By on February 19, 2014

International LoneStar

Before a gathering at a distribution warehouse in Maryland, United States President Barack Obama announced that his administration has set March 2016 as the deadline for the next round of fuel efficiency and emissions standards for medium and heavy trucks to meet compliance.

Bloomberg reports President Obama’s latest initiative — part of his overall strategy regarding energy security and climate change — will bring “thousands of dollars of savings every year” for truck operators while also benefiting the economy via lower costs for consumer goods and new technology development. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the new standards by March 2015.

Industry groups in general were supportive of the announcement, which will also see manufacturers working with the federal government on bringing new trucks up to the new standards, though American Trucking Association president Bill Graves urged the Obama administration to proceed with caution by setting forth a path “that is both based on the best science and research available and economically achievable.”

Moving forward from 2016, the next set of standards to come into force by 2018 and beyond will see the industry aggressively use technology — especially in the use of aerodynamics — to meet the fuel economy standards set at that time,.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

89 Comments on “Medium, Heavy Truck Fuel Economy Standards Deadline Set For March 2016...”


  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    If anyone is interested read this working document. It’s an eye opener.

    It thoroughly explains the policy and direction the US will be heading in regarding medium, heavy truck standards.

    http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    This is a very large document.

    This is the document/link I thought I had posted above.

    Sorry.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-15/pdf/2011-20740.pdf

  • avatar
    Onus

    This also includes Heavy duty pickups. 8500lbs+ gvwr.

  • avatar

    No truck that EVER rolls out of an American factory will EVER get 54 mpg.

    It’ll have to be a Tesla EV Truck. I don’t even think they could get that out of a turbodiesel truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Bigtrucks
      Boy, do you have a time machine?

      You seem to live in the 60s.

      I did post a link with a small Fiat diesel pickup that can carry 2 500lbs and is returning an FE figure of 47mpg. That’s with the ‘fully sick’ 1.6 litre turbo diesel, not the 1.3 diesel that’s 54mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      Onus

      This isn’t cafe but a different program. Read what al posted. These trucks aren’t even regulated on a mpg basis and footprint like cafe but a g CO2 / ton mile, and gal / 1000 ton mile. They are based on carrying ability. The epa knows that these vehicles tow and haul and they don’t expect that to change so they made a system that works with it.

  • avatar

    If Tesla built a 4 Wheel Drive, silent, electric powered truck: (Model T)

    #1 it would cost a sh!tload, but companies would buy it to show off “how green they are”.
    #2 it would revolutionize, demasculinate and sterilize trucking as we know it. Trucks would now have fully automatic transmissions and go from 0-60 in 5 seconds…
    #3. It would make charging at Supercharger truckstops a new subculture …while helping the ‘”ot lizard” economy.
    #4 it would be so heavy it would destroy our streets (more) and require higher road taxes.

    #5 along with a plebeian-priced Model E, it would make the TESLA shares I bought at $28 allow me to retire before I’m 40.

    • 0 avatar
      Kinosh

      “Demasculinate and sterilize” due to higher performance (point #2).

      Are you fucking nuts? So you mean people put big engines and massive lift kits into trucks for the express purpose of reducing performance?

      • 0 avatar
        This Is Dawg

        He’s trying to become the Richard Yarrell of TTAC

        http://androidandme.com/user/richard-yarrell/

      • 0 avatar
        BigOlds

        The irony. It burns.

        You used “demasculate” to mean the diminishing of masculinity. Demasculate is not a word. What’s really funny, though, is that we have a word that means diminishing or removal of masculinity, and that word is “emasculate.”

        Edit: Worse than I thought. The word used was “demasculinate.” Now that’s not funny.

  • avatar
    Onus

    You know for not signing the Kyoto protocol we seem to be doing a knock out job of Reducing co2 emissions. Props to the government this is one thing they did right.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Onus
      Because of the economic downturn;)

      Look at the level of CO2 per capita prior to Kyoto.

      Canada, Australia and the US (not counting some of those Arab princedoms) are the biggest emitters of CO2 per capita.

      It shouldn’t be hard for us to reduce our levels.

      • 0 avatar
        Onus

        I agree, the progress is fantastic really if you look at the numbers.

        But, that’s not all My state (Connecticut) and many other states sued the federal government and forced them to recognize co2 as a emission they can regulate. So now we have these aggressive co2 emissions requirements for vehicles. On a plus side the government harmonized federal emissions with California for the future (a bunch of states require California emissions ).

