Organized by the Department of Energy in 2009, the SuperTruck Challenge was an initiative that gave the major truck manufacturers the task of making their large diesel trucks 50% more efficient. The lofty goal was issued as a sort of long-distance target, but as showcased at this year’s Mid-America Trucking Show, Daimler Trucks North America met the target, and blew past it, achieving not just a 50% improvement, but a 115% improvement of freight efficiency. What does that mean? A Freightliner that does 12.2 MPG.
The SuperTruck is the product of collaboration between the Daimler companies Freightliner, Detroit Engines, Mercedes-Benz, and Fuso. It was funded in part by a $40 million grant issued by the DOE, but according to Diane Hames, general manager of marketing and strategy at DTNA, the truck “far exceeded our expectations,” and has been “a very fruitful use of taxpayer dollars.”
If you’re really interested in all of the individual features, you should check out the flashy video Daimler produced at the end of this article, but essentially Daimler made countless smaller improvements and a few major improvements to get the results they did.
The biggest increase in efficiency comes from improved aerodynamics. Deceptively simple features like extenders between tractor and trailer, rear wheel fairings, and a “smart” grille that has ventilation flaps that automatically open at low speeds and close at high speeds dramatically reduced air friction. The whole truck even lowers itself slightly closer to the ground when it’s traveling at highway speeds.
Other features include a hybrid engine, solar panels on the roof of the trailer (which generate enough energy to power the truck’s air conditioning), and a waste heat recapture system that takes the heat from exhaust and braking and uses it to generate energy that feeds back in to the engine.
There are countless other tweaks and changes, but together they all add up to a super-efficient truck. In a real-world test run on public roads between San Antonio and Dallas, TX, the SuperTruck got 12.2 miles per gallon while pulling more than 65,000lbs.
Next Story: Drivers Guaranteed Pay For All On-Duty Hours?
Source: engadget, gizmag, slashgear, geekygadgets, spectrum, truckinginfo
This seems like a huge improvement, but let’s test that same configured truck in the mountains and see what the results look like. My company pulls overweight loads 98% of the time and wonder how something like this or Walmarts concept would fair pulling 160,000 gross.
I’m glad we are looking for major improvements in fuel efficiency but flat roads mostly highway I think give numbers like the mpg listed on the window sticker. Numbers you’d never see driving real world.
The video stated that something like 2/3 of the improvement came from the trailer. It has solar cells running the length of the roof and a skirt running from just behind the drive axle to the rear of the trailer. Based on that over sized loads would see only a slight gain. But you mentioned over weight, I don’t imagine you would see much improvement with hill climbing even with a waste energy recovery system drawing heat from the exhaust. Incline driving is about pure engine and transmission, aero dynamics dont come into play as much. On flat ground you would see a large improvement because reducing drag on the vehicle would drasticly reduce the rolling resistance and impact of pulling such heavy weights.
I look forward to seeing a practical long term test on this setup. Even just a run from SLC to NYC, something to give a real world combined environment mpg.
I’m going to agree with Gordon. If your running on flat ground in good weather conditions then yeah guess you could get that kind of mileage. Put it on I-80 in Wyoming or maybe I-70 in Utah or Colorado. And lastly what’s the base price going to be for this to is tonka toy? 250k for something like this will put owner operators out of the market for buying one and most fleets probably won’t convert either.
In the 2011 Volvo that I drive for my company I get 6.5 mpg running highway and mountains with an average speed of 62 mph. The majority…vast majority that is…of trucking miles are highway miles.
Woah woah woah…. How much did they get to pick up 5mpg? What a waste!
Nice! They earned $11.6 billion dollars last year and their CEO earned $11.3 million dollars yet they soak the American taxpayer out of $40 million dollars to develop technology and reap MORE money from consumers. Corporate welfare at it’s finest!!!!
It costs 40 million to streamline a truck and make those changes. Wow!!! What a waste of taxpayer money. It surely didn’t cost that much to design that truck. I want in on this boondoggle!!!!
What, they aren’t having enough trouble with the newer trucks now? They want a new and improved POS?
I agree! Disposable trucks I call them. Volvo comes to mind and has surpassed Freightliner in this dept.
I’ll keep my fuel guzzling 03 379 longhood with it’s pre-emmision, smoke puffing kitty kat @ a custom 620 ponies that I fixed what the epa broke and get 6+ mpg with.
All that crap is just that… Crap and comes at a huge cost called RELIABILITY!
I’ll be sure to honk as I pass you by broke down on the road if you think this isn’t just more junk on the road. Cat saw the writing on the wall when the epa got in the engine building business and got out knowing you can’t keep both the epa and the consumer happy. Someone will pay!
