new frieghtliner cascadia truck

That thing looks a lot like the Peterbilt 387 and the Kenworth T-2000.

 

It would look a lot more like a Freightliner if it had a horizontal bar or two missing from the front grille.

 

Looks nice...

 

I understand fuel economy, but the is just so much aerodynamic ability a high rise sleeper truck is going to have, so I wonder why the EPA pushes them so hard? They don't say anything about the 5 gallons per mile a train gets or the 75,000 gallons a container ship uses from Singapore to Miami.

 

They aren't pushed by the EPA as much as they are their customer base. First, the EPA has virtually no jurisdiction over trains and none at all over ships. Comparatively, on a ton of freight per mile basis, the rough figures have always been a 1-10-100 ration between ships, trains, and trucks. What a ship moves on a gallon, a train moves on 10, and a truck moves on 100. that's also roughly the cost basis per ton-mile as well. But a ship can only deliber to an ocean side dock, a train only delivers to a tracked location, and a truck delivers anyplace those two can't get to.

Actually, the demand for fuel mileage comes from customers. If you are the guy at Swift who figures out how to spec a truck and save 1/10th of a mpg over the life of the truck, multiplying that times 18,000 trucks and 125,000 miles per year, you get the corner office and the secretary with loose morals. Saving 1/10th of a gallon is nice for an O/O, but it's big money when it is saved on corporate trucks. And with fuel cost rising as it is, this becomes more important still.

 

I would have thought that the EPA would have control over the railways since they are government controled. I had heard a rumor several months ago that the new locomotives would be standard with emission controled engines like we have in the trucks.

 

They are government regulated, but that is not quite the same thing as being government controlled. And in the grand scheme of things, there are a lot fewer trains to regulate, and they have a very long lifespan, so some of the older ones will be in service until most of us depart the planet. So while there are improvements coming up in trains, it's more a voluntary thing driven by customer demand. And if I may, let me point out that a current generation diesel truck engine puts out less than 2% of the emissions of an engine from 1995. The EPA's job in trucking is done, and we are long past the point of diminishing returns.

Most of that improvement comes from improved fuel controls and electronics that can monitor and control the engines fuel intake through the combustion and rpm cycle. Trains will benefit in the same way, but it takes a little bit longer to come to pass. In fact, they have learned from the test bed that is trucking how to improve their engines and their fuel use.

 

I understand we need to change our habits as a country to try and make for a healthier living enviroment, especially for our kids, but I also have some mixed feelings about the major "crunch" on truck emissions here lately. It seems to me that the EPA wants too much too fast. Just like the new engine for 2008, the Ultra Low Sulfer engine. Because of weery buyers of the new trucks, a lot of people have lost their job because of layoffs from truck and engine manufacturers, and I guess I have a bias opinion because I have friends with families that got laid off.

 

What do you think about the aerodynamics stuff? with the cascadia. I mean, I think it looks pretty good. I kinda liked taht 360 spin thing on the ftl site. But does that really translate into better mileage?