Recent Topics
side to side shimmy while braking at highway speed
by Bgallagher
32 minutes 14 seconds ago
Older Aft Cabin Diesel Motor Yacht Advice
by Joel_MD
59 minutes 27 seconds ago
Discontinued Ford/Merc parts?
by ET16
Today at 08:30 AM
Should new cars burn oil? C-R report
by Chris Meutsch
Today at 08:27 AM
Opinions on Falken Ziex ZE329 tires at Pep Boys
by Blue_Goose
Today at 08:17 AM
xp and pc games
by browning300wsm
Today at 07:35 AM
Great Save.
by montero1
Today at 06:09 AM
Savings with LED bulbs?
by Nick1994
Today at 01:14 AM
Best oil for a modern GDI motor?
by omegaspeedy
Today at 01:09 AM
Any Car Alarm Experts-Starter Wire 03 Honda Civic
by crazyoildude
Yesterday at 11:24 PM
98 Civic Coupe Window
by MrJhynx
Yesterday at 10:51 PM
2010 Jeep Wrangler Powertrain Warranty
by benjamming
Yesterday at 10:34 PM
Newest Members
gbrick, mattm, bubbahotep7, vbraks, RationalRussian
54532 Registered Users
Who's Online
89 registered (4wheeldog, A310, 2010_FX4, 97f150, 6 invisible), 1574 Guests and 91 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
54532 Members
66 Forums
233595 Topics
3751622 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#3767586 - 06/22/15 07:11 AM Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks
supton Offline


Registered: 11/09/08
Posts: 6382
Loc: NH
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2015/0...p;type=headline

Quote:
The Obama administration on Friday proposed tougher fuel-efficiency standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks, the latest move by President Barack Obama in his second-term drive to reduce pollution blamed for global warming.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules that would lower carbon dioxide emissions from trucks and vans by 24 percent by 2027. It would cut fuel costs by about $170 billion and reduce oil consumption by up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the rule.



24% reduction in CO2 would equate to 24% increase in mpg, give or take. [flame suit on] Couldn’t they achieve that by simply removing the emissions equipment they just added on a few years ago?
_________________________
2011 Toyota Camry, base, 6spd manual, 95k, hers
2010 Toyota Tundra double cab, 4.6L, auto, 96k, his

Top
#3767591 - 06/22/15 07:21 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: supton]
Shannow Offline


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 29185
Loc: a prisoner island
Originally Posted By: supton
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2015/0...p;type=headline

Quote:
The Obama administration on Friday proposed tougher fuel-efficiency standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks, the latest move by President Barack Obama in his second-term drive to reduce pollution blamed for global warming.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules that would lower carbon dioxide emissions from trucks and vans by 24 percent by 2027. It would cut fuel costs by about $170 billion and reduce oil consumption by up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the rule.


24% reduction in CO2 would equate to 24% increase in mpg, give or take. [flame suit on] Couldn’t they achieve that by simply removing the emissions equipment they just added on a few years ago?


Nah, for the US Govt to be now focussing on CO2, rather than the energy security of CAFE means that there's more biofuels in the pipeline.

Top
#3767592 - 06/22/15 07:21 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: supton]
Miller88 Online   content


Registered: 04/09/08
Posts: 8808
Loc: Onondaga County
Cut fuel costs and drive the price of the vehicles up more, hurting businesses.

Seems like the only thing they are able to accomplish is hurting the American economy.
_________________________
'00 Jeep Cherokee
'11 Ford Focus

Top
#3767615 - 06/22/15 07:59 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: supton]
CourierDriver Offline


Registered: 12/27/09
Posts: 3682
Loc: Tennessee
When you get a chance to get away from your hum drum world, just take a tour at a diesel repair shop and ask the shop manager about the new engines and DEF. Go pour yourself a cup of coffee , your gonna be there awhile....miles and miles of problems these days with new big rigs pollution problems brought to you by the United States Government....
_________________________
I have saved so much time this year by running red lights and taking short cuts, I can skip the next 3 months..can you?

