Fuel Consumption Economics...???

[Frank Lee]

Sometimes I feel like a slave to machinery, but still, I've pared down the costs of acquisition and upkeep to near zero, leaving insurance and fuel and the only significant expenses. So I can have my ridiculously oversized fleet, main problem being storage.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by dbc1218

No matter how you slice it if I remove the purchase price from the calculation of cost per mile, the Ruckus wins every time.

I don't plan on selling either of these vehicles any time soon.

If you want to keep both anyway, use the Ruckus as much as possible.
Over time it may even become the overall lower-cost vehicle.

[ShadeTreeMech]

Originally Posted by euromodder

If you want to keep both anyway, use the Ruckus as much as possible.
Over time it may even become the overall lower-cost vehicle.

this reminds me of a conversation I recently had with my wife. I was figuring the return on investment of putting a much more expensive diesel powerplant into my Explorer to replace the antiquated 4.0L gas guzzler now rusting under the hood. The most important figure was the number of miles traveled, because I could have a vehicle that got 1000 mpg, but if I never drove it, the cost per mile would be ridiculous.

[redyaris]

I have had a new, for me idea, which is that the persute of improved FE performance should be viewed as an investment in R&D. I don't think there is a R&D department anywhere that makes any money, they are all a loss in terms annuel balance sheets. Yet in most ventures that last, R&D is the key to servival of the venture. So it would seem that the economic viability of any activity is most dependent on the lens through which it is being viewed. Most things we think of as economic activities now, began as some ones hobby... airplanes, cars, computers...

[cleanspeed1]

I have run OTR as a an owner/operator in both semis and straight trucks, so, for me, I have a keen awareness about spending money on fuel in and out of the truck. It affected me in such a way that I could no longer look at a personal vehicle and not ask what can be done to make it use less fuel.

When your accountant asks "Did you actually spend $40k on fuel last year?", you can't help but to ask the question, "how in the world did we get to this?"

That's a years salary to some people.

And that's for one truck.

It's worth it in the end for me to do whatever it takes to get max FE because it means freedom.

[redyaris]

Originally Posted by cleanspeed1

I have run OTR as a an owner/operator in both semis and straight trucks, so, for me, I have a keen awareness about spending money on fuel in and out of the truck. It affected me in such a way that I could no longer look at a personal vehicle and not ask what can be done to make it use less fuel.

When your accountant asks "Did you actually spend $40k on fuel last year?", you can't help but to ask the question, "how in the world did we get to this?"

That's a years salary to some people.

And that's for one truck.

It's worth it in the end for me to do whatever it takes to get max FE because it means freedom.

when you think of replacing your present Truck is fuel consumption the primary consideration? How many miles does your truck travel in a year on $40k? I am at the other end of the fuel cost spectrum in that I spend $1200 -$1500 per year to travel 32000km [20000 miles]. Yet I am still willing to invest $1000 - $3000 per year, in efforts to get down to 3.3L/100km [71mpg] as my 'fleet' average. Even though at the outset the return on investment does not look that good. The way I look at it is; I am insulating myself from future price rises. I suspect in your case a 5% reduction in fuel consumption represents $2000 savings in money but also a reduction in maintainance cost as well. Big trucks are in the same aerodynamic boat as motorcycle; real bad aero. The best ones I have seen in Canada are the bulk haulers with trailers that have the space under the deck between the wheels enclosed. What I have often wondered is why truckers have not built some form of cargo bays under the trailer deck much like the cargo space under a gray hound bus, which they could use for small inter city loads, to help both aerodynamics and generate extra income from the fuel already being used.

[cfg83]

redyaris -

Originally Posted by redyaris

I have had a new, for me idea, which is that the persute of improved FE performance should be viewed as an investment in R&D. I don't think there is a R&D department anywhere that makes any money, they are all a loss in terms annuel balance sheets. Yet in most ventures that last, R&D is the key to servival of the venture. So it would seem that the economic viability of any activity is most dependent on the lens through which it is being viewed. Most things we think of as economic activities now, began as some ones hobby... airplanes, cars, computers...

