13,000+ GVW 3500-4500 series truck has 390-400hp. Having a power to weight ratio of 40 to 60 hp per ton seems a bit excessive. This is especially true when you consider that a much larger Oshkosh series truck (P or MPT) have only about 10 to 15hp per ton and weigh in the 20 to 41.5 ton range. So it seems to me odd that a Ford F-450 needs 400hp for its mere 6.5ton GVW-- So for me if you're in the 10-25hp per ton power to weight ratio range that seems more than adequate to do the job. What is more critical to me is transmission selection and range. I would rather a gearbox with deep reduction in many cases rather than trying to make the difference with raw power.

That is the way I see it.


----------



## justme- (Dec 28, 2004)

Automatic chains are a half-assed thing- they give just a little traction and depend on maintenance and motion to function- in other words they are under the truck 365 regardless of season and need to be maintained 365 so when you need them they are not seized, or rusted, or worn out. They are also short chain, usually only extending half the width of the tires, and they deploy to the tire and require the wheel spinning to rotate the chain head creating centripital force to splay the chain and allow them to lay infront/under the tire.

Traction is #1 followed by usable torque. I'll never plow w/o a limited slip again. Regardless of conditions that improved my traction 1000%. Usable torque is different than max torque. My Ram CTD puts down 480lb-ft of torque from idle which is more then the ground can hold a lot of the time which means I have to control the foot and often spin my way until I have a little momentum whereas my friend's 00 Chevy 2500 V8 puts the torque down in a smoother ratio- as most gas engines do. He has open diff, never carries chains, and almost never spins a wheel at start off. I've ridden his route and know for a fact I could not plow a couple of his with out wheel spin.
I run 500-1000lbs ballast to help plant all my torque, he runs empty.

It depends on what task you need to do how you need the truck, but without traction you're not going anywhere, and without usable torque you're not moving much snow.


----------



## White Gardens (Oct 29, 2008)

V_Scapes;1391077 said:


> Are you using mason dumps or duallys for plowing? What kind of tires do you use, im thinking about putting new tires on my truck but want to get something thats good in the snow. i was looking at hankook dynapro atm.


Best tires I've bought for my dump so far is re-treads from a local shop. Cheap, and the lugs are deeeeep on the tires. I get great traction.

I also have a posi in my rear, and that is also nice to have when I don't have 4wd.

As for power to weight ratio, I'm super pleased with my 8.1. I was out-plowing a subs newer 3500 with a 6.0 after our 12" blizzard last spring.

....


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

White Gardens;1395469 said:


> Best tires I've bought for my dump so far is re-treads from a local shop. Cheap, and the lugs are deeeeep on the tires. I get great traction.
> 
> I also have a posi in my rear, and that is also nice to have when I don't have 4wd.
> 
> ...


Try out true air-locking differentials... They make a truck feel a tank.


----------



## White Gardens (Oct 29, 2008)

TatraFan;1396288 said:


> Try out true air-locking differentials... They make a truck feel a tank.


As much as I would like to, that would mean I would have to retro-fit a compressor and air tank on the truck to operate it.

And in all honesty, I do a lot of turning when plowing, so to have the posi only kick in when needed is good for me. Less wear and tear on the drive-train. The truck felt enough like a tank pushing snow after our blizzard last year.

It's also wayyyyyyyy better than the open carrier I used to have on my old F-350. That really stunk.

.....


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

White Gardens;1396432 said:


> As much as I would like to, that would mean I would have to retro-fit a compressor and air tank on the truck to operate it.
> 
> And in all honesty, I do a lot of turning when plowing, so to have the posi only kick in when needed is good for me. Less wear and tear on the drive-train. The truck felt enough like a tank pushing snow after our blizzard last year.
> 
> ...


White Gardens:

Well you could try ARB's system they use air on demand and only the addition of a small compressor is necessary. If you don't like that option: E-Lockers from Eaton are electrically operated.

http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/Products...utomotiveAftermarket/Differentials/PCT_221472

http://store.arbusa.com/Air-Lockers-C7.aspx

They are great when you put them in both axles. Tank performance... Or Tatra if you will performance.


----------



## oneoldsap (Dec 26, 2011)

*Traction & Torque*

Eaton has an electric locker kit for front axles now , it looks like the best of both worlds . Of course a Detroit locker in the rear is a must ! I plow alot of grades so traction and torque are important , my K-3500 SRW with studded Cooper M/Ss is a formidable snow pusher . I plow some places where most wouldn't dare even try , ( that could also be due to a lack of common sense on my part ) but they pay good !Thumbs Up


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

oneoldsap;1397817 said:


> Eaton has an electric locker kit for front axles now , it looks like the best of both worlds . Of course a Detroit locker in the rear is a must ! I plow alot of grades so traction and torque are important , my K-3500 SRW with studded Cooper M/Ss is a formidable snow pusher . I plow some places where most wouldn't dare even try , ( that could also be due to a lack of common sense on my part ) but they pay good !Thumbs Up


I would go with the selectable lockers myself in the rear axle-- only because when you're driving on hard dry surfaces you reduce the wear on the drive lines... After you get the torque, traction aids, and proper tires-- bead locking rims are the next thing you need.

So what does your K-3500 SRW have in it for a power plant?


----------



## oneoldsap (Dec 26, 2011)

Just a 5.7 TBI . I've never seen an electricaly actuated rear . A locker isn't a posi trac , it unlocks when you turn .


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

oneoldsap;1397847 said:


> Just a 5.7 TBI . I've never seen an electricaly actuated rear . A locker isn't a posi trac , it unlocks when you turn .


Only a 5.7L I'm surprised. It must be an older truck.. All the air lockers I've used stay locked until you turn them off.