Top
#3767623 - 06/22/15 08:12 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: supton]
A_Harman Offline


Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 5086
Loc: Michigan
Yes, and last week, the EPA announced CO2 regulations on airliners. I can't think of any other sectors of the transportation business that are more sensitive to fuel economy than air transport and trucking. The engine maker that has 1% better fuel economy than his rivals dominates the business. The most efficient diesel engines for trucks were built in the late 1980's before the EPA began ratcheting down NOx and particulate standards. Current trucks equipped with EGR and particulate trap systems get much lower fuel economy, yet cost about $12,000 more because of the extra emissions controls. Now the EPA steps in and complains about fuel economy? Duhhh-uh!
_________________________
1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck

Top
#3767632 - 06/22/15 08:20 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: supton]
eljefino Online   content


Registered: 06/15/03
Posts: 26499
Loc: ME
Couldn't we just truck stuff less? The roads in Hollis, Maine are being pounded by 18 wheelers hauling groundwater away from a Poland Spring bottling plant because people are too cool to drink tap water. Tap water infrastructure is already in place, if you hate the flavor, get a Brita filter!

Poland Spring/ Nestle knows its a public relations flop; the trucks are plain white, unmarked.

The unsung efficiencies will be in better dispatching, more tandem trailers, driving slower, slower lead times, more automated shipping container robotic ports and intermodal facilities, etc. Our "stuff" still comes from insanely far away, most of it.

Top
#3767633 - 06/22/15 08:21 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: A_Harman]
edyvw Online   content


Registered: 03/08/12
Posts: 1665
Loc: Colorado Springs
Let's just pollute as much as possible in the name of business.
Last time I checked no manufacturer was concerned about pollution unless pushed by government. And while rest of the world is making engines that are 10 years ahead, we are talking about "government interference" (of course, when govt. needs to bail out businesses bcs of lack of regulation then it is fine for a government to interfere). Then that rest of the world goes so far ahead, that they buy our automotive industry because our CEO's thought that V8 from 1968 is the way to go, all in the name of no interference from government.
_________________________
10' VW CC 2.0T (Pentosin 5W40+OEM-Mann)
11' VW Tiguan 2.0T (M1 0W40+OEM-Mann)

Top
#3767634 - 06/22/15 08:21 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: supton]
Burt Offline


Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 1150
Loc: texas
If society wants less fuel consumption, then be honest and raise the gas tax and lower other taxes an equal amount. Let the market decide. Please don't issue these fiats that so it is said, so it is done.
_________________________
2011 RX350 30k miles
1998 Windstar 207k miles and runs like new, well sort of.
Original owner, tranny and head gasket.

Top
#3767638 - 06/22/15 08:24 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: Burt]
edyvw Online   content


Registered: 03/08/12
Posts: 1665
Loc: Colorado Springs
Originally Posted By: Burt
If society wants less fuel consumption, then be honest and raise the gas tax and lower other taxes an equal amount. Let the market decide. Please don't issue these fiats that so it is said, so it is done.

Why not just raising the tax, and not lowering the tax? Aren't we living beyond our means, meaning we do not pay for roads, wars, schools, all in the name of less government. Everyone wants good roads, but god forbid paying for them, everyone wants to go to war bcs of "freedom" but hey, let's put it on credit card. When we are going to finally figure out that we need to pay for c... we want to have or do.
_________________________
10' VW CC 2.0T (Pentosin 5W40+OEM-Mann)
11' VW Tiguan 2.0T (M1 0W40+OEM-Mann)

Top
#3767639 - 06/22/15 08:24 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: A_Harman]
CourierDriver Offline


Registered: 12/27/09
Posts: 3682
Loc: Tennessee
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Yes, and last week, the EPA announced CO2 regulations on airliners. I can't think of any other sectors of the transportation business that are more sensitive to fuel economy than air transport and trucking. The engine maker that has 1% better fuel economy than his rivals dominates the business. The most efficient diesel engines for trucks were built in the late 1980's before the EPA began ratcheting down NOx and particulate standards. Current trucks equipped with EGR and particulate trap systems get much lower fuel economy, yet cost about $12,000 more because of the extra emissions controls. Now the EPA steps in and complains about fuel economy? Duhhh-uh!
good write up
_________________________
I have saved so much time this year by running red lights and taking short cuts, I can skip the next 3 months..can you?

