[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?