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

TatraFan;1392819 said:


> If I were designing a snow plow truck the first feature I would put into it would be: selectable lockable transfer case, selectable lockable differentials front, and rear. This way when you lock it up you have equal power front, rear, left and right. This way as the topography of the road shifts you don't have to worry about one side actually having more load than the other.


You must only plow in straight lines. Actually, have you ever even plowed snow?



TatraFan;1392819 said:


> ...
> 
> Power to weight ratio is important- but I think it is nothing more than pure absurdity that a 13,000+ GVW 3500-4500 series truck has 390-400hp. Having a power to weight ratio of 40 to 60 hp per ton seems a bit excessive. This is especially true when you consider that a much larger Oshkosh series truck (P or MPT) have only about 10 to 15hp per ton and weigh in the 20 to 41.5 ton range. So it seems to me odd that a Ford F-450 needs 400hp for its mere 6.5ton GVW-- So for me if you're in the 10-25hp per ton power to weight ratio range that seems more than adequate to do the job. What is more critical to me is transmission selection and range. I would rather a gearbox with deep reduction in many cases rather than trying to make the difference with raw power.
> 
> That is the way I see it.


You're just jealous of the modern American pickup's spry acceleration compared to the numb performance of your overweight underpowered fantasy trucks.


----------



## superdog1 (Oct 13, 2011)

Just an FYI for anyone who cares? WW2 tanks had an average weight to horsepower ratio of 9 to 13HP per ton. They seemed to have no problem going anywhere? Maybe I should buy an old Russian T35 and have a blade put on it! I could plow through 3 feet of snow without a problem, LOl


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

superdog1;1398448 said:


> Just an FYI for anyone who cares? WW2 tanks had an average weight to horsepower ratio of 9 to 13HP per ton. They seemed to have no problem going anywhere? Maybe I should buy an old Russian T35 and have a blade put on it! I could plow through 3 feet of snow without a problem, LOl


The while the Russians did develop a heavy tank called the T35 before WWII-- I think what you're really referring to is the smaller and better designed T34 medium tank of 1940. It also had a much higher power to weight ratio of 17.5hp per metric ton than most of the other tanks of that period.

One of the biggest factors in a T34's mobility was in part due to the wide tracks it had. The relatively narrow tracks of the early pre-war and first generation WWII tanks left them with issues in floatation capability. One of the reasons when the T34 was encountered in winter by the Germans during operation Barbarossa it was given the nickname "Snow King" for its ability to appear to float on the deep snow.

Tanks that are not prepared for ice are funny to watch.





If the tracks cannot grip you don't go.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

2COR517;1398163 said:


> You must only plow in straight lines. Actually, have you ever even plowed snow?


The beauty of selectable lockers like an Air-locker is that you can usually select front only, rear only or both. And if you have a differential locker in the transfer case you select that only as often. Which is great because you could run 50/50 power to the front and rear and then just use the actual differential lockers when necessary.

An even better system would be true traction control. The Walter Trucks had 100% positive traction delivering power to only the gripping wheels. This was accomplished by using torque proportioning differentials in in the axles and in the transmission itself to delivery power front and rear. This truck had no transfer case at all. So if the rear wheels slipped all the power would be sent to the front wheels. Of if even if three wheels slipped then only one wheel get power.



2Cor517 said:


> You're just jealous of the modern American pickup's spry acceleration compared to the numb performance of your overweight underpowered fantasy trucks.


I'm not jealous of the modern American pickup. What I think is actually the case going on in the modern American pickup market is that pickups are moving from work trucks to basically status symbols and thus certain elements are being blown out of proportion for the sake of advertizing fodder. You know "our truck makes 500 hp and 1000ft-lbs of torque" knowing that full well people that use trucks will never really use the power they have actually. I mean the standard engine in the Oshkosh MPT series truck makes only 285hp and 860ft-lbs of torque and that is a 41,000lb truck. So why would a Ford F-450 need 400hp and 800ft-lbs of torque if it will never ever approach the weights of the MPT series truck in any form? The answer to me seems simple to sell it to people who want a truck bigger than one in the neighbors driveway.


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

TatraFan;1399227 said:


> ... And if you have a differential locker in the transfer case you select that only as often. Which is great because you could run 50/50 power to the front and rear and then just use the actual differential lockers when necessary.
> .....


You need to read some more truck brochures. That's the 4x4 system used in the typical American plow truck.

Actually, most of us do 90% of our plowing in 2wd because we run appropriate tires and proper ballast on an adequate weight truck. No floatation tires on 20 ton behemoths in the commercial snow removal game.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

2COR517;1399265 said:


> You need to read some more truck brochures. That's the 4x4 system used in the typical American plow truck.
> 
> Actually, most of us do 90% of our plowing in 2wd because we run appropriate tires and proper ballast on an adequate weight truck. No floatation tires on 20 ton behemoths in the commercial snow removal game.


If they have a locking differential in the transfer case great. However, I don't see it advertized and that would be a feature I would advertise. The most I've found is that Ford claims it works with the transfer case via the stability trac system. Now what that exactly means I'm not sure. It could me a locking differential in the transfer case can be engaged or could merely mean the transfer case will select the proper range for traction requirements independently of the driver.


----------



## Triple L (Nov 1, 2005)

I laugh at all these HP to weight ratio's... What's wrong with having 400hp... My truck has 450hp and weights 13,000 with salt on and my loader has 72hp and weights 15,000 with the blade on... Guess what, they both burn the same amount of fuel... Ones at maybe 15% throttle while the other is at 100% throttle all the time... There's nothing wrong with having the HP when u need it... The overpowered underworked motor is gonna last longer then the underpowered overworked motor...


----------



## oneoldsap (Dec 26, 2011)

Amen , horsepower that's not used translates into longevity !


----------



## Joe D (Oct 2, 2005)

No new pickups offer a center differential anymore, last was the 203 transfer case that you could lock and unlock as needed.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

oneoldsap;1399505 said:


> Amen , horsepower that's not used translates into longevity !


