Freightliner's new truck, Revolution
 

Aero-innovations cameras/ LED lighting, lower CG low engine placement, cold-rolled aluminum frame construction, automatically changing 6 -4 wheel drive for better economy. How about removing the passenger door & replacing it with a workstation. So much for hitching a ride or truck-stop canoodling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQLFT...layer_embedded

But how are you supposed to affix a metric butt-ton of lights to it?

Seriously, why not have something that fills the gap between the cab and the trailer? Or maybe have that fairing at the cab top move down somehow to cover the rear if the tractor isn't actually pulling anything?

The roof should be made like a pop-up camper so that it can be lowered when there is no trailer behind it. All that frontal area is not helping mileage.

The rake of the windshield could be a greater angle too.

The trouble is....it's still a Freightliner.
Something about making a silk purse out of a pig's ear....

Correct but if you're not pulling a trailer, you're not making money

True that. I still see tractors not pulling anything on my highway commute, though. Granted, it occurs about once every 2 days or so, but it still happens.

You also have a lot of flatbed trailers out there, and other types that aren't the tall rectangular box on wheels.

Fastrak
 

Yeah, a flatbed is the most versatile type out there, but you can't do LTL so easily (loadlocks between sections, or tied off to wall track), etc. The "system" is about controlling costs at the level of the distribution center (capital costs). By comparison the trucks are disposable.

On the other hand, there is probably a way to make best use of a rolling tarp system like this for flat [open] trailers (where there is a permanent header board up near the cab):

Tarpstop Fastrak - Tarpstop Fastrak

.

...uh, looked to me like aerodynamics was the "last" thing considered, not the "first."

That looks like a really well thought-out design. They reworked the entire thing to fit their customer profile, and seem to have pulled it off very well. It may not be a teardrop shape, but the interior improvements far outweigh it, since the drivers actually live in the truck for days at a time.

Why all this talk of fuel economy, and not even one mention of what engine is in it?

DD, who owns FREIGHTLINER?

I'd imagine you could have what you want.

On the other hand, seeing the number of dissatisfied O/O's with EGR engines I'd rather have a glider kit and a re-man N-14, early 3406E or similar. The 12L Detroit is popular in those discussions. The one I drove last year (recent in-frame) got outstanding mileage.

Some good reading out there on this subject; see Fitzgerald Truck Parts & Sales

Came across one guy who dove deeply into spec'ng one for himself. He said the order was sixteen closely-spaced-line pages long.

A lot of these guys are dead serious about FE, but know that the money (at this point) is in a reliable engine itself tuned for best economy for what they do (given optimal gears, transmission, tires, etc). An O/O has different perspectives on FE than a fleet, but even SCHNEIDER is said to have ordered 900 glider kits.

.

Freightliner = Daimler Group. Available with either Detroit Diesel or Cummins.

The truck dealership that I work at has done a bunch of gliders. 2012 model trucks with '99-01 Cat C-15s. Probably the most reliable engine ever put in a truck. From a business standpoint, you are right, slowmover: gliders are the way to go. Brand new trucks with engines from a reliable/fuel efficient year - N14s (as long as you don't over-work them or they will die a catastrophic death), Series 60s and 3406E/C-15s. Stay clear of early ISXs - they are horrible.

However, building a glider because is it business savvy is much like fishing for killer whales off the coast of Japan to make money: neither are exactly earth-friendly. These engines produce biblical amounts of NOx and there is good reason that the EPA has gradually mandated emission stringency to the point where allowable NOx is virtually zero.

This forum is not only about saving fuel, but about being good stewards of God's green earth, and there has to be a balance between the two. I would argue that the answer does not lie in keeping old technology running to save a buck. Sure, newer technology has recently been prohibitively unreliable to say the least, but it will get better.

It's rather a moot point, though. I have my doubts that gliders will be available for much longer before the EPA puts a stop to it.

From the video, it looks to me like a Detroit. My understanding is that most heavy-duty trucks can be ordered with a variety of engines. You can even get a truck with and engine made by the truck manufacturer's competetor--even if the truck manifacturer makes a similar engine.

My point was that it seemed strange to have all this talk about FE, and basically no mention of the engine--which burns the fuel.

I had to google glider trucks. Interesting. For those who might be in the same situation, I found that:

steve sturgess: Heavy-Truck Glider Kits

was a nice quick summary.

My point was that it seemed strange to have all this talk about FE, and basically no mention of the engine--which burns the fuel.

Well, given the never-ending variety of jobs to which a truck could be assigned (and doubtful that this one would be a dump or log truck) the range of engines and transmissions is doubtless more than just brand or auto vs. manual, respectively. A local daycab humping tandems through town in Florida is quite different than hauling a reefer in the Mountain States to which it "looks" as though that tractor could be made to work in both instances.

.

Here's some Peterbilt propaganda on aerodynamics with trucks:
http://www.peterbilt.com/eco/pdf/Aer...%20PAPER-2.pdf

Almost interesting. I know around here (ridiculously huge mountains and 140,000 lbs), aerodynamics isn't as big of a deal.

I very much doubt there is much more that can be done with maximizing the fuel efficiency of a semi engine/drivetrain. At least, not anything that could be considered to be cost efficient and durable and reasonable. Hence, the drive toward making these beasts more aerodynamic.

I disagree. Late 1990s trucks pulling medium loads in less hilly terrain (Cummins N14) would get 8-9 mpg with a good driver. Today's 13L engines in similar scenarios are lucky to get 7 mpg. That's a huge percentage.

I think travel speeds have risen with speed limits and engine horsepower has enabled faster travel as well.

Horsepower hasn't risen much since the mid 1990s. Maybe in heavy haul, but the average line-haul truck is still 425-475 HP, 1550-1650 ft/lb torque, same as the last 15 years. It is the stringent NOx emissions limits that has forced engine manufacturers to produce engines that are simply less efficient. Combustion temps have been lowered with the aid of timing changes (initially), EGR (later) and advanced charge air cooling methods (Caterpillar) so less NOx is produced. I have dynoed early 90's N14s where the exhaust manifold was glowing red at full load. Before SCR came out in 2010, manufacturers were going so far with EGR that you could barely get 800F turbo out temps. At least now SCR aftertreatment takes care of most of the NOx reduction, so engines can be tuned for more efficiency, so it is getting better....at the expense of ridiculous complexity.