Congress adopts fuel economy standards for heavy trucks

[allan5oh]

http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=65347

It will be a few years before this takes effect.

However I see a problem. For example, if we're allowed to carry 90,000 lbs within the future, our fuel mileage will go down, but our ton-mile per gallon used will go up. Our trucks will actually be more efficient.

What's needed is BSFC standards. BSFC is how much fuel it takes to make one horsepower for one hour. This is very standard stuff, and the lower number(less fuel) is better. Since horsepower requirements vary so much, this is the way to go.

I'd have no problem with congress adopting BSFC specific CAFE standards. I do have a problem with them adopting across the board MPG standards. It just plain doesn't make sense. Should peterbilt be punished for their 389?

[Mandilon]

It just plain doesn't make sense. Should peterbilt be punished for their 389?

They SHOULD for their 379 :idea:

[allan5oh]

Same truck almost.

I think the free market should decide if one wants to drive an aero truck or not.

But that's just my opinion.

I think whatever truck they choose, the engine should be more efficient then current engines.

[GMAN]

I would like to see greater fuel efficient engines. They are really needed. I would still prefer to have the market dictate more fuel efficient engines rather than a government mandate.

[allan5oh]

I agree GMAN, unfortunately there isn't any of that. Well we have seen some, for example CAT losing a huge share of the market to cummins.

The problem is nobody puts out cold hard #'s. If they did, I could tell you without a doubt which engine is more efficient. I think the government should mandate that, forcing the OEM engine makers to put out BSFC numbers. They should also have a "minimum efficiency" and slowly work it up over the years.

[GMAN]

It would be much better of all engine manufacturers used the same benchmarks to report their performance. The government mandates less pollutants from engines which reduces efficiency and now wants to raise mpg. I think they need to concentrate on one thing at a time. With higher fuel prices I think it would be more in the national interest to increase fuel efficiency rather than reducing pollutants. Carriers and owner operators would clamor to any reliable engine that would enhance fuel efficiency as long as performance wasn't impacted. The main problem is increased government interference in the form of greater regulations which increase our operating costs.

[allan5oh]

GMAN, you and I are in full agreement.

Standardized testing of all heavy truck engines, stand-alone, no truck. This will eliminate variables. "engine dyno" if you will.

Detroits new engine is interesting, with the turbocompounding and elimination of the variable geometry turbo.

[GMAN]

We may see a thinning of the pack in the next few years. Market share is bound to change. Paccar, Navastar and Mercedes all have engines they will market in the next several years. Navastar and Mercedes are already in the market. Paccar should be in the fray shortly. This could further erode market share for the three major engine manufacturers. I would expect some form of standardized testing and analysis to come into play with all of these new competitors. In fact, a standardized method of analysis would need to be established to make sure all manufacturers were in compliance.

[allan5oh]

It's actually called BSFC. It's a measure of efficiency.

It's the amount of fuel in lbs, to make one horsepower for one hour.

From there, you can calculate "thermal efficiency" if you want. Since we know the amount of BTU's in a gallon of fuel, and we know how much horsepower the engine is making. BTU's and horsepower are directly related.

[Mandilon]

point bounce?

how did this double post?

[Mandilon]

According to the EPA aerodynamics will produce the biggest gains in fuel economy (peter-whatever :arrow: ).

They acknowledge that engine efficiency would be the most expensive way to proceed as they are already (cost return per improvement/investment) as efficent as research permits.

Aerodynamics, they claim, (I agree 100%) is the most cost-effective way to go and they're even helping trucking companies aquire the neccessary aerodynamic improvements with government loans for companies that can't garner the cash for such improvements.

I'll look for the information and links to back-up the above. I store so much information that I end up not finding it when I need it.

Because of national security I think the SUPER HOGS should be eliminated or at least penalized (like smokers, super cig taxes) ther're as efficient/effective as unions.

Who in their right mind would CONTINUE hauling products in fuel hogs? The consumer ends up paying for this inefficient fuel hogs via higher prices (as with unions).

Let's show the world 'our smarts!'

[allan5oh]

They acknowledge that engine efficiency would be the most expensive way to proceed as they are already (cost return per improvement/investment) as efficent as research permits.

