Heavy-duty fuel efficiency standards to reduce oil imports by a third by 2025

[Mike]

In a preview yesterday of what is to transpire later this morning at the White House, senior administration officials said new fuel efficiency standards for heavy- and medium-duty trucks, vans and buses will reduce carbon pollution from tractor-trailers by about 20 percent, medium-duty trucks and vans about 15 percent and vocational vehicles from fire trucks to garbage haulers, by about 10 percent.

This will save some 530 million barrels of oil “over the life of the program,” officials said, and reduce oil imports by a third by 2025.

The standards for heavy-duty trucks follow Obama’s July 29 announcement of fuel-economy rules for cars and light trucks that are to take fleet-wide averages to 54.5 mpg by 2025. For heavy-duty trucks, regulations focus on how much carbon individual truck parts emit, instead of the mpg standards used for cars.

The cost of a tractor will increase an estimated $6,220 because of the new fuel-saving technology, which also will build on current emission-reduction technology, officials said.

Truck operators are estimated to save $73,000 in fuel over the lifetime of the trucks.

Full Story

 

[ironmanwife]

Fuel economy tractor trailers.

Obama Seeks 20% Reduction in U.S. Big-Rig Truck Fuel Use by 2018 - Bloomberg
Prob gets moved, but wanted to post this..:spend:

 

[GAnthony]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

Obama Seeks 20% Reduction in U.S. Big-Rig Truck Fuel Use by 2018 - Bloomberg
Prob gets moved, but wanted to post this..:spend:

well say for instance a truck now gets 7.0 mpg's.....

at 20% that will be 1.4 more miles per gallon, and only cost over $6,000 to get it...?????

oh and i am so sure (sic) the freight rates will go up to reflect more money trucking companies will have to shell out.

 

[ironmanwife]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

73000 dollars is what "we" safe..whoopy..gonna go shopping NOW! What a bargain (being sarcastic)

 

[terrylamar]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

Using your MPG figure of 7.0 mpg an increase to 8.4 would save you $11,916.67 per year. If the initial investment was $6,000.00 your investment would be returned in slightly more than six months. After that you would be saving. I would go for this deal and day of the week. I don't want the government to mandate it, I am doing it on my own and working hard at it.

 

[ironmanwife]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

Using your MPG figure of 7.0 mpg an increase to 8.4 would save you $11,916.67 per year. If the initial investment was $6,000.00 your investment would be returned in slightly more than six months. After that you would be saving. I would go for this deal and day of the week. I don't want the government to mandate it, I am doing it on my own and working hard at it.

Good for you! :thud: you mean gubernment don't know best?

 

[GAnthony]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

the president ought to solve some of the problems we need solved right now.......fuel economy should not even be on "the back burner".....it shouldn't even be a glimmer in his eyes.........too many other MORE important things to take care of, like our economy, unemployment, etc,etc....

 

[ironmanwife]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

yeah "over the life time of the trucks".....

how long is a lifetime, and does the first owner re-coup enough of fuel savings to pay for that new technology...????

i think not.

the president ought to solve some of the problems we need solved right now.......fuel economy should not even be on "the back burner".....it shouldn't even be a glimmer in his eyes.........too many other MORE important things to take care of, like our economy, unemployment, etc,etc....

Fundraising..you forgot fundraising..that campaign don't pay for itself!
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/274057/are-obamas-frequent-fundraisers-form-therapy#

 

[GAnthony]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

well with out getting onto any political board or other thoughts, all i can say is, "he's a one timer".....

he came, he tried, (or didn't try hard enough), he failed (or will soon fail, if he hasn't already), stick a fork in him, he's done.

 

[ironmanwife]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

well with out getting onto any political board or other thoughts, all i can say is, "he's a one timer".....

he came, he tried, (or didn't try hard enough), he failed (or will soon fail, if he hasn't already), stick a fork in him, he's done.

[video]

[/video]

 

[Racer X 69]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

The federal government has been mandating lower emissions and improved fuel economy for all motorvehicles since the late 1960's.

This is nothing new. Nor is it unreasonable.