What about materials the engine is built out of?


----------



## schmol (Nov 30, 2008)

TatraFan;1399227 said:


> The beauty of selectable lockers like an Air-locker is that you can usually select front only, rear only or both. And if you have a differential locker in the transfer case you select that only as often. Which is great because you could run 50/50 power to the front and rear and then just use the actual differential lockers when necessary.
> 
> An even better system would be true traction control. The Walter Trucks had 100% positive traction delivering power to only the gripping wheels. This was accomplished by using torque proportioning differentials in in the axles and in the transmission itself to delivery power front and rear. This truck had no transfer case at all. So if the rear wheels slipped all the power would be sent to the front wheels. Of if even if three wheels slipped then only one wheel get power.
> 
> I'm not jealous of the modern American pickup. What I think is actually the case going on in the modern American pickup market is that pickups are moving from work trucks to basically status symbols and thus certain elements are being blown out of proportion for the sake of advertizing fodder. You know "our truck makes 500 hp and 1000ft-lbs of torque" knowing that full well people that use trucks will never really use the power they have actually. I mean the standard engine in the Oshkosh MPT series truck makes only 285hp and 860ft-lbs of torque and that is a 41,000lb truck. So why would a Ford F-450 need 400hp and 800ft-lbs of torque if it will never ever approach the weights of the MPT series truck in any form? The answer to me seems simple to sell it to people who want a truck bigger than one in the neighbors driveway.


You have a rather uncanny resemblance to a member on LAWNSITE named "Gravel Rat". He too seemed to know everything about just about anything.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

schmol;1399844 said:


> You have a rather uncanny resemblance to a member on LAWNSITE named "Gravel Rat". He too seemed to know everything about just about anything.


It is hard being so knowledgeable at times.


----------



## schmol (Nov 30, 2008)

TatraFan;1399864 said:


> It is hard being so knowledgeable at times.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

schmol;1399870 said:


>


Is what I said about the Walter Truck not design not true? Are my calculations given the data on the websites of from Ford, Dodge, Chevy, or Oshkosh wrong? Does Eaton not make an electric locking differential? So what have I said that is false? You might not agree with my perspective that traction and the aids that manage it are the most important feature. You might not like my point of view that more hp in small pickup trucks is just a marketing ploy. That is your right.


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1390684 said:


> So here is my question what do you feel is the most important balance of features in a commercial plow truck? Are you more into the idea of maximizing your truck's traction with say locking differentials or other traction control systems? Or, does power to weight ratio concern you more so you look for a truck with the biggest engine for a specific GVW? And how does mobility factor into your decision?


 My comments are referring to 3/4 ton and above pickup type trucks, after all this is what is mostly used for commercial plowing (non municipal) in North America.
Most trucks are available with a Limit Slip rear dif, which is a very good option. Running a Detroit Locker or similar is ridiculous, a ARB Locker is more user friendly but still not a good option. My experience with Lockers is when you get in a off camber situation on a slick surface the vehicle tends to slide down the slope when you break traction. Sure you can un lock a ARB so now you're back to have a open dif, so why bother with the expense. Now if losing or breaking traction was not a concern then they're great but we're talking about driving on snow and ice not sand stone in Moab Ut. 
The front dif should be open, not even a Limit Slip because of the same reasons mentioned above. The added stress to the half shafts, U-Joints and CV joints is only adding to repair cost and they will fail when plowing.
The ROI for installing ARB's is out of the question when up to $3k is involved in the purchase and installation. Most of the guys here are not trust fund baby's or do we have unlimited funds.$3k will go a long way for purchasing equipment that will make money everytime you use it.
Having enough horsepower/torque to run the vehicle with out over working the engine is a must. Unfortunately we're limited to 6speed transmission's and single speed axles in pick up type trucks. So a large displacement gas motor or diesel is the best option.
Mobility of the vehicle is dependent on the type of work you do, there are probably more single cab LWB pickups used for commercial plowing than anything else. 
Getting power to the ground is a balancing act, this is a combination of tire choice, load ,ballast and the operator of the vehicle. 
Lastly plow with the storm so dealing with several feet of snow is not the norm and when more traction is needed then chain up.


----------



## BOSS LAWN (Nov 6, 2011)

thelettuceman;1390771 said:


> Just me speaking here and there will be much disagreement with the following:
> I wish I had never sold my my Jeep CJ7. Great vehicle for driveways which is mostly what I do. My Ford F250 can't get into tight spots like the Jeep but the Jeep can't haul junk like the Ford.
> Mobility is more important to me than the other factors you ask about.
> Having said that, If I plowed Walmarts, I would not have either of the above mentioned vehicles.
> So to answer your question ... It all depends on what type of plowing you do.


I hear ya, I keep my GMC for the driveways that are tight and narrow and my Chevy for the wider drives.

I also put extra counter-weight in the bed of my truck. As for my Chevy that has a 8'6" blade with a 5.7 motor. Plow weight is 955lbs, counter-weight in rear is 800lbs. Evens out well.


----------



## hawk29 (Nov 4, 2006)

Like said above its a little of all things combined. I really like my 1/2 ton short bed reg cab K1500. Its small enough and nimble enouigh to get into tight spaces, its a step side so you have good visibility, has 3.73's and 5.7L motor so it has plenty of power, plus I can load w/ enough salt to have enough traction.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

I think this proves my point. 









You guys can feel free to use what you like-- but I like the Unimog solution. Especially the super small U20 model. It would be a contractors dream I think. The only thing you want to do for the American market is up the limiter to 72mph instead of 54mph. And you could put a bigger engine it perhaps a 286hp model with 860+ ft-lbs of torque.


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1401264 said:


> I think this proves my point.