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      Any achievements in this area have been with the active opposition of Congress and the fossil fuel industry, who have spent millions on the effort.

  • avatar
    alsorl

    Who ever owns heavy truck manufacturing stock just got a big boost yesterday. Not that I agree with what is happening. But, it looks like a good opportunity to make some money.

    • 0 avatar
      cdotson

      alsorl,

      As long as you ride the stock and sell it just before the new regulations kick in. Historically, truck makers sell everything they can crank out in the lead-up to new regulations as fleet managers fear the oncoming changes and stock-up on rolling stock so they have a buffer where they can allow the technology to settle out before they have to make another purchase. Truck makers hurt in the immediate aftermath of a regulatory implementation as nobody wants to be the guinea pigs. It has happened several times in the past few decades.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        The same is/was true of the agricultural sector in the years before Tier IV standards, when Interim Tier IV was still in place. Any company that produced anything with an “off-road” diesel was ramping up production so they’d have stock after Tier IV was implemented.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @alsorl,
      The Europeans own great chunks of the US heavy trucking Industry so they should benefit.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    What this tells me is that all those big-nosed, non-aerodynamic Road Whales™ out there are going to have to change their shapes. No longer will they be those “manly” brick walls bulldozing the air but curvy, sexy, sleek shapes that slip through like a sports car. Maybe the El Camino and Ranchero are coming back–as “mid-size trucks”. Sure, sales of trucks will probably fall through the floor for a while, but when you don’t have a choice, you take what you can get, hmmm?

    Oh, and the rumor is already out that one company is planning a 100mpg-equivalent pickup truck.

  • avatar
    Toad

    Fuel economy has been the number one focus of the trucking industry since the great recession of 2008 (driver retention being a close second). Virtually every fleet has been pushing manufacturers to increase fuel economy since every dollar saved drops straight to the bottom line. Nobody wants better fuel economy than the trucking industry itself.

    The problem is the cost/benefit ratio: you don’t have to be a math wizard to figure out that many of the fuel economy solutions can easily end up costing more than the fuel savings. For example, aerodynamic skirts under trailers are nice…until the truck driver goes over a high railroad grade and tears them off. Away goes any money you saved on fuel.

    There are some cool technologies gradually working their way into the market like cruise control that ties into GPS to manage throttle/gear control for grades and other road conditions, shore power for eliminating idling, better aerodynamics (that can survive real world conditions), etc. Good things are happening.

    However, the last round of government mandated truck regulations gave us emissions systems that increased truck prices about $20,000 per truck and vastly increased maintenance costs and downtime. Of course the manufacturers love the new regulations since they require lots of complex parts that have higher failure rates (great for parts sales) and require dealer service tech to diagnose (more money for the dealers).

    Think of the problems that Ford is having with their fuel sipping powertrains designed to maximize fuel economy, then scale those problems up to pull 80,000 pounds. Costs will go up, reliability will go down, and nobody is sure what the long term gains or losses will be.

    Of course, nobody in government actually has to deal with real world design, implementation, or application of products that the new rules apply to; they just pronounce them, pat themselves on the back, and move on.

    • 0 avatar
      69firebird

      Bloomberg reports President Obama’s latest initiative — part of his overall strategy regarding energy security and climate change — will bring “thousands of dollars of savings every year” for truck operators while also benefiting the economy via lower costs for consumer goods and new technology development.

      I seriously doubt that.

      • 0 avatar
        Chicago Dude

        The trucking industry is ridiculously competitive and will continue to strip out every inefficiency that can be found. Look at places like Coyote Logistics – it’s hard to tell if they are a tech company or a shipping company.

        If the trucking industry can drive costs out of the system, competition ensures that customers pocket most of it. Times have changed. A lot.

      • 0 avatar
        catachanninja

        The way it’ll hit truck drivers/operators is the same way its about to hit consumers. “New more efficient vehicles are preventing the government from obtaining enough income via tax, so the tax on fuel has to be risen to offset it”

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      The one thing that seems to be missing from the EPA’s calculations (as well as those of the greenies) is cost/benefit ratio. I believe if you “do the math” the incremental savings of developing a car that achieves better than 30 mpg average (city/highway) do not outweigh the incremental costs. For example, regarding “clean diesels” no one has calculated the cost of operating and maintaining these engines vs. the older, cruder diesels. So, for example, while the VW diesel automobiles get slightly better fuel mileage than, say, a Mazda SkyActive gasoline car, the diesel is likely going to be more expensive to maintain and operate over, say, a 150K mile lifetime than the gas engine.

