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, 02:47 PM   #21 (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
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
Ah, gotcha. Well, even that could be done. New trucks are available in 2014, so add $1 ever other year starting in 2024. Manufacturers get the incentive they need, trucking companies get a distant enough roadmap that they can plan ahead, and the markets and customers get plenty of notice as well.

One thing that should be explored is making the gross limits higher. I wonder how much fuel could be saved just by changing the maximum gross on US highways from 80,000 to 90,000 pounds.

__________________

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-10-2011, 02:53 PM   #22 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 24
Thanked 160 Times in 106 Posts
Get rid of the idiot behind the wheel. Job done.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 02:54 PM   #23 (permalink)
aero guerrilla
 
Piwoslaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,541

Svietlana II - '13 Peugeot 308SW e-HDI 6sp
90 day: 58.1 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,056
Thanked 630 Times in 396 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave View Post
If you set a standard in a regulation one of two things will happen.

Here's the first scenario:
The standard is lower than what the industry would do on it's own. In this case, the standard was unnecessary, and cost the industry millions in extra money testing the trucks & engines to show the government that they met the standard.

Here's the second scenario:
The standard is higher than what the industry would do on it's own. In this case the government has forced to customer to pay for more FE than will pay for itself. For example, the customer will have to pay $15k more for a truck that gets 1% better FE (a 15+ year payback). Oh, and there's still the extra costs to the manufacturers for all the additional testing to prove they met the standards.
There is also a third scenario:
The standard is higher than what the industry is doing at the moment, but close to what it would probably be doing within 10 years. The new standard only brings in the improvements a few years early. As we all know, the car companies always keep a few ases up their sleeves for later use. All the new standards in the last 20 years for automobiles have increased FE without skyrocketing costs too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p38fln View Post
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.
And that's where aftermarket aero kits come in, not to mention sites like EcoModder

I'm not into large truck prices, but I'm willing to guess that the more efficient aero models are also more expensive than the 'traditionalist' models. This may be more than made up for within 3-5 years of operation, but maybe not all O/O's can count that high (with all due respect to those who can).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clev View Post
One thing that should be explored is making the gross limits higher. I wonder how much fuel could be saved just by changing the maximum gross on US highways from 80,000 to 90,000 pounds.
Increasing gross weight could have an influence on safety and road maintainance. Allowing more bulk (but not necessarily weight) would also increase efficiency (as mentioned in this thread).
__________________
e·co·mod·ding: the art of turning vehicles into what they should be

What matters is where you're going, not how fast.

"... we humans tend to screw up everything that's good enough as it is...or everything that we're attracted to, we love to go and defile it." - Chris Cornell

Piwoslaw's Peugeot 307sw modding thread


Last edited by Piwoslaw; 08-10-2011 at 03:01 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 02:59 PM   #24 (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
1. Regulations requiring that NEW trucks get better MPGs aren't going to force any old vehicles off the road, other than for economic reasons. Actually, after the DPF was added to the diesel engine (and caused a decrease in MPG), most truck owners would welcome any regulation that was intended to increase the MPG. Urea was actually a good start, since it lets the engine run a bit dirtier and not regenerate as much.

2. The lovely state of California has banned any truck with a 2006 or older engine from its ports as of 1/1/2012 anyway, and I have a feeling they have a lot more in store for us

3. Almost every truck on the road is actually rated for 92,000 pounds, its simply government regulations stopping them from being used at their full gross weight. Usually, they have a 12,000 pound steer axle, then two 20,000 pound axles that make up the tractor tandem, and another set of two 20,000 pound axles that make up the trailer tandem.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 02:59 PM   #25 (permalink)
Efficiency Aficionado
 
CigaR007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Province of Québec
Posts: 605

GreenTurtle - '01 Toyota Echo Sedan
90 day: 44.85 mpg (US)

Zulu - '14 Honda CR-Z
90 day: 39.58 mpg (US)
Thanks: 135
Thanked 135 Times in 94 Posts
Here's how you save 23 % :

MAN Concept S Adds Aerodynamics to Big Rig Cab; Looks Like Optimus Prime’s Head | AutoGuide.com News

Quote:
MAN says that the aerodynamics of the Concept S are said to reduce fuel consumption by around 25 percent, over a standard 44 tonne tractor on the market today






IAA Nutzfahrzeuge 2010: Die Highlights - Bilder - autobild.de

Last edited by CigaR007; 08-10-2011 at 08:01 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 03:00 PM   #26 (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 Piwoslaw View Post
And that's where aftermarket aero kits come in, not to mention sites like EcoModder

I'm not into large truck prices, but I'm willing to guess that the more efficient aero models are also more expensive than the 'traditionalist' models. This may be more than made up for within 3-5 years of operation, but maybe not all O/O's can count that high (with all due respect to those who can).
Or even equipment.

