MPG

If you have dedicated freight, that's why.
Everyone knows going slower will save some fuel, but they're still stuck in the mindset of gogogo. To an extent, I agree with them, because the sooner you're empty, the sooner you can get reloaded with another paycheck. But, at some point, you go from stepping over dimes to pick up dollars, to stepping over quarters to pick up dollars.

 

Lots of drivers will argue with a fence post that they get better fuel mileage running 72 then they do at 62. Just forget about that group. They are making so much money, they don't care about a higher fuel bill.

But we all have different compromise points regarding the speed:cost aspect of trucking

 

One argument would be higher maintanance from going slower. It takes you longer to get there. So the engine is running longer. Regardless, you're going to wear and tear the truck.

You've figured out the math in fuel savings. And you pointed out less loads. Now figure out the math in less loads.

I figure one less load a week. At roughly $1000. X 52 weeks. Is $52,000 in lost revenue. Just to save roughly $12,000 in fuel. That's a difference of $40,000.

Course, that also depends on the operation.

Imagine being a local o/o. Getting paid by the load. Doing the same run every day. And being home every night. Does he want to run slower and do only 3 loads or faster and get 4 loads.

I run 2 loads up north. And don't have the most powerful truck in the fleet. I don't pay the fuel but if i did. Do i want to be home in 11 hours or 12 hours?

Everyone knows running slower saves fuel and money. But the bigger picture is slower costs money also. If you can run faster and make more money. That far exceeds the logic of running slower to save money.

 

Lots of guys schedule oil and/or filter changes around gallons of diesel burned, which makes sense to me.

 

If you have a boost gauge try this one ....
Set your cruise at 60, use foot at about 40% power or so and let your speed vary a little bit with whatever small changes in terrain but don't exceed a high limit of say 75.. keep boost below 10 psi unless you hit low speed where cruise will give it so you maintain at least 60... I bet you can do even better in both mpg and time ...

Oh and btw I will burn my fuel however I darn well please

 

You're engine is running longer to complete the trip.
Example. Missoula to boise. Stay on the freeway, go through pocatello. Trip is 600 miles and takes 10 hours.
Take the shorter route. Through the mountains. 450 miles but takes 15 hours. You're engine ran 5 hours longer for the same trip. Average speed on the freeway was 70. Average speed through the mountains was 40.

So which trip had the most wear and tear? You went slower through the mountains.

It's no secret that running the engine is wear and tear. So how is it flawed logic? Your engine is running longer.

Albuquerque to Phoenix is another fine example. Longer and faster to stay on the freeway through flagstaff then any of the shortcuts through the grand canyon.

The engine is going to get worn. Regardless of speed. Question is how much monye will it make getting worn.

But if you have a test results chart showing mileage wear per speed. Let's see it. I think we'd all be interested. Engine, Transmission, and rear ends.

BTW. Being a western regional driver mostly. I"ve done those 2 trips a few times.

And to add. You're probably dropped a gear going 10 mph slower. Your engine speed is roughly the same. Roughly.