      Of course, the not-so-hidden agenda of the greenies is to simply drive up the cost of driving and get people to ride in uneconomic bullet trains, so it doesn’t matter.

      Trucks, however, don’t drive for fun; and already they are spending more to keep the clean diesels running, which, by the way, in some cases get lower fuel economy than the “dirty engines” because they use fuel to burn off the soot in the particulate filter.

      • 0 avatar

        > Of course, the not-so-hidden agenda of the greenies is to simply drive up the cost of driving and get people to ride in uneconomic bullet trains, so it doesn’t matter.

        If the external costs of driving weren’t so subsidized so much in this country, pricing them into the fuel as it’s done elsewhere would naturally meet the same end.

        I suspect most drivers prefer the current regime over $10 gas.

    • 0 avatar
      Kinosh

      My basic thoughts are that the engineers will get the systems down to a marginal cost. Today’s emissions systems (cats and what have you) cost a couple hundred bucks to an automaker. It was much more than that before, and the price has come down so much due to the massive R&D focus on reducing the costs.

      I have a feeling that the current clean diesel tech (that has improved immensely from roll-out) will continue to get cheaper. Saying “the industry will take care of it” is true, but it ignores the cost of R&D and cost engineering. Legislatively mandating scale will help the economics of it.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    If it’s such a benefit then why aren’t the companies doing it without a standard?

    And am I supposed to be impressed the industry supports it?? All that means is they know they’re going to get free money the government took out of everyone else’s wallets.

    More garbage regulations and giving businesses money they didn’t earn….

  • avatar
    AMC_CJ

    Way to many people commenting here that know nothing of this industry, and not a damn thing about large trucks/diesel engines.

    I’ve already seen the addition of many Aerodynamic parts added to the current fleet on trucks. You know what happens to them? truck drivers destroy them and rip them off. Not to mention it makes maintenance a bit more difficult. I’ve watched first hand the new emission standards cripple these trucks, constant break downs, problems, soaring maintenance cost.

    Now more regulations? See what this wave brings, but for the majority of people out there commenting, really, you people are very ignorant and clueless to what these regulation waves bring….. I say that as polite and as cordial as possible.

    If you look at the numbers, since the updated stringent emission standards, fuel economy has actually gone down. They’re trying to get it to the level it previously was. I wish I could dig up the article I read a few years ago that laid this all out.

    • 0 avatar
      86er

      I will admit to not knowing the ins and outs of the highway tractor industry, but what I do know is that the reliable delivery of goods in a service-based, just-in-time economy is absolutely crucial, so the Administration will have to tread carefully.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Exactly not only do the trucks suffer from increase fuel use due to regulation, they have more expensive systems required that inevitably break, along with higher purchase cost and associated costs.
      New businesses can’t afford these, and existing businesses are hurting more and more. The government is effectively hurting the economy requiring systems that cost much more with ZERO benefit.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Why is it that in the US, politicians think it’s just a great idea to legislate standards instead of putting up the taxes on fuel, and letting the industry innovate because their customers insist upon it?

    Of course, it might be that it could turn out like the EU. Legislate standards AND increase the fuel tax. Boy those EU bureaucrats really deserve their 5 star lunches, they have everyone solidly gripped by their privates, a governmental wet dream.

    So I suppose it’s the lesser of two evils to go the US way if fuel tax cannot simply be raised.

    • 0 avatar
      Kinosh

      Raising the fuel tax is a non-starter. You’ll have every congress-critter screaming about “throttling American jobs and innovation” and “destroying the economy”.

      If the goal is a legislative push to further decrease fuel usage, the only politically tenable choice is legislating the rules.

      Funny how everyone loves free market solutions (costs and profits) until the subject of the gas tax comes around.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Tell you what, I’ll take a 50 cent raise in fuel tax if we get rid of income tax.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        If you did the math on that, then you’d realize how ridiculous that statement was.

        You may as well claim that you’d be happy with a 50% pay cut if the price of a cup of coffee was reduced by a dime. Completely illogical.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Your facetious sarcasm is far more illogical than his, Pch. Considering the miles driven by commercial enterprises, they would very quickly demand that alternatives to existing designs get built ASAP. When I drive only 2,000 miles a year in my truck, I’d honestly not notice the increase.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Go back and read what he wrote.