Your point being what, a European Utilitarian Truck is superior to what is domestically built in North America? If this is the case why didn't you start the post differently.You asked for the opinions of the forum members and many give their view point of the 1st post of the thread. 
Don't take this the wrong way but the thread 
It seems every post you've started or participate in always ends up being they same thing. Which is a podium for you to tell all how superior a European truck is in comparison to what is built and commonly used in the US. Sure they're cool but I'm sure many others feel this is getting a little old.


----------



## Joe D (Oct 2, 2005)

Comparing a Unimog to a common plow truck is not even the same ball park. The U500 you posted about runs about 140,000 dollars. 
They can do more work with less power but they have the gearing to do so, something not found in many new pickups, same with the other big trucks you posted about.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

BUFF;1401330 said:


> Your point being what, a European Utilitarian Truck is superior to what is domestically built in North America? If this is the case why didn't you start the post differently.You asked for the opinions of the forum members and many give their view point of the 1st post of the thread.
> Don't take this the wrong way but the thread
> It seems every post you've started or participate in always ends up being they same thing. Which is a podium for you to tell all how superior a European truck is in comparison to what is built and commonly used in the US. Sure they're cool but I'm sure many others feel this is getting a little old.


It's not about European v. Domestic it is really about effective designs v. less effective designs.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

Joe D;1401340 said:


> Comparing a Unimog to a common plow truck is not even the same ball park. The U500 you posted about runs about 140,000 dollars.
> They can do more work with less power but they have the gearing to do so, something not found in many new pickups, same with the other big trucks you posted about.


Actually, I believe that U500 new would be closer to 200K and up with implements.


----------



## superdog1 (Oct 13, 2011)

TatraFan;1401394 said:


> It's not about European v. Domestic it is really about effective designs v. less effective designs.


IMHO, it has everything to do with opinion, not design. If Sir, they are so #$#@! great?, go buy one, use it to make $$ and be happy!

I am trying to figure out what your goal is? If you want all of us to sell our Chevies, Fords and Dodges and use a Tatra or Unimog?, forget it, as it isn't happening.

If you are hoping that we will all agree with your opinion and publicly state that, forget it, as it isn't happening.

I do not wish to offend you, I just wonder what your motives are?


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

superdog1;1401429 said:


> IMHO, it has everything to do with opinion, not design. If Sir, they are so #$#@! great?, go buy one, use it to make $$ and be happy!
> 
> I am trying to figure out what your goal is? If you want all of us to sell our Chevies, Fords and Dodges and use a Tatra or Unimog?, forget it, as it isn't happening.
> 
> ...


I want to know why people are so resistant to seeing the greatness of having multi-range gearboxes, fully locking drive trains and so on. That's all. The unimog video was just a good example of this type of truck in action. I don't see why Ford , Chevy, Dodge or so on doesn't make a F-450 size truck with full-time all wheel drive, multi-range automatic gearbox (only because Americans are in love with them), selectable two-speed transfer case with locking differential, driver selectable locking differentials front and rear, front engine mounted pto and centralized hydraulics. Give the features of a true work truck. I think people who use their truck for work and not as a status symbol would buy it and use it as intended.


----------



## superdog1 (Oct 13, 2011)

TatraFan;1401436 said:


> I want to know why people are so resistant to seeing the greatness of having multi-range gearboxes, fully locking drive trains and so on. That's all.


Those features are great. I have a multi-range gear box in my GMC. The high and low range works very good, Lol. The lockers are nice thing too, but the expense of adding them to a domestic truck are just not worth the gain?

I guess it all boils down to what we really need when plowing snow? To this point, I have no trouble getting the job done with my 94 GMC dually dump truck. It is the same length as a pickup, has a "multi-range" gear box and the big block 454 motor pushes just as good as a diesel ( the gas mileage is no where as good but....)


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

superdog1;1401456 said:


> Those features are great. I have a multi-range gear box in my GMC. The high and low range works very good, Lol. The lockers are nice thing too, but the expense of adding them to a domestic truck are just not worth the gain?
> 
> I guess it all boils down to what we really need when plowing snow? To this point, I have no trouble getting the job done with my 94 GMC dually dump truck. It is the same length as a pickup, has a "multi-range" gear box and the big block 454 motor pushes just as good as a diesel ( the gas mileage is no where as good but....)


I think it would add capabilities to your truck that would be great. In my home town you can get snow storms with 40 inches at time sometimes. And I see plenty of plow guys running out of steam when you have 40 inch snow storm in 24 hours. Then out comes the loader or the tractor with snow blower. So I'm trying to figure out why Ford , Dodge or GM haven't tried to capitalize on this market? It seems to me that people in areas with heavy snow falls would want a truck like I'm talking about. However, areas with little snow then sure a regular pick is more than enough. But I've seen many 30 plus snow storms in my like and I've seen how much punishment it causes small trucks plowing snow.


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1401394 said:


> It's not about European v. Domestic it is really about effective designs v. less effective designs.


My comment to you is based on the 1st post of this thread and how they end up with you being a advocate for Unimog's or another truck that is not commonly used in this industry in North America. This is why when in post 39 I said this in the opening paragraph.



BUFF;1400192 said:


> My comments are referring to 3/4 ton and above pickup type trucks, after all this is what is mostly used for commercial plowing (non municipal) in North America.


