Feds: More mpg for big trucks, buses

Feds: More mpg for big trucks, buses

Ken Thomas
Associated Press
October 24, 2010

WASHINGTON - Future tractor-trailers, school buses, delivery vans, garbage trucks and heavy-duty pickup trucks must do better at the pump under first-ever fuel efficiency rules coming from the Obama administration.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department are moving ahead with a proposal for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, beginning with those sold in the 2014 model year and into the 2018 model year.

The plan is expected to seek about a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption from longhaul trucks, according to people familiar with the plan. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to speak publicly before the official announcement, expected Monday.

Overall, the proposal is expected to seek reductions of 10 percent to 20 percent in fuel consumption and emissions based on the vehicle's size. Large tractor-trailers tend to be driven up to 150,000 miles a year, making them ripe for improved miles per gallon.

The rules will cover big rig tractor-trailers, "vocational trucks" such as garbage trucks and transit and school buses, and work trucks such as heavy-duty versions of the Ford F-Series, Dodge Ram and Chevrolet Silverado.

The White House has pushed for tougher fuel economy standards across the nation's fleet as a way to reduce dependence on oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions tied to global warming.

The fleet of new cars, pickup trucks and SUVs will need to reach 35.5 mpg by 2016, and the government is developing plans for future vehicle models that could push the standards to 47 mpg to 62 mpg by 2025.

Medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks are much less fuel-efficient than conventional automobiles; the fleet of tractor-trailers typically get about 6 mpg to 7 mpg, while work trucks can achieve 10 to 11 mpg. But they still consume about 20 percent of the transportation fuel in the U.S.

Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, told reporters last week the proposed rules would be a "win-win situation for the country, the economy, climate change and energy security." She declined to release details.

President Barack Obama was joined by truck manufacturers in the Rose Garden in May when he said the government would release the first-ever proposed standards for greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency for large trucks this year. Obama estimated then that the fuel efficiency of tractor-trailers could be improved by 25 percent using existing technologies.

"This is going to bring down the costs of transporting - for transporting goods, serving businesses and consumers alike," Obama said on May 21, flanked by executives with Daimler Trucks, Volvo, Cummins and Navistar, and trucking industry and union officials.

The improvements in fuel efficiency will come through a combination of more efficient engines, improved aerodynamics and better tires.

Environmental groups have pointed to a National Academy of Sciences report this year that said the trucks could make broad improvements during the decade through existing technologies. The report found that using advanced diesel engines in tractor-trailers could reduce fuel consumption by up to 20 percent by 2020 while hybrid versions of garbage trucks and buses could see a 35 percent cut in fuel use by 2020.

"Whether you are a company or an individual truck owner, you will be saving money on day one because you'll be saving more on fuel than increased loan payments on a big truck," said David Friedman, research director for the clean vehicles program of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

This article preaches the false assertion that heavy duty trucks are "less fuel efficient" because they get less miles per gallon. This is a common line of thought, yet completely wrong. Mpg is not an accurate method of determining fuel efficiency. Only fuel usage. True fuel efficiency is found by determining miles per gallon per ton. Any vehicle can be made more "efficient" according to MPG standards by simply making it lighter, thus requiring the engine to do less work.

I was a truck driver for over 20 years. My last rig had a 475 hp engine in it. When i was close to my max gross vehicle weight of 80,000 lbs, i averaged about 6 mpg, give or take a gallon or two. This means that for every mile my truck went, it moved 2,000 lbs of mass using only about a quarter of a gallon of fuel. The published curb weight of a base-model Toyota Prius is about 2,000 pounds. In order for the engine of a Prius to get the same mpg per ton that the engine my big rig did, it would have to move that 2,000 lb car 240 miles on a single gallon of gas!

The lesson here is that miles per gallon doesn't measure efficiency, it only measures fuel usage. While that may be an important economic factor for people to consider when buying a car, it doesn't measure how efficiently the vehicle and it's power train work.

Also, if it were possible, wouldn't the truck industry already be doing this shit??? If truck manufacturers could get more miles per gallon out of their vehicles, wouldn't they already be doing it because it would be a selling point and a competitive advantage?

Yeesh. If you think trucks start slow from a dead-stop now, wait until that 400-plus horsepower engine is reduced to 200 horsepower to meet Obama's ridiculous requirements.

As a former trucker, you know all too well what this will do to independent truckers Tex.

This is yet another assault on the private sector, and yet another increase in expenses for truck manufacturers and the people who buy their trucks. It's as though this administration was deaf, dumb and blind... they either are completely ignorant of basic economics, or they are bound and determined to destroy capitalism and the free market.

And people wonder why the unemployment rate remains at nearly 10 percent (not factoring in those who are underemployed or have given up on finding a job entirely)...

This administration and its subservient congress could care less about unemployment or the private sector... nothing could be more obvious.

TexasBlue wrote:This article preaches the false assertion that heavy duty trucks are "less fuel efficient" because they get less miles per gallon. This is a common line of thought, yet completely wrong. Mpg is not an accurate method of determining fuel efficiency. Only fuel usage. True fuel efficiency is found by determining miles per gallon per ton. Any vehicle can be made more "efficient" according to MPG standards by simply making it lighter, thus requiring the engine to do less work.