Top
#3767640 - 06/22/15 08:25 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: eljefino]
Silverado12 Offline


Registered: 02/26/13
Posts: 1231
Loc: Central Virginia
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Couldn't we just truck stuff less? The roads in Hollis, Maine are being pounded by 18 wheelers hauling groundwater away from a Poland Spring bottling plant because people are too cool to drink tap water. Tap water infrastructure is already in place, if you hate the flavor, get a Brita filter!

Poland Spring/ Nestle knows its a public relations flop; the trucks are plain white, unmarked.

The unsung efficiencies will be in better dispatching, more tandem trailers, driving slower, slower lead times, more automated shipping container robotic ports and intermodal facilities, etc. Our "stuff" still comes from insanely far away, most of it.


You pretty much nailed it. As a truck driver, I must say that when things were made in the USA, they didn't have to come from across the world to get here to where they're consumed.
_________________________
2012 Chevy Silverado ext. cab LS, 2WD 4.3 auto
2010 Dodge Challenger SE 3.5 V-6
2007 Harley Dyna Street Bob 96 c.i. 6 speed

Top
#3767652 - 06/22/15 08:39 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: supton]
Cujet Offline


Registered: 02/15/03
Posts: 4834
Loc: Jupiter, Florida
We have reached the peak of mid sized diesel engine thermal efficiency, at about 44%. Yes, both gas and diesel thermal efficiency has suffered due to emission requirements. However, that trend is improving somewhat.

For example, lean operation of gasoline engines can increase fuel economy by 8% in some RPM operational ranges (not at heavy loads) . Same goes for very high compression gasoline and diesel engines. However, these engines don't meet EPA requirements.

Without hybridization, such lofty fuel economy requirements are going to be exceedingly difficult and expensive to achieve. A given amount of work takes a given amount of energy.


Edited by Cujet (06/22/15 08:41 AM)
_________________________
Turbo's rule.

Top
#3767654 - 06/22/15 08:40 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: edyvw]
HerrStig Online   content


Registered: 08/24/11
Posts: 5050
Loc: Boston, MA
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Burt
If society wants less fuel consumption, then be honest and raise the gas tax and lower other taxes an equal amount. Let the market decide. Please don't issue these fiats that so it is said, so it is done.

Why not just raising the tax, and not lowering the tax? Aren't we living beyond our means, meaning we do not pay for roads, wars, schools, all in the name of less government. Everyone wants good roads, but god forbid paying for them, everyone wants to go to war bcs of "freedom" but hey, let's put it on credit card. When we are going to finally figure out that we need to pay for c... we want to have or do.
Raise the gas tax and lower "others" an equal amount.....what does THAT accomplish. I'd still have the same amount of money to spend on gas and the gas tax is a regressive tax. Get someone to read to you about "regressive taxation".

Top
#3767655 - 06/22/15 08:41 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: supton]
Cujet Offline


Registered: 02/15/03
Posts: 4834
Loc: Jupiter, Florida
Punitive taxation is not the answer for a free country.
_________________________
Turbo's rule.

Top
#3767657 - 06/22/15 08:42 AM Re: Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks [Re: eljefino]
HerrStig Online   content


Registered: 08/24/11
Posts: 5050
Loc: Boston, MA
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Couldn't we just truck stuff less? The roads in Hollis, Maine are being pounded by 18 wheelers hauling groundwater away from a Poland Spring bottling plant because people are too cool to drink tap water. Tap water infrastructure is already in place, if you hate the flavor, get a Brita filter!

Poland Spring/ Nestle knows its a public relations flop; the trucks are plain white, unmarked.

The unsung efficiencies will be in better dispatching, more tandem trailers, driving slower, slower lead times, more automated shipping container robotic ports and intermodal facilities, etc. Our "stuff" still comes from insanely far away, most of it.
So ho many people do you want to put out of work? I'd say commercial vehicles are taxed well enough to pay for the "damage" they cause. It's the political hacks who dump the revenue into the "general fund" and use it to coddle neversweats instead of fixing roads. BTW, where is Britta made?


Edited by HerrStig (06/22/15 08:43 AM)

Top
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >