Big trucks to get more efficient and cleaner

[pee wee]

Register to stop seeing this ad!

This will apply to garbage trucks, big rigs, as well as heavy duty pickup trucks:

Government to propose truck fuel efficiency rules - chicagotribune.com

[blue7.3]

It's about time...

[Bugman]

With the new Ford 6.7L ford may be ahead of the pack on this one. I've always wondered why the do not post mpg on 3/4 tons with a factory bed.

[michigandon]

Originally Posted by blue7.3

It's about time...

Indeed! I don't know how many older OTR truckers I haven't spoken to who state that the rigs they drive today burn TWICE as much fuel as the ones they did in the 70s.

Dontcha think there's something wrong with that?

[gandrimp]

Can anybody say gov. mandated emissions? Thats why fuel economy sucks. Expect to see 5 to 10 % price increase.

[blue7.3]

Originally Posted by gandrimp

Can anybody say gov. mandated emissions? Thats why fuel economy sucks. Expect to see 5 to 10 % price increase.

Very few emissions reqts on big trucks other than opacity (in some states). Frankly, I like breathing semi-clean air. I remember some days in LA when I couldn't see clearly across my garage, or driving up to Mt. Baldy and driving through the very distinct altitude where is smog then into the clean air above. Quite amazing.

-pete

[howam00]

Originally Posted by blue7.3

Very few emissions reqts on big trucks other than opacity (in some states). Frankly, I like breathing semi-clean air. I remember some days in LA when I couldn't see clearly across my garage, or driving up to Mt. Baldy and driving through the very distinct altitude where is smog then into the clean air above. Quite amazing.

-pete

Gotta love that orange night sky in LA. after reading a bunch of articles on this the major engine makers were on board with the EPA and expect to increase fuel efficiency up to the level that the cost is a moot point. I do expect that trailor makers will get with the program and start offering their products with reduced Cd to help bump mileage.

I am no expert but at the power densities of modern diesels in 2500-4500 trucks the big rigs shouldn't need 14 liters of displacement to get 425hp and 1200 lbs of torque. Something around 9-10 liters should be enough and that would allow for lighter and more aerodynamic rigs that should save a ton of fuel. Maybe I am missing something.

[blue7.3]

Originally Posted by howam00

Gotta love that orange night sky in LA. after reading a bunch of articles on this the major engine makers were on board with the EPA and expect to increase fuel efficiency up to the level that the cost is a moot point. I do expect that trailor makers will get with the program and start offering their products with reduced Cd to help bump mileage.

I am no expert but at the power densities of modern diesels in 2500-4500 trucks the big rigs shouldn't need 14 liters of displacement to get 425hp and 1200 lbs of torque. Something around 9-10 liters should be enough and that would allow for lighter and more aerodynamic rigs that should save a ton of fuel. Maybe I am missing something.

As Ford has discovered w/ the now 6.7, ya need displacement to pull heavy loads w/ reliability and staying clean at the same time. Those big boys expect ~400-500,000 miles between rebuilds, and that's with an engine spending it's life hauling up to 80,000 pound loads the whole time (my 7.3 has 149k and still ~98% of new compression). But they are getting more efficient and between the latest emissions developments and aero-tricks, they'll get to where they need to be.

[howam00]

Originally Posted by blue7.3

As Ford has discovered w/ the now 6.7, ya need displacement to pull heavy loads w/ reliability and staying clean at the same time. Those big boys expect ~400-500,000 miles between rebuilds, and that's with an engine spending it's life hauling up to 80,000 pound loads the whole time (my 7.3 has 149k and still ~98% of new compression). But they are getting more efficient and between the latest emissions developments and aero-tricks, they'll get to where they need to be.

What I am referring to is that if you took say an Audi 2.0 diesel at 170 hp and what 250 lbs of torque that would equate to roughly 1190 hp and 1750 lbs if the motor was 14 liters. I know they are detuned for long life but cut in half seems silly to me.

There are some efficiencies with size too in terms of heat management so really they should be able to produce 1300 hp and 2000 lbs out of a motor that size. Why can't they get a million mile 10 liter motor with 550 hp and 1100-1200 lbs of torque. That alone would save 20% on fuel and leave room to make the front more aerodynamic. It would also be lighter and I doubt there'd me any performance deficiencies.

[clubgitmo]

Day late and a dollar short. Any modern semi engine has a similar, if not better, power to size ratio of the Audi you listed.

Torque is what moves freight, not HP. You don't see huge HP numbers on semi engines because it's not possible for engines that size. Remember, HP is a calculated (not measured) value.

HP = Torque x RPM / 5252

So, the faster the engine the higher the HP. This is why Honda's have HP and no torque, but large diesels have torque but relatively lower HP.

In fact, if a small displacement high horsepower diesel was developed, Id bet it'd be LESS efficient and MORE costly. Not only would the higher RPM's required to create the torque needed use more fuel, but it'd also create more engine wear.

I don't know how many older OTR truckers I haven't spoken to who state that the rigs they drive today burn TWICE as much fuel as the ones they did in the 70s.

Years of coffee and tobacco have killed their brain cells. There's not a single truck from the 70's that can pull today's loads at today's speed and get double the fuel economy (approx 10-14 mpg).