Bull****. If this was true, why is there such a huge difference between different engine makes? There are still huge efficiency differences. Engine efficiency is being looked at, look at detroits new engine. Also, things such as exhaust heat recovery, and other things, are being looked at. Here's a good link:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...ngs/index.html

A lot of good articles in 2006. Also read up on HCCI, variable compression, different turbo designs, etc..

Improvements in engine efficiency can be done, but it has to be done from a "top down" approach. I cannot improve the efficiency of my engine, but I can improve aerodynamics. There needs to be more pressure on engine builders. Economy of scale would also improve.

Aerodynamics, they claim, (I agree 100%) is the most cost-effective way to go and they're even helping trucking companies aquire the neccessary aerodynamic improvements with government loans for companies that can't garner the cash for such improvements.

What about those that cannot do anything for aerodynamics? deckers, those hauling RGN, oversize loads. The only "real" way these folks can improve MPG is with a more efficient engine.

Because of national security I think the SUPER HOGS should be eliminated or at least penalized (like smokers, super cig taxes) ther're as efficient/efective as unions.

They already are every time they go to the pump. Also, these "super hogs" as you call them, do have the potential to get good fuel mileage. The problem is there are no proper ways to compare different trucks, because everyone has a different operation. I get 7.5 MPG pulling dry vans, which is decent. But pulling an RGN with oversize, 5.5 MPG would be fantastic. Should the RGN truck be penalized over mine? No, it should not.

Who in their right mind would CONTINUE hauling products in fuel hogs? The consumer ends up paying for this inefficient fuel hogs via higher prices (as with unions).

Maybe, maybe not. Most of the time it will just cause reduced profits.

[Mandilon]

Bull****. If this was true, why is there such a huge difference between different engine makes? There are still huge efficiency differences. Engine efficiency is being looked at, look at detroits new engine. Also, things such as exhaust heat recovery, and other things, are being looked at. Here's a good link:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...ngs/index.html

A lot of good articles in 2006. Also read up on HCCI, variable compression, different turbo designs, etc..

Improvements in engine efficiency can be done, but it has to be done from a "top down" approach. I cannot improve the efficiency of my engine, but I can improve aerodynamics.

It's OBVIOUS that work on engine efficiency needs to be researched FOREVER.

Five to 20 years down the road the manufactures will keep obtaining better results.

BUT right here right now aerodynamics will produce the FASTEST solution at the LEAST cost.

Argue with the EPA, these are not MY findings.

IF the efficiencies between engins is so great why doesn't it show in the fuel mileage? Because if it showed in fuel milage truckers would flock to that particular engine.

There needs to be more pressure on engine builders. Economy of scale would also improve.

This one sounds pretty much like the stupid truckers strike. WHO would STEP-UP to do that? Another truckers strike? This one over engine efficiency?

The gov. once was trying to pressure GM into designing safer cars. How did GM respond? They SAID *WE* are the gov. so we'll do whatever WE WANT.

Didn't you read "Unsafe at any speed?"

What about those that cannot do anything for aerodynamics? deckers, those hauling RGN, oversize loads.

OBVIOUSLY aerodynamics is not the answer for all, there are ALWAYS exceptions.

The only "real" way these folks can improve MPG is with a more efficient engine.

There are already strong enough engines and gearing for this situations. If there weren't HOW would they be moving those loads RIGHT NOW?

Should the RGN truck be penalized over mine? No, it should not.

Aren't you EVER going to understand thet there are EXCEPTIONS????

God Bless ALL

[allan5oh]

It's OBVIOUS that work on engine efficiency needs to be researched FOREVER.

Five to 20 years down the road the manufactures will keep obtaining better results.

BUT right here right now aerodynamics will produce the FASTEST solution at the LEAST cost.

Only if current aero sucks. It doesn't. The gains will be small.

Argue with the EPA, these are not MY findings.

IF the efficiencies between engins is so great why doesn't it show in the fuel mileage? Because if it showed in fuel milage truckers would flock to that particular engine.

Why do you think Cat's market share is now half of cummins? It took far too long for this to happen. Now what if we had efficiency numbers for the cat engine back when acert came out in 2003? We would know right away that fuel mileage with them would be hard.

