Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-10-2011, 01:04 PM   #11 (permalink)
Wannabe greenie
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Posts: 1,098

The Clunker (retired) - '90 Honda Accord EX sedan
Team Honda
90 day: 29.49 mpg (US)

Mountain Goat - '96 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 SuperCab
90 day: 18 mpg (US)

Zippy - '10 Kymco Agility 125
90 day: 65.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 5
Thanked 53 Times in 40 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave View Post
Yeah, there are always going to be people out there who are going to be stupid, but you don't need to outlaw stupid. Natural forces have a tendency to take care of that. If trucking company A spends thousands and thousands more on fuel than trucking company B, company B will have higher profits and grow. company A will loose money and eventually go bankrupt.
Or they lobby Congress to further subsidize the fuel because "ZOMG JOBS" and get out of paying more without having to actually invest in the technology.

__________________

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-10-2011, 01:08 PM   #12 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 79

Escape #2 - '13 Ford Escape Titanium

C-max - '17 Ford C-Max SE
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Brand loyalty in the trucking industry is almost worse than a Ford vs. Chevy debate - not only are they loyal to the brand, but to the class as well. If they've always had a Freightliner Classic, they're going to buy a Freightliner Coronado - even though the Century and Cascadia have the same size cab and sleeper and sport the same engine and transmission. From the inside, with the curtains closed, you can't even tell which truck you're in. Only when you look out over the hood.

Same for KW - they *might* consider a Pete 389 instead of W-900, but that's as far as they're going to get with the thought process.

You will notice that almost no *FLEETS* have pete 389's, KW W-900's, or Freightliner Coronados - they learned years ago that looks are not more important than fuel economy. The square trucks are generally owned by single unit owner/operators that own their own truck. O/O's make up at least 90% of the trucks on the road.

The only way to get these brick-like relics (that are still being made today) off the road is if they're legislated off - or if fuel prices continue skyrocketing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 01:58 PM   #13 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,766

The Karen-Mobile - '05 Dodge Magnum SXT
Team Dodge
90 day: 26.72 mpg (US)

Fiat Dakota - '00 Dodge Dakota SLT RWD Quad Cab
90 day: 16.67 mpg (US)

The Red Sled - '01 Dodge Durango SLT 4WD
90 day: 16.96 mpg (US)
Thanks: 799
Thanked 681 Times in 437 Posts
I like the "fuel prices continue skyrocketing" path better. Diesel_Dave has a valid point about companies either becoming more efficient or going bankrupt.
__________________
The Fiat Dakota


The Karen-mobile


The Red Sled
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to t vago For This Useful Post:
aporigine (08-10-2011)
Old 08-10-2011, 02:07 PM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 79

Escape #2 - '13 Ford Escape Titanium

C-max - '17 Ford C-Max SE
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
The problem with skyrocketing fuel prices is that would punish everybody in america, not just the equipment owners that refuse to upgrade to a more efficient vehicle. Enough of these vehicles are on the road that they drive overall freight rates higher just because they suck down more fuel.

I'm not going to say EVERYTHING arrives by truck, but odds are really good that "if you bought it, a truck brought it." Increased fuel prices simply to force companies to buy more efficient trucks are going to be passed through to the trucking company customers, and from them on to you.

We are talking about incredibly stubborn people - they will change their ways when they go out of business, and enough of them have the same mentality about bigger is better that it will be a very long time before someone with a 'brick' will actually be at a disadvantage (because the freight rates will simply raise to pay for the increased fuel cost) - and in the meantime, the extra fuel they're sucking down is getting passed through to YOU.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 02:13 PM   #15 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 79

Escape #2 - '13 Ford Escape Titanium

C-max - '17 Ford C-Max SE
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Also let me add my thought process to this -
These are vehicles that can cost well over $100,000 even in stripped down fleet configuration, and almost no one keeps them for less than 3 years, with many fleets and o/o's keeping them for 7 to 10 years.

They aren't going to replace them next year because of high fuel costs - they're going to run them until they're paid for, and THEN replace them. To do otherwise is financial suicide. So what happens in the meantime? They burn more fuel. Skyrocketing fuel costs wind up doing nothing more than translating into higher costs for bread and milk at the grocery story, because the trucking company can't just throw out their $100,000 truck because the new one will save fuel - they woudln't be able to afford it.

