Emissions regs = less manual trannies?

[euromodder]

If they are the sole supplier of stick-shift pick-ups, they could either see that as an advantage to attract those customers.
But OTOH, if these customers don't buy manuals by the (many) thousands, why bother at all ?
The customer can't really run - as they can't buy a stick shift elsewhere.

Excess torque could well be another reason - the automatic transmission can be coupled with the engine management to keep the wear low.
With a stick the clutch is at the mercy of the user.

As it is, I happen to have driven along in a 560 Nm / 413 lbs/ft Beemer X3 this week , with an automated double clutch and the new ZF 8 speed box.
Massive torque, yet smooth shifting even when shifting down.
I've been using a stick forever, I don't wear out clutchplates, but I can't shift that smooth.
And neither can VW's DSG !

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by mechman600

Hybrids will not work well in highway tractor applications, where I'm sure some sort of CVT transmission would be better. But good luck building one of those that can handle 2000+ ft/lbs torque and last a million miles.

Why not? As an added benefit, the battery pack could be used to provide climate control and electricity for the drivers who would otherwise idle their rigs all night. Those idle losses are not insignificant.

[Diesel_Dave]

We're getting off topic here, but the issue with hybrids in a highway over-the-road tractor is that there's not much of any benefit. There's hardly any starting and stoping for regenerative braking to help and those powertratins are already set up to keep the engine very near it's "sweet spot" when cruising. Another issue is that the additional weight of the batteries, electric motors, etc. takes away from the payload capacity.

Also, with regard to your comment about driving accesories/idling overnight, a lot of truckers are adding small gensets for that very purpose. I know Walmart has done this to a lot of thier trucks.

That particular market (heavy-duty semi trucks), is THE most sensive market to fuel economy--of any vehicle class. Those guys will sratch and claw for even the samllest benefits. Why? I figured it out once that a 1% improvement in FE for one truck worked out to be >$5,000 per year per truck. Improve the average passenger vehicle by 1% and nobody even cares or notices.

[slowmover]

It would more than sad if the CTD no longer had a manual transmission.

The 6-cylinder arrangement with tons of low-end torque make shifting an easy chore. No revs to speak of in terms of getting started under a load, even on a fair hill. Being able to choose when to make the shift -- or to let the clutch back in -- is the essence of using every foot of the roadway.

The 360-lb New Venture 5600 has splits like this:

40
40
32
28
27

which, at times, is more than one wants for most efficient engine operation. By contrast some of the big truck trans have percentages in around the 17% average range in "the top side". Rpm rise of only 250 and shift again! (Floating the gears -- no clutch use -- makes it easy).

A trans like that would be the real deal for those wanting ultimate efficiency. At the very least a manual trans with two OD selections for either towing economy or solo economy would be as close to perfect as one could imagine, even with larger splits, on these trucks.

For those interested there are some Youtube videos of a 670-lb Super 13 Road Ranger behind a Cummins-into-Chevy truck from a few years ago. And several threads on other forums about these conversions (not just pickup trucks, either).

I'm afraid that with an eight-speed auto that it will have become moot about whether to any longer carry a manual. What happens in the medium duty versions will tell the tale I'd imagine. The question will then be one of driver control (gear selection on demand).

I'd still rather have the manual. Lasts longer under the right driver. And an automatic always does what's programmed into it. A manual gives just that extra bit of control that is confidence-inspiring. And is never so expensive to run.

But a better-sized engine in a better truck (as one might find with an IVECO or similar as found overseas) would be best yet for the lowest end of the medium duty market. Just have to pay for it.

A 4BT Cummins with a heckuva lot of gears sure would be fun to play with for FE purposes (with a sensible GCWR).

.

[redpoint5]

I understand that hauling on the flat long distances wouldn't see much improvement, but for any truck regularly encountering a grade, it would be very beneficial to have electrics kick in to supplement an undersized diesel motor. You would also get regen on the back side of the hill and run less danger of cooking the brakes.

Payload would be reduced, but by how much? If you undersize an engine, that will help to offset some of the additional weight.

It seems the trucking industry would pay particular attention to efficiency, but I just don't see it. Trucks have historically been very un-aerodynamic with dual stacks, duel air cleaners, visors, flat windshields, and no thought at all to the rear end. Most trucks in Oregon will cruise around 62MPH, which can't be nearly as efficient as 55 (legal limit). On the road shoulder these rigs are idled all night long to maintain comfort and provide electricity.

[mechman600]

The trucking industry is going crazy over efficiency. Like stated above, 1 mpg will save some companies >$5K/yr per truck. It's the flat deck and heavy haul (140,000 lbs in Canada) who don't care about aerodynamics, as it makes little difference for them.

I agree - hybrids would work great in the hills. But when we are talking 80K-140k lbs, there isn't a battery pack in the world that will fit in a truck and pull it even a tiny bit up a hill (especially the hills we have here in BC) before draining. I guess a little bit of "up hill battery help" would improve efficiency, but considering current HD hybrids cost $50K extra, it still wouldn't save $$$. But as fuel prices go up, that may change.

[Diesel_Dave]

Ok, I actually went back and revisited the numbers. I'm not sure how close my assumptions are, but probably not too far off.

Assumptions:
Avg. Fuel economy: 8 mpg
Driving time: 8 hr/day 300 days/year
Diesel fuel cost: $4/gal
Average speed: 50 mph

That works out to be $75,000 per year just on fuel. So 1% improvement (not 1 mpg, but 1%--0.08 mpg) pays back the trucker $7,500 per year.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

That works out to be $75,000 per year just on fuel. So 1% improvement (not 1 mpg, but 1%--0.08 mpg) pays back the trucker $7,500 per year.

1% of $75k is $750. Also, I'm getting $60k/yr spent on fuel given your numbers.

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

1% of $75k is $750. Also, I'm getting $60k/yr spent on fuel given your numbers.

Duh! Correct! I did all the "hard" math right, then did the easy part wrong. Anyway, still not a small number. And some trucks run considerably more than that.

[Diesel_Dave]

Came accross another article in my "Light and Medium Truck" magazine (which, BTW, you can sign up to get for free on their website). The article is entiltled "Truck Makes Brace for mpg Rules" by Jonathan Reiskin. The article is specifically addressing the forthcoming 2014 & 2017 CO2 standards for medium & heavy duty vehicles (think 3/4 ton pickups up to semis). Here's the quote that stood out to me:

...The rules also account for varying applications by setting standards for the Class 7 and 8 tractors, sleepers and day cabs and three types of roof heights for tractors. However, each of those combinations must be tested.

Jerry Thrift, a recent chaiman of the Truck Manufacturers Association and the senior manager for new product development at Ryder System, said he was concerned the regulations could lead to fewer options.
"Even OEMs have limited resources, and I think all of the testing will drive them to offering fewer option," he said. "There are a myriad of customer applications to satisfy, and this means there will be fewer pegs to use relative to the holes that need to be filled.

I hadn't thought of these types of situations. The medim and heavy duty truck market is one with a wide variety of applications, and for good reason (utility trucks, tow trucks, roll backs, logging trucks, drilling rigs, etc.). I wonder if regs like these will mean less diversity, and therefore customers having to use trucks not as well suited for the job.