            Calculate the revenue raised by a 50 cent fuel tax increase, and compare that to the revenue lost with a 0% income tax.

            Oh, I forgot. You aren’t one to calculate anything.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Well, let’s see…
            388.6 million gallons of gasoline, times 365 days, times $0.70 (he said raise it BY 50 cents) calculates out to $99,287,300,000–let’s call it $1Trillion.

            Now let’s add “Roughly 40 billion gallons of diesel used each year for on-road transportation, which is 109,589,041 gallons per day.” Times $0.70 comes out to $28,000,000,000 ($28 Billion) (( This figure does NOT count the diesel used by railroads and farm equipment, nor any fixed-base diesel engines used for other purposes including electric generation.))

            Now we add jet fuel used by the US at … 18,811,881,000gallons or another $1,316,831,670,000 (Call it $1.3Trillion)

            So, $1T + $0.028T + $1.3T = $2.328T

            That sounds like a pretty significant figure to me. Sure, it may not equal our Federal Income Tax, but it’s also nothing to sneeze at. Interestingly, the US total tax revenue in 2010 (the year all the other data above came from) came out to $2,162.7 Billion, which means that the $0.50 per gallon increase would almost exactly balance the current income tax revenue IF all vehicles and users were treated equally.

            What was that about not calculating? Looks to me like Hummer has a point.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “$99,287,300,000–let’s call it $1Trillion.”

            In addition to lacking comprehension of the concept of marginal revenue, your math skills really, really suck. Go back and try again.

            (Hint: You’re off by a factor of ten.)

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        50 cent raise in fuel cost would be around $2,000 a year give or take a full $1k

        That money has to come from somewhere.

        Considering the number of people that generate $0 of income tax a year, it seems quite possible it would in total generate at least as much as the income tax.
        You also have to take into account the extra cost of all my food and goods which would inevitably increase in price.

        • 0 avatar
          BigOlds

          Also, remember that our gas tax doesn’t come close to covering the cost of our roads & highways- we probably need a 50 cent tax hike just to cover the current infrastructure costs that get shifted to general revenues.

          In general, I agree that gas taxes should rise significantly. The right should love it, since it is a use-based tax and therefore as non-socialist as possible. The left should love it since it would discourage consumption.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            Here in California, we already pay 59.9 cents a gallon gas tax plus sales tax on the full amount, call it a bit less a buck a gallon in recent years. We also have almost no weather to speak of, yet our roads are among the worst I’ve encountered. There is no point raising taxes until all the redistributionists and misanthropes are out of positions of influence.

          • 0 avatar

            >The right should love it, since it is a use-based tax.

            I don’t think “right” and “love tax X” can be in the same sentence without following it up with “hate tax X and seek to abolish it”.

          • 0 avatar

            > Here in California, …We also have almost no weather to speak of, yet our roads are among the worst I’ve encountered. There is no point raising taxes until all the redistributionists and misanthropes are out of positions of influence.

            What the talking heads won’t tell you is that California tax dollars are used to prop up the rest of the flyover states. It would have a budget surplus if it could find a way to get rid of the dead weight of the red regions.

            This is true in general; conservatism loves talking smack about places that pay their bills. Take a moment to ponder how that came to be.

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            California’s highest in the nation state gas taxes, all 65-70 cents per gallon of them, most assuredly aren’t going to roads in flyover country. Neither are their highest in the country except for Hawaii state income taxes. Or their 9-10% state and local sales taxes.

            Oklahoma didn’t break California’s budget. California broke itself, one platinum pension at a time.

          • 0 avatar

            > California’s highest in the nation state gas taxes, all 65-70 cents per gallon of them, most assuredly aren’t going to roads in flyover country. Neither are their highest in the country except for Hawaii state income taxes. Or their 9-10% state and local sales taxes.

            This is just simpleton accounting. Their federal taxes flow outward; thus if they had paid far less to the feds to feed Oklahoma, then surely you can figure out those tax money stays in-state.

            In other words, they pay high local taxes because their tax money is redistributed to the moochers in the red flyovers. QED.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Yes other states that actually know how to control spending all require money from California.

            Can you get any more desperate than that?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            This may have changed for 2014 but as of 2013 NY was #1 at 50.6 and Cali #2 at 48.7, although those figures are combined excise tax and “other fees”.

            http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-gasoline-tax-rates-2009-2013

          • 0 avatar

            > Yes other states that actually know how to control spending all require money from California. Can you get any more desperate than that?

