A Match Made in Denton

Avatar photo

When I slipped my bum into the driver’s seat of the 587, the first thing that struck me was the view. The dashboard and instrument panel seemed taller than usual, but the forward visibility remained outstanding. The hood, from the driver’s perch, is nearly invisible. My first impression was one of being ensconced behind the wheel of a truck designed as much for driver comfort and security as for safety and efficiency.

You can’t argue with the design, engineering, and manufacturing synergies of improving on an existing product.

Peterbilt’s Model 587 is an upgrade of the 10-year-old Model 387, but that’s simply where the story begins. While the only readily obvious changes are the resculpted hood and some aero refinements around the cab, the enhancements made to the 587 run chassis-deep and windshield tall.

The hardware is on point; so is the soft stuff, like ergonomics, visibility, and sound attenuation. It’s a truck that’ll please fleet owners as much as drivers.

Starting from the ground up, the 587 sits on the same chassis as the 386. Besides offering manufacturing efficiencies, it gives the 587 an additional nine degrees of wheel cut compared to its predecessor. That comes from improved steering geometry and TRW’s new high-pressure steering gear.

Engineers clearly paid a lot of attention to the front axle and still brought it home at less than 11,000 lb bobtail with a driver and about 200 gallons of fuel on board.

According to Peterbilt’s chief engineer, Landon Sproul, improved forward visibility was one of the key design objectives, and as I’ve stated, that was one of the first things that struck me.

"We had heard from shorter drivers that visibility over the hood of the 387 could be a problem," he said. "We were able to lower the front edge of the hood by a couple of inches, which shortens the distance the driver sees the ground in front of the truck by two feet."

Aerodynamic improvements were also high on the list. The 387 was good to begin with, but certain refinements are said to improve the 587 by about 2.5 percent — mostly from resculpting the hood and the front end of the truck. The lip on the lower edge of the bumper, for example, is said to improve the air flow under the bumper and around the wheels.

The electrical system has been re­vamped and now features extensive Gen II multiplexing and advanced diagnostics.
You’ll not find many wires under the dash, but those wires are pretty busy.  

SEEING THINGS: Fleety yes, but this one was comfortable, smooth,
and quiet. The 587 boasts outstanding forward and side visibility.

The engine compartment was pretty tidy, especially the firewall, and with some designed-in efficiency offered by the MX, routine maintenance and even some basic repair tasks appear to be less complex. Driver inspection items were easily accessible, with a notable exception. I predict more than a few jugs of oil will be spilled as drivers attempt to pour into the nearly concealed filler spout.

This truck was a fleet spec, and therefore a little sparse — rubber floor, vinyl upholstery, and just a handful of gauges. It’s easy to impress guys like me with deep pile carpet, leather seats, 7.1 surround sound entertainment systems (which I can never figure out how to operate), and a cooler full of soda. Having none of the above, this truck had to stand on its own humble merits, and stand it did.

Despite the lack of noise-dampening amenities, as mentioned above, the cab was still extremely quiet. Not perhaps as quiet as the Cascadia or the ProStar, but I’d bet given the full treatment, it would be a contender. Visibility was amazing, and the set-forward mirrors leave little doubt as to what’s happening beside the truck. The cab’s build quality and fit and finish were very good to excellent.

If it lacked anything, it was a place to put little loose stuff, like change, pens, notepads, etc. Most of that would likely wind up on the dash instead. As well, the window activation switches lacked a full-up or full-down detent. I know I’m whining here, but why should I have to keep my finger on the button when I’ve got more important things to do?

I found the truck both highly maneuverable as well as easy to place on the road. Getting into and out of Peterbilt’s Denton plant from I-35 can be a challenge. It’s located on the far side of a couple of oddly difficult turns to steer through, but I got ’round the corners without curbing the trailer tires — something I couldn’t do with a 389.

The ride was firm and predictable, but smooth enough that none of the coffee left the cup I had stashed in the cup holder –not very scientific, but a practical observation.

THE MX PERFORMS

I had the truck for only about five hours and wanted to give the engine an effective workout, so I steered clear of the straight, flat, and thoroughly clogged highways in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area.  

The DPF/SCR cans are located between the fuel tanks, with
the reaction tube between the two looped over the driveshaft.

I ran north from Denton on I-35 to Gainesville, and then headed west on U.S. 82 to Wichita Falls before heading back to Denton southeast along U.S. 287 and U.S. 380. The principal advantages of this route were the rolling hills with steeper-than-usual off-interstate grades.