If you have a modern aero truck that still has a good 5 years' worth of usefulness, and they invent an engine that saves you $5,000 a year in fuel (6.5 mpg instead of 6 mpg, for instance), Would it be worth $20,000 to repower? Especially if that brand new engine also extends the life of the truck another 5 years beyond what you would have gotten?
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 03:06 PM   #27 (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
Definitely! Some aero mods are extremely cheap - and on a truck, the parts are bolt on for the most part.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 03:07 PM   #28 (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
2. The lovely state of California has banned any truck with a 2006 or older engine from its ports as of 1/1/2007 anyway, and I have a feeling they have a lot more in store for us
They must have accelerated that, then. The article I found said that pre-1989 trucks were banned as of 1/1/2007. Those pre-1989 trucks were 14% of the fleet, but contributed half the pollution. The full ban of pre-2007 vehicles, which wasn't supposed to happen until 2012, reduces overall smog-producing emissions by 80%. The port of Los Angeles sees 40,000 trucks per day alone, so that's a lot of concentrated smog that gets trapped in the basin.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 03:14 PM   #29 (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
Well, you also run into contractual requirements - FedEx will not allow a tractor more than 10 years old to haul one of their loads no matter the condition of repair, I'm sure there are others with similar clauses.
So even though there's more fuel efficient trucks coming down the line in 2014, the owner might have to sell this year because the company he leased on to won't let him use an older truck anymore.

Of course, if he's smart, he'll buy an aero truck

Clev- I corrected my post, its 1/1/2012
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 04:23 PM   #30 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,732

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,571
Thanked 3,507 Times in 2,194 Posts
Quote:
The administration released no miles-per-gallon equivalent for the new standards, saying that to do so would be confusing given the multiple categories of vehicles, the different types of vehicles in each category and the varying payloads that each one carries.
Quote:
American Trucking Associations said Tuesday it welcomed the move, noting that it had proposed a six-point sustainability program back in 2007.
Quote:
Diesel engine maker Cummins Inc. affirmed its support for the regulation in a statement and announced plans to meet the 2014 standards on Jan. 1, 2013.
Quote:
Denny Slagle, CEO for Volvo Trucks in North America and Mack Trucks, said the sister companies support improvements in fuel efficiency and the reduction of greenhouse gases.

“While we haven’t had a chance yet to thoroughly review the final rule, we were pleased overall with the process, and the degree to which EPA and NHTSA involved and listened to the industry,” Slagle said in a statement from Mack.
Quote:
These aren't specific MPG targets like passenger vehicles have. Instead, different vehicle categories have different improvement targets.

As for the standards themselves, semi trucks are required to achieve a 20-percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gasses by 2018, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans a 15-percent reduction, and vocational vehicles (buses, garbage trucks, etc.) a 10-percent reduction. The improvements will come from mostly off-the-shelf technologies, and a second phase dealing with trucks built after 2018 will require the use of more advanced tech and save even more fuel.
I saw an online article about this the other day and even though my opinion of humanity as a group is already pretty low, reading the comments made it lower yet. At the time I posted, I counted 10 posts out of 74 that even had some semblence of reality or being related to the topic; the rest were the usual idiotic rantings of those more interested in politics and/or those who practice willful ignorance as a way of life. That was early in the game and the ratio has only gotten worse.

Evidently many of these people were not around, or have forgotten past similar rules. When crankcase draft tubes gave way to PCVs people could hardly stand the new complexity. Then when catalytic converters and air pumps came along people went absolutely apoplectic and installed "test pipes" en masse. And so it went with carbs>efi. Oh, and the same thing happened with safety mandates; there was a mass rebellion against seat belts and air bags (remember when everyone was afraid of air bags unintentionally going off)? But look what happened: now people DEMAND pcvs, clean exhaust, efi, seat belts, air bags, etc.

That said, I am disappointed in the most popular press releases and stories about this, as they are far too ambiguous for us to learn what is really going on. I had to dig for a while to find this: Fuel-Economy Standards for Heavy-Duty Trucks Outlined - PickupTrucks.com News . It appears there are to be various formulae to define the guidelines and how to gauge the efficiency improvements and they contain much more "weighting" than the fairly straightforward (in comparison) mpg ratings and test methodology than we light vehicle users are accustomed to.