            Welcome the part of america where apparently nobody can do math or reasoning and therefore you “control spending” by taking others’ tax money and blaming the victim.

          • 0 avatar
            BigOlds

            It is well established that the current gasoline taxes do not come close to covering the spending on roads, bridges, etc. It was in fact the intent when they were introduced, but they have not kept pace with the infrastructure expansion or inflation.

            As such, federal (and I presume state) tax dollars are allocated to cover roads. Somewhere in this thread it was pointed out that the rest of the populace is subsidizing drivers. It is beyond me how anyone can think that’s a good idea.

            There is no way in hell that a 50 cent increase in gas taxes would offset a 0% income tax. However, even if it did, or even if we agreed to a per-gallon tax that would cover a 0% income tax, it would be the most absurd thing on the planet. Consider that it would mean a $500,000/year banker living on the subway in NYC would pay no income taxes, while the rural trailer park dweller who has to drive an old beater to his job in Walmart would be paying a relatively high percentage.

            Nobody is ever satisfied with any tax scheme. They all have serious flaws. But in my opinion, there is one thing that makes a tax scheme morally unacceptable, and that’s if it is regressive. Ideally nobody gets porked, but if someone does, it must not be the least advantaged.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “There is no way in hell that a 50 cent increase in gas taxes would offset a 0% income tax.”

            I dunno. By using new math, we have had a poster on this thread who could turn $66 billion in revenue into $1 trillion just like that. Internet magic!

            On a serious note, it’s a bit funny how so many people know so little about this stuff. Anyone who researches this even a little bit should know that Americans aren’t paying enough in fuel taxes to cover the costs. I’m not sure whether it’s sheer laziness, or something worse.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Hummer
          By driving more efficient vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @wmba
      What you stated makes the most sense. Let the market solve the problem.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    That International (I think that’s what it is) looks f*ing ridiculous. I don’t recall seeing one in real life, yet.

    • 0 avatar
      cdotson

      It’s an International LoneStar. Yes it’s ridiculous; I thought it was aping the PT Cruiser. Unfortunately I saw one on the road yesterday, but they are pretty rare.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      I’ve seen one. I know it was just one because you remember seeing something like that on the road next to Kenworths and Peterbilts.

      And hey, don’t knock it till you’ve driven it. If I were a trucker, what would matter to me more would be comfort in the cab, ease of use, visibility, etc., and if I could save a few dollars a load, well, all the better.

      But yes, if the LoneStar has significantly higher up-front costs than other models, it’ll get passed over regardless of how much it could potentially save in fuel.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      The shape of the grill is really a good idea, as it tends to cut the air instead of shoving it–helping to move the air around the truck and giving it a lower drag coefficient.

      Of course, that big, slab windshield with the long overhanging visor could be counterproductive, but then I notice even there that the windshield is sloped more than most and the visor has a gap which helps guide the air up and over the cab. Even if it only offers a 20% improvement on cruise that could be as much as 3mpg just in aerodynamic changes.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      You think the International looks ridiculous, check this one out:

      http://www.airflowtruck.com/

    • 0 avatar
      motormouth

      It looks like a scaled-up Lancia Ypsilon or Delta.

      http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/chrysler/ypsilon

  • avatar
    skor

    How about we do something really, really crazy, and start moving heavy, bulky freight overland by um…..I dunno, rail?

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      We already do. But trains don’t go to your grocery store, retailers at the mall, every Target, WalMart, Home Depot, etc. Trains won’t bring concrete to your house, just in time freight to the factory, milk from the farmer to the dairy…and hundreds of other applications where rail is not practical.

      Many people make their living deciding how to most efficiently move freight. Complex computer software calculates combinations of movement by ship, air, train, and truck to figure out the most time and cost effective way to move products from point A to point B. Shippers are always willing to listen to independent logistics companies that can shave a few dollars off their freight costs.

      There are some things trains do really well, but almost 100% of freight moves by truck for some or all of it’s journey. That can’t and won’t change.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      What do you think 95%+ of in-use railways are carrying?

  • avatar
    CapVandal

    Check this out:

    http://www.hybridcars.com/cummins-peterbilt-supertruck-posts-10-7-mpg/

    Improvements for the SuperTruck include an average 75-percent increase in fuel economy, 43-percent cut to greenhouse gas emissions, and 86-percent increase in freight efficiency. These numbers were said to be “real world” indicators based on 24-hour, head-to-head testing running at 64 mph against a 2009 baseline truck.