It’s worth noting that this particular truck was a customer spec. The application listed on the line-set ticket was 100-percent on-highway, meaning it was engineered for flat straight four-lane highway. I didn’t think a little two-lane time would hurt it.

Here’s where that broad, low-rpm torque curve comes into play. The truck was geared so that it ran 65 mph at 1,400 rpm; 1,300 rpm at 60 mph — and a little less at 55, which is the state speed limit on some of those two-lane roads. I went up there wondering how well the MX would fare mated to a 10-speed OD transmission and long-legged rears — running at close to peak torque.

I’m pleased to report that 1,750 lb ft of torque was enough to pull the truck (65,000 lb GVW) over all those rolling hills where some of the grades were close to eight percent.

Drivers who might be inclined to run a gear down in such circumstances will be surprised at how well the MX pulls down in the lower rpm range 1,000-1,200 rpm. I went over a few hills at less than the 1,100 low-end point of the peak-torque band, and the engine kept on churning. And better still, it didn’t sound like or feel like it was about to come apart. Some engines develop an unpleasant knocking sound at very low rpm (that’s the torque spikes resonating through the drive line), but not the MX. In fact, it ran as smoothly at 1,000 rpm at 40 mph as it did at 1,600 rpm (a gear down).

There’s no excuse to run a gear down on roads where speed limits are less than the truck was optimized for.

The engine I drove was a multi-torque design, offering 1,750 lb ft in the top two gears, meaning in a pull you’ll have max torque down to 1,100 rpm in ninth gear, or at about 40 mph.

You won’t run into many hills on an interstate highway where you’d need to go much below that — and you won’t need a beefed-up drive train.

Conversely, a higher horsepower, lower torque engine such as the MX 485/1,650 would need to be shifted sooner on a hill. That would put the driver up into the higher horsepower (high fuel consumption) range sooner than my 430/1,550-1,750 did.

At 60-65 mph (1,300-1,400 rpm), you’re 200-300 rpm above the torque drop-off point of 1,100 rpm, which still gives a good margin before a downshift would be needed in a pull.

From a drivability view point, I have to say it’s a perfectly setup.

I’m prepared to give this MX really high marks for drivability. It’s a quiet, smooth-running engine with predictable throttle response. It’s easy to up and downshift — dare I say, it shifts as smoothly and predictably as a Cat.

I can’t offer anything on fuel economy because the truck had less than 1,000 miles on the clock, and the drive I did would not qualify as fuel economy test.

If this MX engine suffers anywhere, it would be in the engine brake performance. Since retarding capability is driven by both displacement and engine speed, the MX’s 12.9 liters are a bit of a handicap. And as with all low rpm engines, drivers do have to downshift if they want maximum output from the retarder. I noticed a marked improvement after dropping a couple of gears, giving the engine brake the benefit of an additional 400 to 800 rpm.

THE SUM OF ALL PARTS

To sum up the truck: not revolutionary, but a highly competent successor to a popular, solid, wide-cab tractor.

The 587 no doubt benefits from various chassis and suspension improvements made since I drove the 387 back in 2000. The aero refinements will prove themselves — or not — over time. The MX engine I think will prove a popular successor to the ­yellow engines that formerly occupied the space between the frame rails, and will appeal to those customers for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the two engines feel remarkably similar from the driver’s seat.

The MX is a light engine, which is becoming an increasing concern today with the additional weight imposed on truckers by the blasted EPA. It’s almost 1,000 lb lighter on the front end than some other trucks, and at 18,860 lb, it’s a fairly light vehicle overall.

I think fleets and owner-operators will find something to like in this combination, as company drivers will too. It’s big and roomy, smooth and quiet, and with a decidedly aero-friendly profile and an engine that looks really economical on paper, enjoying one of these won’t take a big bite out of your earnings statement.

Avatar photo

Jim Park was a CDL driver and owner-operator from 1978 until 1998, when he began his second career as a trucking journalist. During that career transition, he hosted an overnight radio show on a Hamilton, Ontario radio station and later went on to anchor the trucking news in SiriusXM's Road Dog Trucking channel. Jim is a regular contributor to Today's Trucking and Trucknews.com, and produces Focus On and On the Spot test drive videos.


Have your say


This is a moderated forum. Comments will no longer be published unless they are accompanied by a first and last name and a verifiable email address. (Today's Trucking will not publish or share the email address.) Profane language and content deemed to be libelous, racist, or threatening in nature will not be published under any circumstances.

*