I was a truck driver for over 20 years. My last rig had a 475 hp engine in it. When i was close to my max gross vehicle weight of 80,000 lbs, i averaged about 6 mpg, give or take a gallon or two. This means that for every mile my truck went, it moved 2,000 lbs of mass using only about a quarter of a gallon of fuel. The published curb weight of a base-model Toyota Prius is about 2,000 pounds. In order for the engine of a Prius to get the same mpg per ton that the engine my big rig did, it would have to move that 2,000 lb car 240 miles on a single gallon of gas!

The lesson here is that miles per gallon doesn't measure efficiency, it only measures fuel usage. While that may be an important economic factor for people to consider when buying a car, it doesn't measure how efficiently the vehicle and it's power train work.

Also, if it were possible, wouldn't the truck industry already be doing this shit??? If truck manufacturers could get more miles per gallon out of their vehicles, wouldn't they already be doing it because it would be a selling point and a competitive advantage?

Yeesh. If you think trucks start slow from a dead-stop now, wait until that 400-plus horsepower engine is reduced to 200 horsepower to meet Obama's ridiculous requirements.

Now THIS is what I'm talking about... real stats from the REAL world, and not that fantasy land our politicians live in (most of whom have never had a private-sector job in their lives).

Your post Tex has laid bare the naked dishonesty of this article. Would that more people were aware of these things....

My whole point! If it were possible to build and run big trucks on less mpg's, Kenworth, Peterbilt and Freightliner would've been doing it already. Fuel is a major cost. But i'm sure there's the "big oil" component but i refuse to believe it on this issue. These truck manufacturers would've been doing it. They did plenty from the late 80's in aerodynamics for these trucks. They've made huge strides in that area in the last 22 years.

Again, lower the horsepower in these trucks and you'll get some savings in fuel costs but you'll get massive upticks in the cost of transporting the material(s) since it'll take longer to haul the stuff in the long run.

dblboggie wrote: Now THIS is what I'm talking about... real stats from the REAL world, and not that fantasy land our politicians live in (most of whom have never had a private-sector job in their lives).

Your post Tex has laid bare the naked dishonesty of this article. Would that more people were aware of these things....

Well, you know how it is. When someone has actual experience in a certain field such as i did, you get to know some of these things. Of course, some of the small stats had to be researched.

I forgot to mention the one part of the article that is suspect (to me).

"This is going to bring down the costs of transporting - for transporting goods, serving businesses and consumers alike," Obama said on May 21, flanked by executives with Daimler Trucks, Volvo, Cummins and Navistar, and trucking industry and union officials.

Also, i notice that Caterpillar and Detroit Diesel aren't mention there. They have a share of the market in engine manufacturing.

Seeing as you guys refuse to even look at the problems caused by excessive carbon emissions, there is no real point trying to explain it to you and you will never see it as a problem worth addressing.

The motor industries in Japan and Europe seem to have had no difficulty in increasing fuel efficiency in their vehicles though I'm surprised this issue is targetting haulage rather than cars.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Seeing as you guys refuse to even look at the problems caused by excessive carbon emissions, there is no real point trying to explain it to you and you will never see it as a problem worth addressing.

The motor industries in Japan and Europe seem to have had no difficulty in increasing fuel efficiency in their vehicles though I'm surprised this issue is targetting haulage rather than cars.

I don't have a problem with increasing fuel mileage at all. I encourage it myself. But looking at the transportation industry, it's going to be a debacle. I could be wrong though. But based on things i've stated, it could very well end up costing the consumer in much higher prices than it's worth.

Rising fuel costs (set to rise again before Christmas) isn't costing more than it is worth at present?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Rising fuel costs (set to rise again before Christmas) isn't costing more than it is worth at present?

Costs rise and fall. The industry will charge more to haul to make up for it. We, the consumer, will pay in the end.

Also, the article failed to mention the thousands of owner operators here and how they will cope with this in 2014. Those people are the ones who own their own rigs and work for a company by just pulling their trailers. Sometimes they own their own truck and trailer. Then one has to throw all the regulations in that truckers and companies have to abide by. Some good regs and some bad regs.

I just honestly don't see how they're going to make this work. Trucking in the USA isn't like anywhere else.

And the trend of fuel prices over the last 3 years has been soaring.

TexasBlue wrote:Trucking in the USA isn't like anywhere else.

With the amount of geographical space you have, I'm surprised you don't move most of your freight by rail. In Germany, I've seen trains of a mile long just moving cargo.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:And the trend of fuel prices over the last 3 years has been soaring.

TexasBlue wrote:Trucking in the USA isn't like anywhere else.

With the amount of geographical space you have, I'm surprised you don't move most of your freight by rail. In Germany, I've seen trains of a mile long just moving cargo.

Yeah, rail would be the way to go. But that's been on the decline in recent years.

Actually, we move a very good deal of freight by rail. Outside my campus parking lot are rail lines, and I see trains going back and forth all day long, every day... very long trains, hauling all manner of cargo. But it is true that it has been declining. This is because it lacks the flexibility of long haul and LTL (less than truckload) shipping. Truth be told though, a good deal of freight is moved intermodally, that is, it arrives by ship or air, moves to rail, then transfers to trucks for final delivery.

*I had a client who made logistics software for the trucking industry, so I have a bit of info on the subject.*

Lots of delays in rail these days.