High-efficiency big rigs

[Howard]

Don't think this was posted already, but lots of interesting info here:

http://energy.gov/eere/articles/supertruck-making-leaps-fuel-efficiency

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/27/daimler-supertruck-115-percent-mpg-improvement/

The one from Daimler appears to have better than 50% thermal efficiency. To date, this has only been achieved by massive ocean-going marine diesels.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Impressive although the large gains are kinda because of how little truck manufacturers had really been doing to improve things over the years. I'd think there are bigger aerodynamic gains to be had as well (although not as drastic as say the Luigi Colani designs).

From what I've gathered, most truck drivers (but especially private ones) hate these newer ones because they're pains to work with/on, expensive to repair, and created other issues (apparently the sideskirts on the trailers aren't real popular as they're prone to blowing around in crosswinds). Although a lot of truck drivers tend to be not terribly forward thinking with regards to stuff like this (there's quite a few that are like Harley owners where they just want the same old classic Peterbilt design).

 

[overst33r]

I know it's apples and oranges (size, emissions, loads, speeds, etc), but does anyone know what kind of mpg a comparable euro truck gets?

Apparently PIT did a test of this, but I couldn't find the results.

 

[Thump553]

Neat, that Daimler looks more like a locomotive than a big rig. Some of the comments raised some real important points though-what a PIA it would be to put chains on those rigs, check tires, air pressure, etc and all the damage a blowout would do.

I suspect we will see some of those changes real fast. Cutting fuel costs like that would be a game changer in the transportation industry.

 

[heymrdj]

These newer rigs are certainly hated because of the maintenance nightmares. DPF's (now in light duty through heavy duty rigs) have massive failure rates and the systems can cost as much as 8 grand to replace out of warranty, not to mention they immobalize the truck. There's so many sensors and electronics to run these systems that the laws of what ifs become very large when you're running them millions of miles. We're forcing so much tech into all types of vehicles now for fuel efficiency and none of it really has any long term testing.

 

[Yuriman]

Not all technologies going into these things are created equal. I agree that there is a lot of unnecessary complexity in these concept vehicles, which we probably won't (and shouldn't) see in the mainstream for a while, if ever. Trailer tails, however, provide 10-15% better fuel economy at highway speeds and there's practically nothing that can go wrong with them. Smooth(er) wheel covers need not make changing tires a nightmare, if designed properly. Active grille blocks are already appearing on tons of passenger vehicles, and have a very short ROI.

Member "shepherd777" on ecomodder averaged 13.4mpg in his truck carrying a full load from one coast to another, and he didn't spend 40 million dollars on it, which is what Peterbilt's truck cost to put together (and only gets 9.9mpg).

You can read about it here: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...dynamic-modified-class-8-transport-20704.html

 

[overst33r]

Not all technologies going into these things are created equal. I agree that there is a lot of unnecessary complexity in these concept vehicles, which we probably won't (and shouldn't) see in the mainstream for a while, if ever. Trailer tails, however, provide 10-15% better fuel economy at highway speeds and there's practically nothing that can go wrong with them. Smooth(er) wheel covers need not make changing tires a nightmare, if designed properly. Active grille blocks are already appearing on tons of passenger vehicles, and have a very short ROI.

Member "shepherd777" on ecomodder averaged 13.4mpg in his truck carrying a full load from one coast to another, and he didn't spend 40 million dollars on it, which is what Peterbilt's truck cost to put together (and only gets 9.9mpg).

Where does it say that?

 

[Yuriman]

I was basing it off of a comment shepherd made over at ecomodder. I'm not sure what his source is, but it might have been linked elsewhere in the thread.

[

To be completely fair, I believe Peterbilt and Cummins are on "Phase 2" of their project. I don't recall how many phases there are until completion of the government Super Truck project. And hopefully, they did not blow the entire $39M of our hard-earned tax dollars that the current adminstration gave them, by doing only 9.9 mpg.

First off, AFAIK, the national average for Class 8 trucks is 6.5 mpg. So at 9.9 mpg, they did not "Double the National Big Rig Average." They improved it by very slightly more than 50%, by my math. We more than doubled it with the BulletTruck at 13.4 mpg. And I spent a ship-load less then $39M.

Secondly, does anyone here at the ecomodder forum doubt that even the most-junior ecomodder member here could not do better than this 9.9 mpg effort by these two multi-zillion dollar corporations??? It boggles my mind that they have all of those resources and ca$h and they only do 9.9 mpg in 2013.

They had a 65,000 lb. GVW on a route in ironing-board flat Texas, and they got only 9.9 mpg??? The BulletTruck does 17.5-18 mpg on a level grade at 65,000 GVW. Honest. It does 2-3 mpg climbing grades up to 6% on the interstate highway system. So with all of those 2-3 mpg legs, and all of those 17.5-18 mpg legs, we average 13.4 mpg with the BulletTruck. When we got 13.4 mpg coast-to-coast we did it after climbing a little thing that they call the Rocky Mountains, and after hitting 35 mph 3/4 headwinds. Not in ironing-board flat Texas.

I am sincerely grateful for all the help that Cummins provided on the BulletTruck. They helped us re-engineer the accessory drive belt system, and provided a very small amount of off the shelf components. And I am very grateful for them diagnosing and replacing our bum ECM last spring. They were a bunch of nice folks when we were there in person at the Technical Center in Columbus.

But everyone there has a CYA attitude and goes waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of their way not to commit to anything. Or volunteer to be helpful. One would think that they would love us to get the extreme mpg we were getting with their Cummins diesel engine and let the whole world know. You would have thought they would of published press releases on our accomplishments to highlight their engines. I asked my high-level contact if I could meet the marketing folks while we were there at the Tech Center. He told me he had to catch an airplane. That may be true, but if it was you that had to catch an airplane, would you not contact the marketing folks via e-mail or phone while we were still there? I could not even get a reply to a simple e-mail at times.

We will not be using a Cummins diesel engines in the new truck. I still think that Cummins makes excellent, durable, fuel-efficient diesel engines. Their lack of communication is the deal-breaker.

I can call the President of the company that will build the diesel engines for our new trucks directly. He is on a speed dial on my cell phone. We talked on the phone for over an hour a couple of weeks ago. And 1/2 hour last week. I talked with him in person last week. Try doing that with the President of Cummins. Or even a low-level manager there.

Paccar, parent of Peterbilt, has visited my web site dozens of times in the past. They were there 14 times yesterday and once so far today. And their latest visit was referred to by this site.
You would think they would have learned something by now.

Our tax dollars at work.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...amic-modified-class-8-transport-20704-21.html