I don't know if now is the best time to announce something like this.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22394

 

I'll plead ignorance here, but I have to imagine that if it only costs "hundreds" of dollars to improve the fuel economy 9-23% on these vehicles (which already cost at least what, $50,000 and probably easily climb to well over $250,000) that it would have been done by choice years ago.

 

 

At the same time, they ratchet up the emissions requirements, which are often at odds to fuel economy and certainly to power.

Fact is, if the manufacturers had the know-how to increase efficiency that much for big rigs, they would have. Fuel is the number one cost for long-haul trucks, and any net cost advantage they could offer the market would gain them tremendous market share. It's not like consumer cars, where people are willing to sacrifice some fuel economy for luxury or performance and therefore sometimes the government needs to step in to rearrange priorities ... with big rigs, fuel economy already is the number priority.

In other words, if such gains could be gotten, they already would have been.

 

This...

 

Seems more than logical to me as well.

 

Yeah..emissions and gas milage seems to really be at odd on diesels. Every since they add the DPF and Urea to new diesels, gas milage has fallen.

 

Do you think it's because of the addition of the DPF and urea injection, or that those just coincide with calibration changes that were geared more towards emissions performance than engine efficiency/fuel economy?

 

The addition of diesel particulate filters alone (as happened with the EPA07 diesel regs) did hurt mileage somewhat because fuel is used to "burn off" / regenerate the particulate trap. However, SCR allows the engine to run in a NOx-heavier region (making less particulate / soot matter), because the NOx can be catalyzed downstream, so the 2010+ engines that have both DPF and SCR are seeing some mileage increases. At least in the heavy duty world.

In the pickup world, since they keep adding more and more power and torque, I'm not sure where the numbers fall.

 

This might not be so bad, depending on how it's put into practice. For example - there are already class 5-7 hybrid trucks that can get some pretty swank fuel economy depending on application (the hybrid system is designed and built by Eaton's Roadranger line) and I'd bet they'll already meet the new regs.

Next, a lot of manufacturers can use this as an excuse to cut out the long nose flat hood trucks (which have terrible economy!) where they blamethe govt for ditching them and can save some face. Then I bet this would apply to vehicles "as configured", meaning you drop you 15L engine for an 11.9L and go from a 10 or 13 speed to a 17 speed. That'll get you a bit more. Automated transmissions are vastly superior when working with the engine controller and they're still not widely accepted.

Add skirts/flaps between the trailer and cab and between the trailer and the ground, add an aerodynamic "bubble" on the back of the trailer, add fenders over the drive axles, and make sure every truck is a full fairing truck..

Oh and use the govt mandate for better brake distances to go all disc that'll help out a bit too.

Then put a small APU on the rails for hvac/power when the truck is stopped so they don't have to run the engine at a truckstop (as apus are not part of the regulations).

I could see manufacturers wanting this where they distinctly DIDNT want to add SCR systems for 2010. There are long haul trucks out there that can get 8-9 mpg...

 

they call it a fuel savings plan.

what exactly is their plan for manufacturers to increase fuel mileage? tell the manufacturers that they need to do it then sit back and fine them if they dont reach the stupid goals?

my dad works for a major truck manufacturer. they try and get every last drop of fuel out of a mile. the government having this miraculous "plan" isn't going to do **** its just going to **** everyone off.

I just don't get their ignorance.

 

This douchebag has the answer to everything, doesn't he?

 

It is very easy for those, who are not in the trucking industry, to talk about how easy it is for the trucking industry to do something. The reality being, fuel is one of the most expensive aspects of the trucking industry. Anything "easy" to improve it, was done a long time ago.

If you want to eliminate the standard conventional tractor, who is going to pay for that?? Do understand that most tractors have a lifespan of many millions of miles. Also understand that a large part of the truck driving fleet is owner operators. These are people who own their own tractor, but not their own trailers. Most of the time, they pick up the loaded trailers from whomever they get the haul from, and deliver it to where it is going, and move on to the next. The vast majority of these people run conventional tractors.

Do you plan on paying them to replace their tractors with a new, $200K model?? Do remember that they have to live in their tractors also. When working, it is their home, and the average truck driver is on the road 25+ days a month.

Also, understand that there are probably millions of trailers out there. How much money do these companies have to spend, to put skirts on all of them?? To put APU's on all of the tractors?? To put all of the other aerodynamic skirting on everything?? How many billions are we talking about?? Or, are you advocating that all older tractors become illegal, forcing owners and companies to replace them all, with new, more efficient models??

Projections of fuel savings are BS, due to the replacement times for most tractors. The price of a tractor is amortized over a huge expanse of time and miles. It would literally be decades before they would all be replaced with newer, more expensive, less reliable but more efficient tractors.

How much money are you willing to pay for all of the goods you buy, for the trucking industry to eventually realize much of a fuel savings?? This would truly be a pay me now, and eventually I will give you a benefit.

What regulations like this do, is slowly squeeze out the independent owner operators, as it makes it more and more prohibitively expensive to operate on their small scale. You have no idea the 100's of thousands of people this could potentially put out of business. Any regulation that is anti small business.................. who employs the vast majority of people in this country................ should not be allowed to happen.

Ride one week in their footsteps, and then tell them how easy this all is.

 

I am going to admit to some skepticism here. Documentation, comparisons, design alternatives?

 

The Volvo aero tractors have had very limited penetration in our market. Truck drivers like the standard conventionals because they look better, ride better, and are easier to drive (you can see the corners and edges of the tractors, which is imperative to manuvering a huge tractor trailer................... where sometimes you are dealing with an inch or two between getting through unscathed, and disaster).

Some may scoff at drivers who care about how their tractor looks, but I will ask you this: Do you care about how your home looks?? Would you purchase a hideous (to you) home that cost alot more, but promised more efficiency?? Heck, do you purchase a car that you can't stand the look of?? What about if the government said that due to increased household efficiency standards, you have to buy an ugly house with a low ceiling, that you had to stoop over in, to change your pants. Oh yeah, and you get the bonus of much higher initial cost, and much higher maintenance (ask a few drivers with newer tractors about this).

Would you be jumping up and down for joy??