When comparing a Unimog to a Domestic Pickup it's not apples to apples, the MB is truly a utilitarian vehicle designed to perform many very specific task. A Domestic Pickup on the other hand can be fitted with various pieces of equipment too but at much different level. When a everyday pickup isn't up to the task a another piece of equipment is brought in to do the job much more efficiently than a MB could and typically at a fraction of the cost. 
Most of the video on Unimogs plowing has them in a "Alpine" setting doing a very good job. Could a everyday pickup do the same task as efficient, probably not. Now match up a Unimog with a everyday pickup on a plow route in the mid west and the pickup would come out on top and at a fraction of the cost to own. 
Again not apples to apples.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

BUFF;1401489 said:


> My comment to you is based on the 1st post of this thread and how they end up with you being a advocate for Unimog's or another truck that is not commonly used in this industry in North America. This is why when in post 39 I said this in the opening paragraph.
> 
> When comparing a Unimog to a Domestic Pickup it's not apples to apples, the MB is truly a utilitarian vehicle designed to perform many very specific task. A Domestic Pickup on the other hand can be fitted with various pieces of equipment too but at much different level. When a everyday pickup isn't up to the task a another piece of equipment is brought in to do the job much more efficiently than a MB could and typically at a fraction of the cost.
> Most of the video on Unimogs plowing has them in a "Alpine" setting doing a very good job. Could a everyday pickup do the same task as efficient, probably not. Now match up a Unimog with a everyday pickup on a plow route in the mid west and the pickup would come out on top and at a fraction of the cost to own.
> Again not apples to apples.


I think cost is the issue with the Unimog. I personally think that the truck is way over priced. But isn't everything from MB? I think in regions like around the great lakes that get a lot of lake effect snow. The benefits of the compact truck with the ability to use a 10ft or greater plow would really come in handy.

The best system would be if a company adopted and modified the Walter 100% Positive Traction System. It was a torque proportioning differential. So instead of locking up when one side slipped, it instead put all the power the wheel that still had grip. And by using three of them in the truck they created an AWD truck with traction control back in the 1930's. That would be the best system. Because the truck would always seek to provide power to the wheel(s) with the most traction. So you wouldn't have all the stress on the drive line like you do from a system of lockers. You would also be able to send all the power to the rear wheels if they grip or to the front if they grip. That way the truck uses the power more effective-- you know instead of wasting it on wheels that are spinning with no traction.


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1401525 said:


> I think cost is the issue with the Unimog. I personally think that the truck is way over priced. But isn't everything from MB? I think in regions like around the great lakes that get a lot of lake effect snow. The benefits of the compact truck with the ability to use a 10ft or greater plow would really come in handy.


A 10' or great plow on a compact truck with lake effect snow that has a hi moisture content..........Yeah don't think that's a good combination, that's wheel loader work.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

BUFF;1401541 said:


> A 10' or great plow on a compact truck with lake effect snow that has a hi moisture content..........Yeah don't think that's a good combination, that's wheel loader work.


Well you would be surprised at how much that little unimog can push-- especially when you engage the working gears: the range that gets up to say maybe 15mph. Then you have a lot of power at your command. But if the snow gets way too deep put on the snowblower and use the crawler gears or hydrostatic drive option.

But here is what I'm talking when it comes to traction:








this is an NYC truck basically the same truck they use for garbage disposal. 
I think a smaller truck in a city like NYC would be the way to go myself.

My point is that you even on flat and level ground with weight limited slip or open differentials will leave you in the cold. Compare this performance to that of this American Truck My favorite Snow Truck of all time actually-- I was so going to buy one once when I was 18-- but 36mph did sort of put a crimp on the non-winter fun.




it's a cool truck...


----------



## tjctransport (Nov 22, 2008)

TatraFan;1401436 said:


> I want to know why people are so resistant to seeing the greatness of having multi-range gearboxes, fully locking drive trains and so on. That's all. The unimog video was just a good example of this type of truck in action. I don't see why Ford , Chevy, Dodge or so on doesn't make a F-450 size truck with full-time all wheel drive, multi-range automatic gearbox (only because Americans are in love with them), selectable two-speed transfer case with locking differential, driver selectable locking differentials front and rear, front engine mounted pto and centralized hydraulics. Give the features of a true work truck. I think people who use their truck for work and not as a status symbol would buy it and use it as intended.


not resistant to seeing the greatness.
just the fact that in 43 years of driving i have had the need for a mult-range gearbox and front mount pto with centralized hydraulics exactly 0 times.
and i an sure 90% of the people here will say the same thing, except for a different amount of years driving


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

tjctransport;1401834 said:


> not resistant to seeing the greatness.
> just the fact that in 43 years of driving i have had the need for a mult-range gearbox and front mount pto with centralized hydraulics exactly 0 times.
> and i an sure 90% of the people here will say the same thing, except for a different amount of years driving


I've found the Mack Quad box in my old B81 before I sold it rather useful once... I moved a barn on parents property with it once...  Other than that one time- I just that it was cool shifting through 20 speeds using two sticks.

You don't think centralized hydraulics would make your life a little easier? You could merely attack the plow and frame to the truck attach the hoses to centralized hydraulic system, you could run the sander off the same hydraulics. With a rear hitch mount you could run your back blade as well. Instead of having your truck wired like a Christmas tree all you would do is quick detach hydraulic lines. You could have all the controls centralized in the cab for better ergonomics. I see a lot of advantages in this setup myself.


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1401845 said:


> I've found the Mack Quad box in my old B81 before I sold it rather useful once... I moved a barn on parents property with it once... Other than that one time- I just that it was cool shifting through 20 speeds using two sticks.


We used a slightly modified late 60's International School bus to move a barn, does this make it a "super truck"..........IMO no.

You've got a serious case of tunnel vision, be careful at train crossings.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

BUFF;1401890 said:


> We used a slightly modified late 60's International School bus to move a barn, does this make it a "super truck"..........IMO no.
> 
> You've got a serious case of tunnel vision, be careful at train crossings.


I was merely stating the only time I ever used the Mack 20spd box and shifted in the heavy load pattern. I did not call it a super truck in any way shape or form. I was merely illustrating a potential use.

It was pretty cool moving the big old barn-- the only time people said my truck was useful.