Quote:
"Work factor" attributes — including payload and towing capacity and whether a vehicle uses two- or four-wheel drive — will be used to determine new fuel economy standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.

The federal government said today that its new regulations for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans will reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by model year 2018.

Although there will be separate standards for gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, the new rules are expected to save one gallon of fuel for every 100 miles traveled by all heavy-duty pickups and vans.

Exact numbers have yet to be published because the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "are finalizing standards on a per-mile basis" that will be expressed in "grams per mile" from the EPA and "gallons per 100 miles traveled" from NHTSA.

Light-duty vehicles will be categorized by footprint — the wheelbase multiplied by average track width. HD pickups and vans, however, will be evaluated on a work-based metric that includes payload and towing capacity because "buyers consider these utility-based attributes when purchasing a heavy-duty pickup or van"” the federal agencies reported.

Along with payload and towing capacity, the "work factor" metric (expressed in pounds) accounts for whether a vehicle is equipped with two- or four-wheel drive (which, the regulations say, adds an average of 500 pounds to a vehicle’s weight).

While a specific miles-per-gallon figure may not yet be available, charts show that a 2014 model-year HD diesel rated at 8,000 work-factor pounds would be expected to use around 7.45 gallons per 100 miles traveled, with that number reduced to around 6.75 gallons per 100 miles for model year 2018.

For gasoline-fueled HD pickups with an 8,000-pound work factor, the 2014 figure would be around 8.40 gallons per 100 miles for 2014 and 7.80 gallons per 100 miles by 2018.

Government figures show that heavy-duty pickups and vans — those with gross vehicle weight ratings between 8,501 pounds and 10,000 pounds in Class 2b and between 10,001 pounds and 14,000 pounds in Class 3 — are responsible for some 15 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from the heavy-duty sector.

"About 90 percent of HD pickups and vans are three-quarter-ton and 1-ton pickup trucks, 12- and 15-passenger vans, and large work vans that are sold by vehicle manufacturers as complete vehicles, with no secondary manufacturer making substantial modifications prior to registration and use," the regulations report says. "These vehicle manufacturers are companies with major light-duty markets in the United States, primarily Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler.

"Furthermore, the technologies available to reduce fuel consumption and (greenhouse gas) emissions from this segment are similar to the technologies used on light-duty pickup trucks, including both engine efficiency improvements (for gasoline and diesel engines) and vehicle efficiency improvements.

"For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to adopt (greenhouse gas) standards for HD pickups and vans based on the whole vehicle (including the engine), expressed as grams per mile, consistent with the way these vehicles are regulated by EPA today for criteria pollutants.

"NHTSA believes it is appropriate to adopt corresponding gallons per 100-mile fuel consumption standards that are likewise based on the whole vehicle."

Testing will be done on chassis dynos using city and highway test cycles.

The regulations suggest that vehicle enhancements needed to meet the new fuel economy targets — methods ranging from using lower-friction lubricants to reducing vehicle weight and from improving aerodynamics to using lower rolling-resistance tires — will add $165 to the price of a 2014 HD pickup, $215 in 2015, $422 for 2016, $631 for 2017 and $1,048 for a 2018 model.

The new regulations are the first for heavy-duty vehicles.

"Thanks to the Obama administration, for the first time in our history we have a common goal for increasing the fuel efficiency of the trucks that deliver our products, the vehicles we use at work, and the buses our children ride to school," U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said. "These new standards will reduce fuel costs for businesses, encourage innovation in the manufacturing sector and promote energy independence for America."

Together with new rules for semitrucks and for "vocational" vehicles (delivery trucks, buses and garbage trucks), the heavy-duty truck regulations are expected to save 530 million barrels of oil, save vehicle owners an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs and bring an estimated $49 billion in “societal benefits,” such as improved air quality and reduced health costs, between 2014 and 2018.

While there will be increased upfront costs to buy vehicles that meet the new regulations, the government says a semitruck operation could see net savings of $73,000 through reduced fuel costs over a vehicle’s life.

The new regulations take effect 60 days after being published in the Federal Register. Click here for the full rundown.

In addition to announcing its HD regulations, the DOT and EPA said they are considering regulation of trailers to reduce their drag when being towed.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
Clev (08-10-2011), Piwoslaw (08-11-2011), slowmover (08-12-2011)
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