I personally think this is great! You have to be able to look into the future to see what can be done today. This truck has application now with many companies – those that don’t run max gross loads. For example, auto haulers and racing teams. Furniture haulers and even some LTL operations. If you pull overweight/oversize loads, this truck won’t be for you. This is simply a concept, so we have to understand that this tractor – trailer combo won’t be available for several years. Still lots to do with it and also the price point will be a huge factor.
Furniture haulers need side doors and belly boxes.
LTL probably wouldn’t do enough highway mileage to make a difference.
“…Daimler Trucks North America met the target, and blew past it…”
Possibly because the brakes were out? 😀
https://www.thetruckersreport.com/2386-trucks-have-brake-issues-wont-be-recalled-until-end-of-may/
Seriously, though… A couple things come to mind. One is, how easy will it be to jack the trailer with the fairings so tight? Will you be able to maneuver in a tight spot without destroying the fairings? And as trucks have become more complicated and computerized, it seems like there’s more stuff to break down. My 2012 Pete gives me a lot of computer-related problems, as it is. And this is one complicated machine. You won’t want to ding that tractor, that’s for sure. Especially the grill!
I’d like to see them get 12+ mpg between slc and chicago. All the farings in the world won’t help with a 50+ side wind. I also wouldn’t bet they did more than 55 or 60. Why don’t they ever do these fancy tests at 80k pounds thru mountains and snow?
How bout running tween Cheyenne and SLC?!?!?!….or even just to Rawlings?….lol..withOUT their massive quoted loadout….mebbe 1/3 of it…or less!!!…lol
65K gross weight.? Flat land testing.?.60 Mph max? Lets do real world testing
San Francisco to NYC Round trip 80K both ways at posted speed limits…
But reality is such a pain to deal with. If they actually drove it the way that their customers would, then they’d have to admit that the numbers were barely an increase over existing technology! That would never help sales.
And San Fran to NYC is easy, very few major cities. I want to see the MPG after pushing through SoCal, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Atlanta. And who ever runs a single load coast to coast? Let’s do San Fran to Long Beach, to Denver, to Houston, Atlanta, NYC. With REAL freight(Paper ROLLS, not cups). Then and only THEN, will I be interested in the numbers they present.
Sigh. People missing the point – all these improvements aren’t going to magically stop helping just because the truck weighs 80k instead of 65k (Or 130k+, since I routinely exceed that as a Canadian driver). Higher speeds will only increase their effectiveness, higher weights don’t mean you burn any less fuel overcoming air resistance, and those who pull a lot of heavy grades can only benefit from having a few more horsepower applied to the grade instead of air resistance.
Remember those silly “anteater” trucks? Everything has to start somewhere. And with proofs-of-concept like this, hopefully people will be more willing to actually consider implementing them.
Also, people are overlooking the greatest feature here – a full-size Freightliner with a one piece windshield! I’m sick of staring at that massive patch of unwiped windshield that’s still around on the latest Cascadia/Coronado models, all in the name of allegedly reducing windshield repair costs, at the expense of LETTING ME SEE OUT THE FRONT WINDOW PROPERLY.
Moving forward. I like it.
I can see now the new price tag of trailers with solar panels. the panels will cost as much (more?) than the trailer! And if the driver AC is tied to these, I can’t imagine the problems when there is a breakdown on fleet trailers (never happens). Good ideas, but a bit further in the future than most would think.
Yeah I can’t imagine those solar panels being well maintained.
When I first got into trucking I asked why nobody ever thought of putting a regenerative braking system on the trailer tandems? The answer, it’d be broken in a month.
“The whole truck even lowers itself slightly closer to the ground when it’s traveling at highway speeds.”
…And we thought potholes were fun, before. How many of these $300,000(I’m guessing, here) trucks are going to ground out at highway speeds, ripping up already badly paved roads before they realize that ground clearance is something we need?
What good are solar panels if you have a flatbed trailer?
They’re probably figuring on makin AMERICAN rigs just like some Euro rigs, with a lil covered JOINT betwixt tractor n trailer……can’t have these pesky Americans doing thing their OWN WAY!!!!!!….now canwe??….F-ing BS!!!
Just another example of crony dealings between the gov. and corporations. Billions of taxpayer dollars handed to a corporation that makes some plastic throw away trucks to which they added some automatic radiator vents (which will fail in no more than a couple of months after purchase), a variable ride height air ride leveling valve which has been in exitence in European trucks for decades, and larger cab exteners to minimise the gap between the cab and trailer which only become useful if the tractor is coupled to a box trailer. If they were to reengineer the whole configuration of the tractor-trailer, test multiple variations in multiple modes, terrain and weather conditions, and then standardize the best, most efficient and most reliable configuration possible, maybe then they could justify the spending of billions of taxpayers money. This stunt with slightly modified junk running a short route on flat terrain in south-central Texas where you don’t get the high velocity winds of Wyoming, Nebraska and the prairie region, maybe governed at some 50 mi/ho (with the wind at the back), well, my 2001 truck would get at least 10-11 mi/gallon too.
