Here is a comparison that looks like a mistake in the catalogue. Two Foton Auman Planet cargo trucks. One is $22,000 and one is $36,000 — a $14,000 gap. The dearer one has 50 more horsepower, 2.2 more litres of engine, an extra axle and two more tyres.

And they are rated at almost exactly the same gross weight.

The 4×2 is listed at 16 tonnes. The 6×2 publishes 16,070, 16,005, 15,570 and 15,505 kg depending on variant. In other words, the dearer truck is rated the same or marginally less.

That is not a catalogue error, and understanding why is the difference between buying the right truck and spending $14,000 on capability you cannot use.

The two trucks side by side

Why the extra axle does not raise the rating

An extra axle spreads weight; it does not create it. Gross vehicle weight is set by the sum of the axle ratings and by what the chassis, brakes and frame can handle. Add a third axle and you divide the same load across more contact patches — which is valuable for road wear, for bridge formula compliance and for stability — but the total is still governed by the same class of vehicle.

So what does the 6×2 actually buy? Four things.

1. Two more tyres

Nine against seven. More contact patch means less load per tyre, better tyre life, and better grip and stability. It also means two more tyres to replace, which is the cost side.

2. A longer body on the same vehicle

The 6×2 wheelbase is 2,100 + 5,200 mm. That is a long load bed, and on express and freight work — which is exactly what this truck is listed for — body length is revenue. Volumetric freight hits the space limit long before the weight limit, which is why the rating being the same does not make the 6×2 pointless.

3. A stronger rear axle

A 440 axle against a 368. That is a higher torque-capacity unit, appropriate for 290 hp and 6.7 litres rather than 240 hp and 4.5 litres.

4. Better ride and stability loaded

More axles and a longer wheelbase ride better on poor surfaces and are more stable at speed with a tall body. For a truck doing long express legs that matters.

The engine gap is the clearest difference

This is where the $14,000 is most visible. The 4×2 runs a 4.5-litre four-cylinder-class Cummins F4.5NS6B240. The 6×2 runs a 6.7-litre inline six Cummins D6.7NS6B290.

That is 50 horsepower and 2.2 litres — but the more important difference is the character. A 6.7-litre inline six makes its torque lower and holds it longer than a 4.5-litre unit. On a truck that will be loaded to 16 tonnes and running express legs all day, that is the difference between holding top gear on a grade and downshifting twice.

Both are China VI, so there is no emissions difference to weigh. Both use eight-speed Fast gearboxes, though the 6×2 gets the 8JS105TA against the 8JS95TE — a higher torque-capacity box to match the bigger engine.

The gearing is nearly identical

The 4×2 offers 4.333 standard with 4.875 and 4.111 optional. The 6×2 offers 4.444 or 4.875. Those are all working ratios in the same band.

Interesting detail: the 4×2 gives you three choices, including a 4.111 that is longer-legged than anything on the 6×2. If a meaningful part of your work is running light or empty on the highway, that 4.111 option is worth having and it is something the 6×2 does not offer.

Conversely, if your work is heavy and starts are frequent, 4.875 is available on both.

Fuel tank and range

The 4×2 lists 450 litres standard with 600 optional, both aluminium. The 6×2 lists 600 litres of aluminium as standard.

On paper a wash, but note the framing: 600 litres is an upgrade on the cheaper truck and the baseline on the dearer one. That is consistent with the 6×2 being specified for long express legs and the 4×2 for regional and less-than-truckload work — which is exactly how both sheets describe their purpose.

What you give up with the 4x2

Two tyres per replacement cycle is the recurring one. Beyond that: a shorter body on a 5,150 mm wheelbase, less stability with a tall load at speed, a smaller engine that will work harder at 16 tonnes, and a lower-capacity rear axle and gearbox.

What you gain is $14,000, a shorter and more manoeuvrable vehicle, seven tyres instead of nine, a tighter turning circle, and — worth saying — a 4.111 axle option the bigger truck does not have.

The cabs are the same

Both Planet models list the same berth specification: a lower berth 700 mm wide, an upper berth 695 mm, and 840 mm of berth spacing. Both offer a flat-floor cabin, ventilated and heated seats, a large-angle front axle with a large-diameter steering mechanism cutting turning radius by 10% and steering effort by 30%, and a synchronised gearbox with optimised shift logic calibrated for plains, mountains, highways and national roads.

The 4×2 is listed as high roof with a flat floor; the 6×2 as standard floor or high roof. Both are comfortable trucks by the standards of this class, and the cab should not drive your decision.

Which one should you buy?

Buy the Planet 240 4×2 if your loads are dense rather than bulky, your routes are regional, you want the lowest capital cost and the fewest tyres, manoeuvrability matters, and 16 tonnes at 240 hp is genuinely enough.

Buy the Planet 290 6×2 if your freight is volumetric and body length is revenue, you run long express legs, you want the 6.7-litre inline six and the stronger driveline, you value the stability and tyre life of nine wheels, and the 600-litre standard tank matters.

And be honest about this: if your average load is under about eight tonnes and your average trip is under 200 km, the 4×2 will do the job for $14,000 less. The 6×2 earns its premium on distance and volume, not on weight.

The extra axle buys body length, stability and tyre life. It does not buy gross weight. If you need more gross weight, you need a different truck, not a third axle.

What 6x2 actually means, and the variant to watch

A word of caution on the 6×2 configuration, because it is not one thing. A 6×2 has three axles with one driven, and the second non-driven axle can be either a lifting tag axle behind the drive axle or a second steered axle in front.

The sheet lists the drive form as 6×2(2), which indicates a specific variant, but it does not say whether the extra axle lifts. That matters for two reasons. A lifting tag axle can be raised when running empty, which saves tyre wear and improves traction. A fixed axle cannot, and it will scrub its tyres on every tight turn.

Ask which you are getting. On a truck doing urban multi-drop work, a lifting axle is worth having; on a truck running long highway legs it matters less.

The 2,100 + 5,200 mm wheelbase also tells you this is a tag-axle-behind-drive layout rather than a twin-steer, given the long rear spacing. Confirm it, because it affects turning circle and where the load sits.

The operating arithmetic

Run the numbers on tyres over five years, because that is where the two trucks diverge most consistently.

Nine tyres against seven means two more units per replacement. At two replacement cycles a year on a working truck, that is four extra tyres annually per vehicle. On a fleet of twenty, that is eighty extra tyres a year — a real line in a budget.

Against that, nine tyres spread the same load more widely, so each wears less. The net effect is usually that the 6×2 costs somewhat more in tyres overall but gives better tyre life per unit and better traction. Neither outcome is dramatic, and neither should decide the purchase.

The fuel picture is clearer: a 6.7-litre engine moving 16 tonnes will generally burn more than a 4.5-litre engine moving 16 tonnes, particularly if the smaller engine is not being worked to its limit. If your loads are light, the 4×2 wins on fuel as well as capital.

Compare the two trucks side by side