Fuel-Efficiency Standards To Be Tightened For Trucks

    The white house issued an announcement on Tuesday that the administration has started developing the next round of higher fuel efficiency standards for commercial trucks. Medium and heavy-duty vehicles with a model year after 2018 will have new fuel-efficiency and greenhouse gas standards.

    The EPA and DOT have been directed to produce a rule by March of 2015 which will continue the trend of raising standards for heavy trucks that began with the 2014-2018 requirements – the first ever fuel efficiency standards imposed on heavy-duty trucks in the United States.


    According to statistics presented by USA Today, heavy-duty trucks account for just 4% of all registered vehicles on the road, but use 25% of all road-fuel and emit 25% of all greenhouse gases caused by transportation.

    The 2014-2018 requirements will reportedly save the trucking industry $50 billion in fuel costs. According to the White House, the next round will save the average truck owner $73,000 over the typical lifetime of a truck.

    Despite the apparent advantages of more fuel efficient vehicles, some in the industry are wary of the new requirements being placed on truck manufacturers. Bill Graves, President of the ATA, said that though the rules makes sense in theory, rushing the rules could lead to problems.

    “Fuel is one of our industry’s largest expenses, so it makes sense that as an industry we would support proposals to use less of it,” Graves said in an interview with The Washington Post. “However, we should make sure that new rules don’t conflict with safety or other environmental regulations, nor should they force specific types of technology onto the market before they are fully tested and ready.”

    The new fuel standards for heavy and medium trucks will come hand in hand with new standards on light vehicles as well. The administration has already issued new standards that will double fuel efficiency in light vehicles and trucks by 2025 which is projected to reduce fuel consumption by 2.2 million barrels of oil per day.

     

    Next Story: Trucker Driving 36 Hours Straight Causes Fatal Accident

    Source: USA Today, Associations Now, Overdrive, Washington Post

    { 16 comments… read them below or add one }

    Lance Newcomb February 21, 2014 at 6:55 am

    CO2 emissions are not harmful. A single volcanic eruption releases more emissions than all of mankind combined since the industrial revolution. Cattle and hog farms release more harmful emissions (methane) than all the cars on the road.

    Secondly, how exactly do they plan on “saving fuel” when trucks are currently required to dump it straight into the exhaust to clean their DPF?
    The whole reason we need a DPF is the EGR makes engines run so filthy and rich. Look at buses from the late 90′s to early 00′s, they run clean with only a catalyst and proper tuning.
    My company runs Gillig Lowfloors, one set with ’06 ISM280 and passive DPF. The other with ISL280 and active DPF. Despite having a much smaller (and theoretically more efficient) engine, the 2.0L smaller engine gets exactly the same 4.5mpg as the large engine but has drastically less torque during acceleration, leading to many driver complaints during the summer with the AC on (The ISL buses can barely make it through an intersection in one light cycle with the AC on).

    We need to go back to our roots: Get rid of the DPF and EGR and tune the engines to operate cleanly. The thousands of dollars in emissions equipment and very poor reliability as a result of them is costing far more in materials cost than will ever be saved in fuel and releases even higher emissions to manufacture parts.

    Reply

    ez February 22, 2014 at 8:22 pm

    do you care to prove this? or are you just spouting what rush says?

    Reply

    Joe February 21, 2014 at 7:52 am

    So u improve the fule milagr on med to heavy trucks. They use less fule now the oil companies raise the price because you are mot using the same amount of fule as you did before. Now we are back in the same boat as before paying the same.

    Reply

    Cary Davis February 21, 2014 at 9:44 am

    Exactly!

    Reply

    ez February 22, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    wow some people will complain about anything

    Reply

    Dan J February 21, 2014 at 11:37 am

    Ok, so my truck gets 5.53 mpg (2008 Columbia first gen DPF running a Detroit) as it is a heavy haul truck. In comparison, my 2005 Peterbilt 379 Extended hood was getting 7.5 to 8 mpg with just an egr. Both trucks weighed the same, yet when they introduced tighter emissions standards the fuel economy went through the floor. So in essence, go back to a more fuel engine, keep it tuned and oh yes, drop a 13 or 15 speed transmission and fuel costs go down as emissions go down.

    That being said, mandate apu’s on all class 8 trucks, and that will drop fuel costs every day not to mention drastically cut emissions as idling is reduced and the cost vs benefit is great.

    Lastly, States such as California need to quit targeting class 8 trucks as they need to focus on the s sheer number of cars on the road. It is no wonder why companies don’t want to run in California, there are 47 other states that companies can run in without the emission restrictions.