----------



## tjctransport (Nov 22, 2008)

TatraFan;1401845 said:


> I've found the Mack Quad box in my old B81 before I sold it rather useful once... I moved a barn on parents property with it once... Other than that one time- I just that it was cool shifting through 20 speeds using two sticks.
> 
> You don't think centralized hydraulics would make your life a little easier? You could merely attack the plow and frame to the truck attach the hoses to centralized hydraulic system, you could run the sander off the same hydraulics. With a rear hitch mount you could run your back blade as well. Instead of having your truck wired like a Christmas tree all you would do is quick detach hydraulic lines. You could have all the controls centralized in the cab for better ergonomics. I see a lot of advantages in this setup myself.


i have no need for a back blade on my pickup. if i need a back blade i use the John Deere 650 dozer
and if i need a sander, i use the mack with the 16 yard slip in unit.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

tjctransport;1402022 said:


> i have no need for a back blade on my pickup. if i need a back blade i use the John Deere 650 dozer
> and if i need a sander, i use the mack with the 16 yard slip in unit.


Maybe my terminology was incorrect- the rear mounted snow plow. 
http://snokontrol.com/rear-plow.php

I don't think a John Deere 650 would be effective on a clients drive way or parking lot.

As for the sander sure a 16y unit is great. But I think a Mack with tandem axles might be a tad too large for medium sized lots, residential drive ways and housing developments. Don't you think so too?


----------



## tjctransport (Nov 22, 2008)

the 16 yard sanders works fine for the housing developments. we only have to fill it once a day on average.
as for the driveways i leave them for the kids with shovels


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

TatraFan;1401845 said:


> I've found the Mack Quad box in my old B81 before I sold it rather useful once... I moved a barn on parents property with it once... Other than that one time- I just that it was cool shifting through 20 speeds using two sticks.


Ever heard of an 18 speed RoadRanger, the workhorse of the American 18 wheeler? One stick. Shifts nice and smooth, nice and safe with one hand on the wheel while shifting. And now they are being built with a button on the dash. Two hands on the wheel at all times.



TatraFan;1401845 said:


> You don't think centralized hydraulics would make your life a little easier? You could merely attack the plow and frame to the truck attach the hoses to centralized hydraulic system, you could run the sander off the same hydraulics. With a rear hitch mount you could run your back blade as well. Instead of having your truck wired like a Christmas tree all you would do is quick detach hydraulic lines. You could have all the controls centralized in the cab for better ergonomics. I see a lot of advantages in this setup myself.


Another great post showing how out of touch you are with the modern American plow and pickup. Do your realize it would take 8 hoses to operate the typical front mount powerplow, the king of parking lot snow removal? That's eight "quick connects" which you have obviously never attempted at sub zero temps. And, I'd like to see you run eight 5,000 psi hoses from the cab of a modern pickup to the grill. And six or ten more for the rear blade too.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

2COR517;1402445 said:


> Ever heard of an 18 speed RoadRanger, the workhorse of the American 18 wheeler? One stick. Shifts nice and smooth, nice and safe with one hand on the wheel while shifting. And now they are being built with a button on the dash. Two hands on the wheel at all times.


Yes I know that... The road range with a 18spd is what basically the two-stick Mack quad box was back in the day before they integrated all the function of the quadbox on one stick. I've personally only driven the 13spds and 15spds trucks plus the ten speed box of the Tatra manufacture. So I have no experience with the new Fuller 18spd boxes.

When I bought my first Mack out High School I wanted a classic truck and I found this awesome B81- it is also the truck I learned how to drive on from a cousin who was a trucker.



2Cor517 said:


> Another great post showing how out of touch you are with the modern American plow and pickup. Do your realize it would take 8 hoses to operate the typical front mount powerplow, the king of parking lot snow removal? That's eight "quick connects" which you have obviously never attempted at sub zero temps. And, I'd like to see you run eight 5,000 psi hoses from the cab of a modern pickup to the grill. And six or ten more for the rear blade too.


I don't see how out of touch it is... I've used quick connect hydraulics in the cold-- they are pretty easy to use.

I think you could it with less than 8 hoses. But, even if you had to use 8 hoses why would they be inside the cab? I'm pretty sure you could develop a nice control system like the Germans did for the Unimog. It would seem that you could control all the hydraulics from one central location with no hoses in the cab. Further more you could put quick connectors on the front and rear of the truck and never touch the grill. I never said modify an existing truck-- I was merely using the F-450 as a size reference-- the new truck would have totally new external features and the proper controls and ergonomics to make them worker friendly. You will notice the in the picture of the Unimog-- the quick connectors at the front of the truck neatly placed under the bonnet of the truck. The same is done at the rear as well. I think American engineers could also develop a similar solution for as many quick connectors as you need. 
http://unimogforsale.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/unimog-interior.jpg




The video shows the interior as well of a U400.

So I don't understand how I can be out touch if the people are using this type of set up every day ?


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

Four wheel steering would be another helpful feature.


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1402586 said:


> I don't see how out of touch it is... I've used quick connect hydraulics in the cold-- they are pretty easy to use.
> 
> I think you could it with less than 8 hoses. But, even if you had to use 8 hoses why would they be inside the cab? I'm pretty sure you could develop a nice control system like the Germans did for the Unimog. It would seem that you could control all the hydraulics from one central location with no hoses in the cab. Further more you could put quick connectors on the front and rear of the truck and never touch the grill. I never said modify an existing truck-- I was merely using the F-450 as a size reference-- the new truck would have totally new external features and the proper controls and ergonomics to make them worker friendly. You will notice the in the picture of the Unimog-- the quick connectors at the front of the truck neatly placed under the bonnet of the truck. The same is done at the rear as well. I think American engineers could also develop a similar solution for as many quick connectors as you need.
> http://unimogforsale.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/unimog-interior.jpg
> ...