What a joke!
Why don’t they spend that money on driver safety features? Even better create East Coast parking so drivers aren’t forced to drive tired trying to find a safe place to park. We have a 2016 and on flat ground it does okay for mpg. On grades its just as good as others on fuel but puts your safety at risk. Neutral on 6% grades is just dangerous. Cruise that allows the truck to speed down grades?! On guard radar that applies your brakes for no reason. I love technology but not when its playing with mine and other drivers lives!
This will get 8 mpg at 80k at 62 mph under regular typical driving conditions. Just like the 5 year old Pete 387 with an ISX15 and 13 speed and 450k on tge odo did when I started in 09.
Not impressed.
“a real-world test run on public roads between San Antonio and Dallas, TX”…..what, no HILLS?!?!?!…supertruck afraid of hills?????…or are they afraid to ACTUALLY test it in a REAL real-world run….like from SanFran over Donner, and then down to SLC, and down and over to Denver, and then up to Cheyenne, back to SLC, down to LA and then go back up to Frisco–over the I5 and over Altamont!!!!!!!…or for that matter, over ANY PART of this lil cluster of runnings that includes an actual MOUNTAIN RANGE to go over!!!!!!…..going across FLAT country and then braggin about the mileage you “achieved” is pretty hollow…..now go make a run or ten that includes some climbing over the Rockies, Sierras or something and see what your miracle-rig’s ACTUAL REAL-WORLD mileage REALLY is!!!!!!!!!!!!…take your wonderkin-mobile from San Antone up to Albuquerque and up to Denver………something that really shows what it can ACTUALLY do, MPG, AND otherwise….AND see if you can make the PRICE of this thing within the realm of POSSIBLE for us lil guys who don’t have the $$$ for $250K tractors/rigs
!!!!!!.
I agree with many of the points made in the comments. It is very true that Dallas to San Antone @ probably 55mph is nowhere near a real-world test. Also the ground clearance thing is a terrible idea unless the driver can disable it in areas they know are likely to rip up their rigs. Just look at how many newer trucks have those little 4-5 inch under-fairing extenders ripped off already. Granted some of that is from drivers puttin’ em over curbs but certainly not all.
That being said the point is that many of the small improvements are easily implemented and would be cost efficient. Things like the full length skirts would be a huge improvement for a small cost increase (though they seem to have forgotten to include access doors to reach the landing gear, drives and tandems lol). Other things like the waste heat recovery won’t be cost effective for many years. I think I remember reading a while back that this system was over half the cost increase of the truck. Personally I’d rather skip the whole hybrid HWR system and just stick an old 12.7 Detroit under the hood and probably make the same savings as that fancy system with all the EPA crap on it. Then of course there is the aesthetic cost. There is no doubt that a “HOOD” with big ole stacks and lots of chrome just plain looks cool. Personally I don’t care what my rig looks like as long as it makes me more money but for many O/O’s this is not an acceptable trade off. I would like to see lots of the little things become available to the MPG obsessed, ugly plastic truck driving set like myself but some of it just seems like it isn’t likely to be cost effective any time soon or is just plain a bad idea.
Curbs? How about 6″ deep potholes at some of our vendors? Some lots would scare off a Jeep Rubicon!
Gearing and aerodynamic improvements are the cheapest way to improve fuel efficiency.
Low rolling resistance tires are good and those mud flaps that have air holes in them are another cheap fix.
Turbine motors are slightly better than piston motors as well.
This is pretty much just pissing in the wind and not practical for us at the bottom of the food chain.
And, most importantly, making trucks lighter saves fuel which has resulted in increased driver crash fatalities.
Want a rich widow? Buy (or just drive) a new truck.
Ripoff! Ripoff! Ripoff!… I’m driving a 10 speed 2011 Volvo with 79k lbs gross from Salinas, CA to Boston, MA and I’m getting 7.9 to 8.4 mpg… when the load is like 68k to 70k lbs I’m getting 8.2 to 8.4 at max speed limit, but if i drive @ 60 to 63 mph then I’m getting 8.9 mpg… I’m debating if i was doing better with the prostart I drove before. if I were to equipped my Volvo with some of those fenders I honestly believe my mpg will get closer to 12 mpg without wasting all that money!!! I said that what we”re getting in return for the money invested is a ripoff!