Obama calls for more fuel efficient big rigs beginning in 2014

No...The 3406 was a much better engine as far as longevity goes...They got poor fuel mileage but so did most engines of that era.
The main problem with CAT is that their primary focus is construction equipment, Truck engines are just an afterthought which was fine until the government started screwing around with highway truck emissions and Cat chose not to redesign their engines to try to keep up with that.
They made half hearted attempts at it and all they accomplished was to make the engines so complicated and expensive to repair that they began to be impractical to own...The ACCERT engines were the worst of the bunch!

The dependability and longevity that was the hallmark of the CAT motors in the early years were all but gone and the only resemblance that the C-15 had with the old, Good motors was the yellow paint on the engine.

 

I wouldn't own an engine that was to cheaper to replace than to rebuild....Go Kitty....Not....

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but what engine is cheaper to replace than rebuild?

 

CAT has a core on rebuild parts....
The only engine manufacturer that does that according to my shop....

 

Two types of drive train I would like to see trucks explore further.

- GM is doing military applications of electric motors in the hubs of the drives and a generator applied to the rear of the engine. It would remove the Transmission and the differential. The drive train is in use on nearly all freight locomotives (lol steam excluded).

- Other type is hydraulic drive. Not talking of the automatic transmission. I am talking of the fluid drives used on excavation equipment and down to the zero turn mowers. One merely applies more oil pressure / rpm's and gets greater speed with out the wear of gears.

Probably a fantasy, yet the applications are in use.

 

I thought they all did that? I know Cat was trying to make it so a reman motor was more feesable to get than to overhaul the old engine.

 

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7455654

 

applying the new technologies will further raise the price, on top of the latest expensive and high maintenance pollution equipment. This will further deter folks from buying new trucks, which will of course not result in less pollution or better fuel consumption, but will help the recession become a depression!

 

BS! If they could increase fuel economy by 25% TODAY, don't you think that the big trucking commpanies would be pushing this a little bit harder to get it implemented?

 

Electro-motive systems seem like the best bet - and you could loose the weight of the axles, trans, 'jakes (with regenerative braking), alternator, and a good part of the engine size and cooling requirements (though battery capacity would offset some gains).

Some stumbling blocks are the batteries, and high grade copper for the motor windings.

It's just a matter of how much companies are willing to spend on them - and how much the taxpayer would have to front in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.