    “At today’s diesel prices, Cummins and Peterbilt estimate an annual fuel savings of $27,000 over a 120,000 mile year.”

    Since trucks represent 20-25% of all fuel use, that would cut total fuel used by 15%.

    The US oil industry won’t care, since they can simply cut imports. It’s not like there is any global shortage of demand.

    Owner/operators will hate it, but they are doomed anyway.

    The one thing I would like to see — after these proof of concept vehicles are at the dealers — is some sort of government financing subsidy. We are already subsiding the hell out of single family housing financing.

    Gotta get these on the road and start saving fuel.

    Assuming the 1 year, $27k figure is correct, the payback period of the additional costs of a new truck vs the old technology could be a year or two.

    Since the real issue — after these are built — is getting them on the road, a financing subsidy could make them very attractive.

    OK …. cut every figure in half and it still makes sense.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      In theory it all sounds great, but even with my limited time aroun big rigs, that’s never how it works.
      So far all of these regulations have caused the trucks to lose mpg, and the costs of repairs on the emission strangled engine, along with down time costs, far outweigh any need for newer trucks.

      If your contracted, and your truck aint running, they’re going to find someone else very fast.

      Also what is freight efficiency? Does that even exist?
      Real world @ exactly 64 mpg means nothing.

      At 64mph that’s time inefficienct.

      Edit: also noticed you used a site for hybrid cars, I can assume everyone on their would believe everything that pertains to manufacturers not seeing “how easy it really is”.
      But I was unaware a hybrid car site was now the go to site for all information on big rigs.

      • 0 avatar
        CapVandal

        I don’t pretend that this will help owner/operators.

        The ‘super truck’ information is on lots of web sites with virtually the same information — I just liked the hybrid car version. Maybe the Cummins press releases are more interesting. http://www.cummins.com/cmi/navigationAction.do?nodeId=223&siteId=1&nodeName=SuperTruck+Update&menuId=1050

        The whole thing is aimed at fleets. There it will sink or swim based on the economics.

        “Our biggest challenge is really getting the costs for any and all of the technologies and systems we’re working on down to where the fleets will want to buy them,” he said. “They need to be durable and reliable, of course, but in the end they must offer a way to reduce total cost of ownership in order for a customer to use them.”

        The main differences between this and auto mandates is that the manufactures really want to build this stuff. And corporations that own the largest fleets are also on board (Fed-Ex, Waste Management, Coke, etc. I would be willing to bet that they wrote a large chunk of the 700 page document describing the regulation.

        As far as the savings … the tests were head to head with a 2010. So the percent savings should be more or less the same.

        As far as your major point, yes. All the emissions stuff hurts milage. And if I was an Owner/operator, I would be skeptical. Or simply against it. I can’t see how this could help them, whether it works or not. Any new technology will help entities that have more/better/cheaper access to capital. Individuals have to worry about a lot more than ‘total cost of ownership’ — they have to make payments and earn a living.

        Personally, I am amazed that trucks get 5mpg now. I have an 80 series Landcruiser that gets 12mpg at best.

  • avatar
    CapVandal

    And for the smaller vehicles ….. here is another demonstration vehicle.

    http://www.hybridcars.com/wrightspeed-combines-gas-turbine-and-batteries-for-big-fuel-savings/

    Hybrid garbage trucks … hell yes.

  • avatar

    It’s noteworthy to those shocked at 54mpg for trucks or whatever to remind themselves how averages work and that there’s more than one standard for fuel economy at play.

    http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-archive/2009/05/when-cafe-meets-epa-a-tale-of-two-fuel-economy-standards.html

  • avatar
    RogerB34

    An unmitigated Class 8 truck disaster in the making with real economic and employment impact.

  • avatar
    CRConrad

    Is that thing in the illustration for real, or a piece of CGI that’s escaped from a “steampunk”-inspired movie?!?

    It looks *exactly* as if it came out of some hatch on the Nautilus to refuel captain Nemo’s six-wheeled monstrosity from _The Leaugue of Extraordinary Gentlemen_.

    It *should* be a joke, but… I take it this is the Peterbilt or Kenworth or whatever that thousands of American truckers actually ride around the nation’s highways in?

    Sheesh.

  • avatar
    shaker

    That’s the least manly big-rig I’ve ever seen (shakes head).

    OH WOE IS AMERICA, OH WOE IS ME.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India