The demand is not there for the "big 4" to pursue and manufacturing cost prohibited. On a very good year there's an average 20-30 plow-able events in most areas. The rest of the year pickups are used for other task that do not require central hydro's.
After market up-fitting is a possibility but cost again would be to high to justify, additionally transferring central hydros for truck to truck is a possibility but you still have the cost of removal and re-install. This is where the typical plow or sander platform comes into play. They both are priced for the market and are easily transferable.



TatraFan;1402655 said:


> Four wheel steering would be another helpful feature.


GM has been doing that for awhile, maybe you should research it.


----------



## BOSS LAWN (Nov 6, 2011)

TatraFan;1401845 said:


> I've found the Mack Quad box in my old B81 before I sold it rather useful once... I moved a barn on parents property with it once... Other than that one time- I just that it was cool shifting through 20 speeds using two sticks.
> 
> You don't think centralized hydraulics would make your life a little easier? You could merely attack the plow and frame to the truck attach the hoses to centralized hydraulic system, you could run the sander off the same hydraulics. With a rear hitch mount you could run your back blade as well. Instead of having your truck wired like a Christmas tree all you would do is quick detach hydraulic lines. You could have all the controls centralized in the cab for better ergonomics. I see a lot of advantages in this setup myself.


Sounds like he has no idea what being american is about from the other side of the globe. We depend on our Chevys, Fords & Dodges to get the job done. We have noo need for foreign imports to help out on our soil.

As far as the comments on John Deere's, no piece of foreign equipment will match the reliability & power of JD.

Stop being a salesman.


----------



## superdog1 (Oct 13, 2011)

BOSS LAWN;1403005 said:


> Stop being a salesman.


I think I will re-post what I put up earlier in the thread:

_

I am trying to figure out what your goal is? If you want all of us to sell our Chevies, Fords and Dodges and use a Tatra or Unimog?, forget it, as it isn't happening.

If you are hoping that we will all agree with your opinion and publicly state that, forget it, as it isn't happening.

*I do not wish to offend you, I just wonder what your motives are?* _

Why do you continue to push these vehicles down our throats? If you are NOT a sales person, you are wasting a lot of energy and time??


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

superdog1;1403021 said:


> I think I will re-post what I put up earlier in the thread:
> 
> _
> 
> ...


He's trying to run a bunch of plowers out of business with his majestic and glorious Mogs.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

dfd9;1403037 said:


> He's trying to run a bunch of plowers out of business with his majestic and glorious Mogs.


I would have said with the majestic raw power of a pagan god the Unimog will triumphantly vanquish all that come before it. Then you cue the music perhaps this song:





One must have a hobby.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

superdog1;1403021 said:


> I think I will re-post what I put up earlier in the thread:
> 
> _
> 
> ...


I'm just talking about trucks. I don't believe we have to agree on anything to talk about trucks.


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1403316 said:


> I would have said with the majestic raw power of a pagan god the Unimog will triumphantly vanquish all that come before it.


Until they breakdown and getting parts becomes a issue. You'd be out of business by the time they showed up. Without local support/service they're of no use, how many MB dealers are there in comparison to domestic or even Japanese dealers let alone ones that support Mogs.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

BOSS LAWN;1403005 said:


> Sounds like he has no idea what being american is about from the other side of the globe. We depend on our Chevys, Fords & Dodges to get the job done. We have noo need for foreign imports to help out on our soil.
> 
> As far as the comments on John Deere's, no piece of foreign equipment will match the reliability & power of JD.
> 
> Stop being a salesman.


I'm having t-shirts made up next that say "Veni, vidi, vici" and a picture of Mog on it. I think it will be a big hit with the 18-35 demographic.


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1403340 said:


> I'm having t-shirts made up next that say "Veni, vidi, vici" and a picture of Mog on it. I think it will be a big hit with the 18-35 demographic.


That will never happen, you're full of wind.


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

BUFF;1403331 said:


> Until they breakdown and getting parts becomes a issue. You'd be out of business by the time they showed up. Without local support/service they're of no use, how many MB dealers are there in comparison to domestic or even Japanese dealers let alone ones that support Mogs.


You're forgetting the first part, initial cost and production capabilities will price him right out of the market.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

BUFF;1403343 said:


> That will never happen, you're full of wind.[/QUOTE
> 
> Are you sure? I mean having a t-shirt made up is cheap.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

dfd9;1403349 said:


> You're forgetting the first part, initial cost and production capabilities will price him right out of the market.


It depends on how much capital you have and your strategy. If you're strategy is to make profit right away you might have problem with this scheme. However, if you have the ability to operate at breaking even or even incurring a loss for the first two to three years you could develop a long term strategy of market domination. This would be they way in which China grew so rapidly.


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1403350 said:


> BUFF;1403343 said:
> 
> 
> > That will never happen, you're full of wind.[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

BUFF;1403379 said:


> TatraFan;1403350 said:
> 
> 
> > Well let's see, there's been several threads you've started and have indicated you're importing a Mog or a Tatra and yet it never happens.......uhmmmm yeah I'm sure.
> ...


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

TatraFan;1403356 said:


> It depends on how much capital you have and your strategy. If you're strategy is to make profit right away you might have problem with this scheme. However, if you have the ability to operate at breaking even or even incurring a loss for the first two to three years you could develop a long term strategy of market domination. This would be they way in which China grew so rapidly.


Sure, like I said, I would welcome competition such as you allege in my market.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

dfd9;1403397 said:


> Sure, like I said, I would welcome competition such as you allege in my market.


You know if you're doing job site x for $150.00 per time; then I come along, and, say I'll do it for $100.00 per time with greater services-- who do you think the customer goes with? Especially, if I throw in a free demo-plowing on the first storm to prove my quality...


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

Is it just me or is the fact the Unimog is so ugly the reason why it is one sexy beast of a truck?