This one sounds pretty much like the stupid truckers strike. WHO would STEP-UP to do that? Another truckers strike? This one over engine efficiency?

The gov. once was trying to pressure GM into designing safer cars. How did GM respond? They SAID *WE* are the gov. so we'll do whatever WE WANT.

Didn't you read "Unsafe at any speed?"

I was talking about pressure from the EPA

OBVIOUSLY aerodynamics is not the answer for all, there are ALWAYS exceptions.

What about those with very good aerodynamics? My truck is great, trailer could be improved but since it's company owned that won't happen probably. The only way to further improve my truck is with a more efficient power.

There are already strong enough engines and gearing for this situations. If there weren't HOW would they be moving those loads RIGHT NOW?

I wasn't talking about horsepower, I was talking about efficiency. BSFC. Also known as "thermal efficiency"

Aren't you EVER going to understand thet there are EXCEPTIONS????

God Bless ALL

That was my point, you cannot compare different operations with different trailers and different loads driving in different areas of the country. However, if every truck had a more efficient engine, the MPG would improve for ALL trucks.

[Mack2]

It just plain doesn't make sense. Should peterbilt be punished for their 389?

They SHOULD for their 379 :idea:

Why should they be punished for the 379? Should we also punish everyone that has a 379? Should it not be up to the person buying the truck to decide if he wants an aero truck or a straight hood truck?

Frankley I wouldn't care if the most aero truck on the road only got 3MPG. Truckers would just have to charge more and people would have to pay more and companys would have to pay people more but, everthing would still be in ballence.

Oh and Mandilon if you hate Pete's so much why do you have that avator?

[Ian Williams]

This really seems like an area where new government regulations that tell the OEMs what to build are not needed.

Now having standards so you can compare apples to apples with different engines would be a good thing. Perhaps have a series of standard tests with for different hauling scenarios, just as the EPA has city and highway mileage for cars. Drivetrains could be rated for pulling a Van/reefer, tanker, doubles, Flatbed/stepdeck/double drop, etc etc etc.

The vast majority of purchasing decisions made in the class 8 market are driven by hard nosed business realities derived from data. The UPSs, Con-Ways and Schneiders want the most value from their drivetrains when they buy equipment.

Fuel use is already a HUGE factor in spec'ing and purchasing a new truck. Look at how Freightliner and International are duking it out in the pages of Transport Topics with their mileage claims for the Cascadia and ProStar.

This is not like the market for SUVs, Pickups & Cars where many people let their ego and perceived needs dictate their purchasing decision. Something like 90% of 4X4 vehicles will never leave the pavement.

[GMAN]

People seem all too willing for the government to jump in and solve all of their problems. Market forces work if left alone. If one manufacturer could find a way to significantly increase fuel mileage, then the others would either follow or lose market share. I see no reason why we should not have trucks that get 10 or more mpg today. I think the technology is here, it is a matter of will and consumer demand.

[BanditsCousin]

Mandilon already said its because its a "flag", depsite being able to go on google and lookup a pic of a flag and using it instead.

What he also doesn't care about is spec'ing a T2000 for heavy haul is a lot harder than a W900 or 379. If we all pulled vans or whatever, aero might be the no brainer.

I'm a terrorist because I don't have a fairing on the top of my cab and pull a van 8) However, to someone educated, they'd know it would be busted into a million fiberglass pieces by now with all the neighborhoods I go in

[RostyC]

Because of national security I think the SUPER HOGS should be eliminated or at least penalized (like smokers, super cig taxes) ther're as efficient/effective as unions.

What does oil have to do with national security? You think if oil goes away all the bad guys will too? Nope, they'll still be here and they'll still make money off something else to fund terrorism. It's not just oil money that funds these terror groups.

Second point on this statement is if you keep giving the government more power, they'll eventually come after something you enjoy. It's easy to say to tax or ban something you don't enjoy, but one day it might be something you like, then what?

Less government, not more.

[BanditsCousin]

Muslims have been have been fighting over there forever. Christian wars, etc... Oil is their leverage right now. I agree, if no oil, they'd find somthing else.

Still, besides political reasons, fuel efficiency would be beter for the environment and the polar ice caps 8)