Yes, that is another very good POV. Think of it this way. Maybe I spend $50 in parts to come up with my perfect pizza-pan wheel cover. Only $20 are needed for the finished solution, but the R&D leaves me with lots of leftovers. Then a new Ecomodder comes along and reads my thread. They are able to acheive the same mod with the basic set of parts. They get a clean mod for $20. I get the ego-boost that my solution has been re-used.

CarloSW2

[cleanspeed1]

Originally Posted by redyaris

when you think of replacing your present Truck is fuel consumption the primary consideration? How many miles does your truck travel in a year on $40k? I am at the other end of the fuel cost spectrum in that I spend $1200 -$1500 per year to travel 32000km [20000 miles]. Yet I am still willing to invest $1000 - $3000 per year, in efforts to get down to 3.3L/100km [71mpg] as my 'fleet' average. Even though at the outset the return on investment does not look that good. The way I look at it is; I am insulating myself from future price rises. I suspect in your case a 5% reduction in fuel consumption represents $2000 savings in money but also a reduction in maintainance cost as well. Big trucks are in the same aerodynamic boat as motorcycle; real bad aero. The best ones I have seen in Canada are the bulk haulers with trailers that have the space under the deck between the wheels enclosed. What I have often wondered is why truckers have not built some form of cargo bays under the trailer deck much like the cargo space under a gray hound bus, which they could use for small inter city loads, to help both aerodynamics and generate extra income from the fuel already being used.

The problem with the trailer design is that the vast majority of docks are a certain height and if you use what amounts to a belly drop trailer ( like a moving trailer or a cattle trailer ) you can't unload. But as far as what you asked in the beginning, you are talking 125k-150k on the miles most of the time per year, with idle time ( 8 hours or more consuming a gallon/hr resting, plus time in a dock waiting to get unloaded ). The one truck that was the worst offender was a CAT powered W900 Kenworth ( old flat top with a mechanical 3406B that never ran quite right ) averaged 4.8 to 5.2 mpg loaded. Any improvement means several thousand dollars a year saved.

Here's what I've learned: electronic diesels are better all around when it comes to reliability and power curve shaping. Get the combination right and drive with the right techniques 8+mpg is normal with tons of power. Using an APU instead of idling the truck saves tons of money ( going from a gallon per hour to a gallon every 8-10 hours ) and saves the engine. Evans Coolant is the best thing since sliced bread ( lasts the life of the vehicle and has a 375 degree boiling point with a zero running pressure; no more busted water pumps, blown head gaskets and better thermal efficiency ). The best aerodynamic truck built was a Peterbilt 372 ( called it the Winnebago ) that was the first semi to get 10 mpg loaded ( had to get killed, it was too good ) and that was 20+ years ago.

[redyaris]

With respect to trailer design what I had in mind was to keep the deck the same hieght but to fill in the under deck area with cargo bays that would improve aerodynamics and could be used to store gear or for smaller parcels that could generate income in addition to the load on the deck or inside the van. When I see the trucks used to transeport race teams they are much better aerodynamicaly. This design is also seen in Europe [higher fuel prices] transporting other types of goods.
What I suspect is that the low price of fuel was the major driver for the design of transport trucks and other motor vehicles. The fuel price increas will, I suspect, generate demand for more fuel efficint motor vehicles. When I play the blame game I devide the blame 1/3 governments, 1/3 corporations, and 1/3 the indevidual, like you and me. No matter how much we blame others for things we have some control over the solution will demand that we take responcebility for our [1/3] part, like so many of us on this site do.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by redyaris

With respect to trailer design what I had in mind was to keep the deck the same hieght but to fill in the under deck area with cargo bays that would improve aerodynamics and could be used to store gear or for smaller parcels that could generate income in addition to the load on the deck or inside the van. When I see the trucks used to transeport race teams they are much better aerodynamicaly. This design is also seen in Europe [higher fuel prices] transporting other types of goods.

Outside of what you mentioned i.e. fancy trailers and equipment bins, about the sole use of underfloor cargo I've seen in Europe, are bins to store empty pallets.

More equipment storage usually means more stuff is kept in there, and more deadweight is being hauled around.

Any additional permanent structure underneath the cargo floor increases the empty weight and reduces the payload capability of the truck.
With a weight limit of 38 to 44 tons depending on the country, an operator would want as much pay(ing)load capacity as possible rather than more deadweight.