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

TatraFan;1403416 said:


> You know if you're doing job site x for $150.00 per time; then I come along, and, say I'll do it for $100.00 per time with greater services-- who do you think the customer goes with? Especially, if I throw in a free demo-plowing on the first storm to prove my quality...


Greater services? The snow is removed or it isn't. The job is done on time or it isn't. Customer couldn't care less if you use a lowly American made Ford or Chevy, or an overweight underpowered imported behemoth.

Demo plow? Are you serious? Do you really think the average property manager has time for that crap? Besides, how can you do a demo plow? The job is under contract before the snow removal season starts.

Once again, out of touch with the commercial snow removal scene.



TatraFan;1403421 said:


> Is it just me or is the fact the Unimog is so ugly the reason why it is one sexy beast of a truck?


Well, that's an ugly sentence. I'm guessing you are self medicating this evening?


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1403385 said:


> BUFF;1403379 said:
> 
> 
> > I did buy a Tatra T-815-- and now it is getting upgraded... It should be here in Feb or March area if everything goes right with the upgrades. When I get it I may or may not put pictures of it up here-- It depends if I still find this amusing to me.
> ...


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

BUFF;1403470 said:


> TatraFan;1403385 said:
> 
> 
> > Technically your are correct about NAFTA, however it was the head-gate that opened our boarders that allowed China and others to gain traction in the world market.
> ...


----------



## BOSS LAWN (Nov 6, 2011)

TatraFan;1403528 said:


> BUFF;1403470 said:
> 
> 
> > What opened China up was well the first visit to it by Nixon -- it was during the 1972-73 part of his presidency that we started to trade again with China. NAFTA (as we know it) wasn't even considered at the time. The Chinese policy has been for more than 30 years to exploit the large population base as you correctly stated. However, it is more complex. we have lots of issues with China. But biggest issue is the lack of proper valuation process on their currency.
> ...


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1403528 said:


> BUFF;1403470 said:
> 
> 
> > What opened China up was well the first visit to it by Nixon -- it was during the 1972-73 part of his presidency that we started to trade again with China. NAFTA (as we know it) wasn't even considered at the time. The Chinese policy has been for more than 30 years to exploit the large population base as you correctly stated. However, it is more complex. we have lots of issues with China. But biggest issue is the lack of proper valuation process on their currency.
> ...


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

2COR517;1403466 said:


> Greater services? The snow is removed or it isn't. The job is done on time or it isn't. Customer couldn't care less if you use a lowly American made Ford or Chevy, or an overweight underpowered imported behemoth.


Funny, every time I asked people to sand my driveway at my farm- they said that was an extra cost. And thus one would concluded I think correctly a separate service from that of just snow removal. Perhaps it falls under the heading of ice removal/management. Because if it falls under snow removal I would think it would be factored into the total cost of the job? Unless people in New York State are just really trying to rip off the City-Folk and Former Locals (it is possible)? I going with the fact that if you figure out how to bundle a few other operations that usually cost extra into one low price-- people eat that up.

Marketing is the key-- If you sell your customer on the fact that your equipment is the type of equipment designed to handle all conditions. It is why all of our major fortune 500 companies love to tell us how they are using state of the art logistical systems and so on. So I figure



2Cor517 said:


> Demo plow? Are you serious? Do you really think the average property manager has time for that crap? Besides, how can you do a demo plow? The job is under contract before the snow removal season starts.


You're right that wasn't as well thought out. However, let's not think of Demo as actual physical demo- but let us think of demo as a multimedia presentation. That will work in my favor. You know after 15 plus years doing analysis and giving presentations to CEO's and even a couple of major government officials-- I know the power of a good presentation. You show your vehicles in variety of conditions doing what they do. And you know people look at it and say well the price is right and they seem very capable and together-- what is my old guy doing to stay current? Nothing-- well maybe-- a new guy is in order.



2Cor517 said:


> Once again, out of touch with the commercial snow removal scene.





2Cor517 said:


> Well, that's an ugly sentence. I'm guessing you are self medicating this evening?


Nope, Mr. Wu is a terrible typer when he's had too many Shirley Temples with extra Gin! It is so hard to find a good man-servant these days.


----------



## leon (Nov 18, 2008)

*Unimogs*

Most if not all Frieghtliner resellers also handle the 
Mercedes Benz Unimog, parts are not a problem 
in the states.


----------



## TatraFan (Oct 29, 2011)

BUFF;1403870 said:


> TatraFan;1403528 said:
> 
> 
> > Nixon was involved with implementing talks with China but for reasons other than full blown trade. The same guy who signed the NAFTA agreement also signed the Chinese Trade agreement at the end of his term as President. Oddly enough these two men has something in common, they both went through impeachment hearings. Unlike Nixon, Clinton was arrogant enough to see it all the way through to get acquitted.
> ...


----------



## BUFF (Dec 24, 2009)

TatraFan;1403895 said:


> BUFF;1403870 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that is true about the impeachment hearings. The only question is this what does that have to do with Sino-American economic policy? Are you talking about the 1999 Trade Agreement with China? Because if you are that trade agreement did attempt a few positive things: increase exportation of US goods into China and reduce tariffs on US goods. However, it hasn't worked out in the long for our favor. Again the currency issue is at the root of the problem. However, the problem of the Chinese trade deficit existed from the start of our trading. China has never had the disposable income for the most part to purchase US goods; and frankly if that was not bad enough they used to just flat out not trade with the US fairly. When it first started corporations felt they could use the Chinese like mercantile state-- where they would use the low cost of production and sell to the rich US market. They have but they forgot one thing China has grown immensely from it. And with their restrictive policies on exports they were able to turn tables on the economies of the Western world. The point is NAFTA didn't do anything. The trade issues were built into the system from the start of free trade in 1973.
> ...


----------



## Mike_PS (Feb 28, 2005)

I'm thinking this thread has run its course so I'm putting this one to rest


----------