    Reply

    Wayne February 22, 2014 at 4:36 pm

    Lmao i agree driver lol but u know as well as i do these companies have most of them hands brain washed thinkin 9 or 10 or auto shit i mean shift at 65mph or some odd ball speed 62 or 66 whatever speed gets good mpg lol,yeah that tranny with certain rearends that put the tach at certain place at that speed but urs an mine ride can do 75 to 77 at 1425rpm with 13 speed 336 rears still gett 6.5 to 6.8mpg,its lack of trainin that us as drivers an i say that so i dont point finger that drivers tear stuff up an wreck that insurance cut there rides back

    Reply

    Wayne February 22, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    An a big BIG control issue if this carb fuel emissions shit,yes we need to make less polution but dang it calif gonna end up barely havein trucks goin there uhhhh wait my bad,i allmost forgot 1 or few of them slow comp gonna get a contract 1 of these days goin out there doin 55 payin next to nuthin then the calif folks still gonna bitch bout trucks out there

    Reply

    tgtrotter February 21, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    Comparing fuel usage of trucks vs. cars is just plain silly. The 4% truck number with 25% fuel usage is not accurate at all. That statement is unfounded. Do the math and calculate in trucks carry a weight payload 10-20 times greater. Trucks get TREMENDOUS fuel mileage. What do these people want ?. Money ? Power ?
    Silly me I want name call Mr. Obama a pipit but in respect of his position. Mr. President, please turn off the lights in the White House, do away with drive-through fast food and outlaw gas blowers for professional landscaping. Uh-oh. Have I offended anyone ?
    BTW We should’ve voted Perot a plutocrat. : ) I am a 5%er

    Reply

    Krystal Nunnery February 22, 2014 at 1:23 am

    First question should be; with the rules and laws changing so often what is the life expectancy for an over priced truck? I myself, as an owner operator, will stick with my 1994 379 with a very tough and trustworthy mechanical 425. Rebuild for between 8 and 10 thousand. It gets between 6 and 6.5 miles to the gallon. Also I didn’t have to take out a 30 year mortgage for it. Take very good care of it, with over 2 million miles on it, passed an hour long inspection at a TN DOT scale. Officer came out of the pit and said he was truly amazed he didn’t find anything wrong with it. I say that we have bigger and better fish to fry. Quit waiting our taxes on ruining the trucker, and put it to good use like getting our country out of debt!! Quit writing bad checks. If you don’t have the cash don’t buy it!

    Reply

    Backdoor February 23, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    While we’re on this subject, I also want to know why the California Arbitrary Requirements Board is allowed to throw down a totally hypocritical and impossible goal, and yet no-one out there seems to be able to see the 80,000 pound elephant in the room?
    They want us to get 10 MPG, but then we’re forced to use this bio crap that barely burns, and is tearing up a very large portion of the trucks on the road. Anybody out there have a Detroit engine? Three tanks of B10, and the injectors are so filthy that you can’t even feather the throttle to get it into gear. Best mileage figure? How about 4-5 mpg? With a 20k load.
    Then some wag wants to throw another axle under our trailers. The difference in mileage with another 17k to lug around would kill the mileage figures even more. Who do you suppose is going to pay for all that fuel? The shippers? The companies? Yea, the companies will, if you happen to be a company driver. The big guys pay a set rate per mile. Can’t say who, but when you are making .95 per mile, and that’s all you get, it don’t matter how heavy or light the load is, it never changes. Lease ops and O/Os will go broke real fast.
    And then adding this DEF to the exhaust. Lets get real here. Now we need to change even more of the fuel we need to save to spray basically pee into the exhaust. What is the conversion for that? There has yet to be a chart saying how much petroleum product is needed to make a gallon of this stuff.
    Tires going through the roof. A lot of mechanics on the road are just as bad as the schiester down the block. Troopers misquoting law just to pad their books. Brokers that outright refuse to pay what the load is worth, and even go so far as threaten you with the theft of the load if you make noise to get a few dollars to have something to eat. The list goes on.
    Two years ago, there was never room to park at most any truck stop or rest area after 1900 hrs (7:00 pm). Nowadays, I don’t even have to worry about finding a slot at midnight, with the exception of Chicago, where there are literally none to be had, anyway. I’m not blind. I wonder how many more are going to have to shut down to get someone’s attention.
    One more thing, before I go…
    In the Seventies, the knowitall Big Guv had taxed the railroads so bad, that the ones along the eastern seaboard started dropping like flies, abandoning entire lines. Only the big ones were barely scraping by. When the Big Guv finally backpedaled, the lumped a bunch of them together to make Conrail. What happens next? Contruck?

    Reply

    Out_house February 26, 2014 at 9:02 am

    …and another nail is driven into the coffin of trucking profitability. Unless you like working for the fun of it, you better start looking for a new career.

    Reply

    David Parkins February 27, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    With some of the thinking (or lack of) in Washington these days, I wonder how much input they really get from the industry vs the egg-heads on some of these rulings and regulations?