I'm all for more efficient truck tractors, but making everyone pay more for groceries isn't the way to do it.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to p38fln For This Useful Post:
JRFlyer (08-10-2011)
Old 08-10-2011, 02:26 PM   #16 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 1
Thanks: 7
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The same can be said for car owners as well. I always laugh at the idiots that trade in their perfectly good 3-5 year old car for a brand new cracker box that also comes with a $15-20k loan, all in the name of "saving money on gas". Obviously these people flunked 1st grade math, as they will *never* recover the cost of the car in gas savings.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 02:31 PM   #17 (permalink)
Wannabe greenie
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Posts: 1,098

The Clunker (retired) - '90 Honda Accord EX sedan
Team Honda
90 day: 29.49 mpg (US)

Mountain Goat - '96 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 SuperCab
90 day: 18 mpg (US)

Zippy - '10 Kymco Agility 125
90 day: 65.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 5
Thanked 53 Times in 40 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by p38fln View Post
The problem with skyrocketing fuel prices is that would punish everybody in america, not just the equipment owners that refuse to upgrade to a more efficient vehicle. Enough of these vehicles are on the road that they drive overall freight rates higher just because they suck down more fuel.

I'm not going to say EVERYTHING arrives by truck, but odds are really good that "if you bought it, a truck brought it." Increased fuel prices simply to force companies to buy more efficient trucks are going to be passed through to the trucking company customers, and from them on to you.

We are talking about incredibly stubborn people - they will change their ways when they go out of business, and enough of them have the same mentality about bigger is better that it will be a very long time before someone with a 'brick' will actually be at a disadvantage (because the freight rates will simply raise to pay for the increased fuel cost) - and in the meantime, the extra fuel they're sucking down is getting passed through to YOU.
Well, like was said earlier, the companies that are more efficient will win out in the marketplace. Diesel has tripled in the past 20 years, and yet, owner-operators have continued to replace their trucks with the same crappy inefficient vehicles and continue (even to this day) to drive them at 80 mph.

Fuel prices will continue to climb as global demand rises, and perhaps if these guys would save up their money instead of spending it on chrome bits and hundreds of side marker lights, they could afford the innovative fuel-saving upgrades that these regulations will no doubt empower the free market to create.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 02:40 PM   #18 (permalink)
Wannabe greenie
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Posts: 1,098

The Clunker (retired) - '90 Honda Accord EX sedan
Team Honda
90 day: 29.49 mpg (US)

Mountain Goat - '96 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 SuperCab
90 day: 18 mpg (US)

Zippy - '10 Kymco Agility 125
90 day: 65.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 5
Thanked 53 Times in 40 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRFlyer View Post
The same can be said for car owners as well. I always laugh at the idiots that trade in their perfectly good 3-5 year old car for a brand new cracker box that also comes with a $15-20k loan, all in the name of "saving money on gas". Obviously these people flunked 1st grade math, as they will *never* recover the cost of the car in gas savings.
Trucks probably average 100,000 miles a year. Going from 6 mpg to 8 mpg at today's fuel prices saves about $22,000 a year in fuel. You'd have to have a pretty darn new truck for that upgrade to not make sense, and anybody who buys a new 6 mpg truck between now and when the regs go into effect in 2014 deserves to get smacked down by the market.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 02:42 PM   #19 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 79

Escape #2 - '13 Ford Escape Titanium

C-max - '17 Ford C-Max SE
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Oh, nothing can be done for market fluctuations forcing the price up - i meant doing dumb things like $5 a gallon tax on diesel fuel
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 02:42 PM   #20 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,766

The Karen-Mobile - '05 Dodge Magnum SXT
Team Dodge
90 day: 26.72 mpg (US)

Fiat Dakota - '00 Dodge Dakota SLT RWD Quad Cab
90 day: 16.67 mpg (US)

The Red Sled - '01 Dodge Durango SLT 4WD
90 day: 16.96 mpg (US)
Thanks: 799
Thanked 681 Times in 437 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by p38fln View Post
We are talking about incredibly stubborn people - they will change their ways when they go out of business, and enough of them have the same mentality about bigger is better that it will be a very long time before someone with a 'brick' will actually be at a disadvantage (because the freight rates will simply raise to pay for the increased fuel cost) - and in the meantime, the extra fuel they're sucking down is getting passed through to YOU.
I'll live with it, then. I'm not about to call for more legislation forcing inefficient rigs off the road, because that leads to even higher costs as truckers pass the cost to the consumer of being forced to buy more efficient rigs. The government regulates too much, as it is.

__________________
The Fiat Dakota


The Karen-mobile


The Red Sled
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to t vago For This Useful Post:
Diesel_Dave (08-10-2011), pletby (08-10-2011)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com