(Oh, and yes, the thread is getting moved. Likely to the Trucking Industry News section, but if you guys keep it up, it is gonna have to go to the Politics section)

 

[j911brick]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

One thing that the article omits is that these more efficient trucks have higher operating and maintenance costs.

 

[terrylamar]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

Pre emission, pre 2003 engines are among the best on the road. They can last well over a million miles then rebuild them and run another million. There are many drivers gettin well into the 7 mpg to 9 mpg range with these engines. They are ideal to drop into a glider.

Unfortunately, there are a few places where you cannot have a 2003 engine, fortunately those are few and far inbetween.

 

[Duck]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

Using your MPG figure of 7.0 mpg an increase to 8.4 would save you $11,916.67 per year. If the initial investment was $6,000.00 your investment would be returned in slightly more than six months. ...

That would "save you" $5916 a year. How much money will you spend MAINTAINING these un-necessary stupid tree-hugger devices, or spend on some extra crap you have to buy all the time (in addition to DEF) and how much money will you lose during down-time?

The primary objective of the proposed mandates is reducing carbon emissions, not fuel economy. It's nothing more than another communistic attempt to destroy industry and private enterprise.

 

[terrylamar]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

The first year, then it would be $11,916.67 per year thereafter. What are we talking about here, things like free flow mufflers, free flow air filters, synthetic oil, oil bypass filtration, low rolling resistance tire, air tabs, bullydog, tuned ecm among others. Yes, there is that initial investment which has a return on you invesment of 6 months or so. Then you reap the benifits. Flolks, this is a nobrainer to me. I am living proof that this stuff works. I am putting, in my pocket, an extra $20,000.00 per year more than someone that doesn't pay attention to these things.

 

[ironmanwife]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

More info..btw was just reading that the trucking community LOves this..REALLY???
First-ever truck fuel efficiency rules unveiled - Today's Trucking, the truck news site.

 

[Duck]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

More info..btw was just reading that the trucking community LOves this..REALLY???

Have you ever read those giveaway trucking magazines? They write these articles we're supposed to relate to, but they're written by people who are afraid to offend their advertisers, who are mostly the big fleets who push for all of this restrictive legislation.

I'm so fed up with them. Especially the ones published by the truck stops, like Pilot Challenge and Road King magazine. They don't want to offend their customers by printing the truth about the legislation they support that will run small fleets and independents out of business.

And then they insult our intelligence by filling 3/4 of their magazines with articles about NASCAR and sports. If I wanted to read about NASCAR and sports, I'd pick up a Sports Illustrated or something. And you can't forget, every issue of each of these magazines has to have an article about sleep apnea so we get used to reading their propaganda and eventually will accept it as a valid excuse to discriminate against fat people (thus lowering their health insurance costs)

 

[ironmanwife]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

Well I guess if you got enough lobbists (big companies) and get all the goodies you might be fond of the new rules..

 

[Racer X 69]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

The primary objective of the proposed mandates is reducing carbon emissions, not fuel economy. It's nothing more than another communistic attempt to destroy industry and private enterprise.

Well if you don't like the attempts at improving air quality in this country, you can always go to, say, China, where they don't give a rip about air quality, and the pollution is about to consume the resources they have, and the cloud of toxic crap that is spewing out of tailpipes there is threatening to blow across the Pacific and choke us.

But wait, they are a Communist society.

We can lead by example, and maybe they will follow suit, or we can go down the path they have chosen, and then we will have air quality like Tokyo had about 25 years ago. It got so bad there that you needed an oxygen bottle to walk around in downtown Tokyo.

Now, thanks to that "communistic attempt to destroy industry and private enterprise", Tokyo ranks among the highest in good air quality, worldwide.

Like I posted somewhere else here a while back, diesel engine emission control systems are in their infancy, much like the gasoline engine emission controls were about 30 years ago. Eventually they diesel systems will be on par with the gasoline systems, and we will all wonder how we ever put up with "those stinky black smoke belching machines".

 

[Duck]

Re: Fuel economy tractor trailers.

But wait, they are a Communist society.

Yes, that's why I won't go there. Plus they don't speak English and they work in sweat shops for a dollar a day.