    Reply

    Brian White February 28, 2014 at 9:25 am

    Dave, to answer your question about how much input the clowns in DC are getting: They’re getting plenty, believe me. Now, whether they listen to any of it at all depends on who’s providing the input. The mega-carriers (JB Hunt, Swift, Schneider, etc.) who can afford to have a lobbyist on the payroll are who gets listened too. The O/O crowds best proponent (IMHO) is OOIDA. It seems the only time the government will listen to the small truckers is when the OOIDA sues them in court.

    I’ve had four trucks in my career. Each of them had their problems, and each had their good points. The first two I bought used. One condo Volvo with a 60 series Detroit and 13 spd.(good truck). It was doing 6-6.5 mpg. The second a Freightliner day cab with a 60 series Detroit and 10 spd. (mistake – Engine/tranny/rears all good, cab not worth the cost of gunpowder to blow it up). It also was in the 6-6.5 mpg range.

    Both of them allowed me to save enough to buy my third truck, a 2008 Volvo day cab with Volvo D13 and 13 spd. That truck was 6.3-6.8 mpg all day. That truck had the first generation of DPF on it. While the DPF wasn’t a constant problem, it did have it’s issues and I had to pay close attention to it.

    My fourth and current truck is a 2013 Volvo VNL430, D13 and their iShift transmission. This truck is an awesome combination. I can say this: I’ll NEVER go back to a manual transmission for the work I’m doing. It averages 6.5-7 mpg (and would probably be a little more if the dealer could figure out why the danged engine fan is staying engaged all the time) and has a DPF on it that has given me NO problems save for one cracked plastic fitting causing a differential pressure switch to act stupidly.

    Now, all that being said, the one thing that I see VERY little mentioned in any industry related publications is this: The quality of the diesel being produced for you and I to use is a major factor in just what kind of mpg’s we’re going to get.

    I don’t know what’s driving the difference in mpg’s for me, but on one fill-up I’ll see nearly 7 mpg’s, on another fill-up from the same fuel stop I’ll see barely over 6 mpg’s. I keep close track of the fuel usage, and I run pretty much the same loads week in and week out. So there’s not a whole lot of variance in the work this truck is doing.

    I guess my overall point is this: Obama and his corrupt administration think that just because they say “More mpg’s”, that it’s going to be so.

    Another issue that some published stories have addressed is the overall increase in cost of the new trucks. Since the government mandated the use of DPF technology, the cost of each of the two NEW trucks I’ve purchased was up nearly $15,000. That’s a cost passed on to the buyer. And now we have DEF technology to pay for also.

    One more: TAXES. The FET on class 8 trucks is currently at 12%. And our wonderful jack-booted government (the GAO) is proposing another increase to the FET, which is already the highest percentage of any FET. This amounts to an increase in the cost of the new class 8 truck of approximately $15,000. While we’re at it: IRS Form 2290. What a wonderful little item that is. This is a $550 ‘Heavy Vehicle Highway Use Tax’ that is supposedly used to make roadway repairs. Another way for the government to pick our pockets. And yet, at lease in Oklahoma, the main highways in and out of Tulsa are either in lousy shape, or have tolls on them. It currently costs a class 8, 5 axle truck, $33 to travel between Tulsa & Joplin or Tulsa and OKC. Approx $15 from Tulsa & Enid, and about $17 from Tulsa to Siloam Springs, Ar.

    If any politicians are reading this, here’s a question: Would you like to get MILLIONS of people on your side when election time rolls around? All you need to do is get IRS Form 2290 repealed. Not replaced, or the reduction in revenue made up on the class 8 truck owners somewhere else. REPEALED. DEAD & GONE.

    Reply

    James C February 28, 2014 at 10:11 am

    Want to burn less fuel for the delivery of goods? Invent teleportation. Until then, suck it up. Trucks burn fuel. It’s how it works. Betcha people (politicians included) don’t give this issue much thought as they’re browsing the well stocked isles at their local grocery stores.

    Come on, really. This is the transportation industry. It gets there by burning fuel to move it. Just get over it and let us get on with stocking your grocery store shelves.

    Reply

    Ronald Hunter March 7, 2014 at 6:30 am

    The statistics in the article mention that trucks were only 4% of registered vehicles but didn’t mentioned they carry 99% of everything we wear, eat, or shelter under. This tree hugging crap has got to stop. The fuel standards aren’t going to save money. The costs of compliance ie… increased msrp will rise as will maintenance costs. The mandated regeneration nightmare is a typical misguided regulation that keeps newer trucks in the shop. I wonder how much the loss of productivity has cost the industry. Major companies like CAT quit making road engines as an example.

    Reply

    Leave a Comment

    Previous post:

    Next post: