Fuel Economy fuel economy - classic vs. aerodynamic trucks

[Rigjockey]

I was trying to ask which came out first, the FLD or the anteater T-600, but apparently my brain malfunctioned.

I think the K-bub ant eater t600 came out first. It was the first of the aerotype trucks. I am sure someone here will correct me. Ford also had their aeromax truck.

 

[Les2]

I think volvo was the first of the aero style trucks?

 

[Rigjockey]

I think volvo was the first of the aero style trucks?

I know Volvo was the first to have the integral bunk. So there was no boot and the cab and bunk where all one wide open thing.

 

[Duck]

I think volvo was the first of the aero style trucks?

Volvo doesn't count. If they came out with the first aerodynamic truck, I'm sure it was because them Europeans simply prefer trucks (and motorcycles) that look gay, and had nothing to do with aerodynamics.

 

[Rigjockey]

Volvo doesn't count. If they came out with the first aerodynamic truck, I'm sure it was because them Europeans simply prefer trucks (and motorcycles) that look gay, and had nothing to do with aerodynamics.

They still run cab overs over there. I am sure it has more to do with the narrow roads. I have saw a few Europeans over here and some North Americans that have bought old cab overs because that is what they are used to.

I did see one guy that imported a European truck, a cab over. I am pretty sure it is also right hand drive.

 

[Kiwi303]

LOTS of cab overs here, also LOTS of 4 axle trucks (tractors here are farm things, a truck is a truck, whether bobtailed or a straight box truck) with 2 steer axles.

A 53 foot van like you have stateside would have either 3 or 4 axles under it. 80% of our line haul is in double 30 foot trailers, 3 or 4 axle prime mover, 3 axle front 12 meter trailer with a stepped rear 5th wheel and a 2 or 3 axle rear 12 meter trailer. We also have MANY more curtainsiders than box vans with rear doors.

Pretty much only reefers are rear door here and back to a dock. Most freight is curtainsider and just pulls into a covered depot and opens the sides for forklifts to unload through the side.

 

[Rigjockey]

LOTS of cab overs here, also LOTS of 4 axle trucks (tractors here are farm things, a truck is a truck, whether bobtailed or a straight box truck) with 2 steer axles.

A 53 foot van like you have stateside would have either 3 or 4 axles under it. 80% of our line haul is in double 30 foot trailers, 3 or 4 axle prime mover, 3 axle front 12 meter trailer with a stepped rear 5th wheel and a 2 or 3 axle rear 12 meter trailer. We also have MANY more curtainsiders than box vans with rear doors.

Pretty much only reefers are rear door here and back to a dock. Most freight is curtainsider and just pulls into a covered depot and opens the sides for forklifts to unload through the side.

We have 53 footers here (in Canada) with four axles. So what kind of weight are they putting on them down there. Here four axles on a 53 foot would gross out at around 126,000 or so.

 

[Southern Fried]

I know Volvo was the first to have the integral bunk. So there was no boot and the cab and bunk where all one wide open thing.

Actually I think it was the Scot from Atlantic Canada. Butt ugly and sure wasn't aerodynamic.


https://www.google.com/#q=scot+a2hd+truck

 

[Kiwi303]

NZ transport agency road code heavy vehicles road code states "A and B trains must not exceed 39 tons" 77900 pounds or so.

Our roads are just not engineered to handle the weight or the length. the more axles, the less weight per axle and the more spread over the road the weight is and the better to get an overweight permit, I believe the maximum permissible weight with permit but without escorts etc is 44 tons. 44 tons sticks in my mind from talking trucks with truckers here... but the road code I just googled states 39...

Grr, now I'm getting confused

I got the lengths wrong, Max length must not exceed 20 meters front to rear of the combination vehicle...The trailers would be 8 and 8 not 12 and 12.

2 metres of bonnet on a W900L long nose conventional means 2 metres extra that a cabover K100e can pull that the W can't.

 

[Sinister]

I think the K-bub ant eater t600 came out first. It was the first of the aerotype trucks. I am sure someone here will correct me. Ford also had their aeromax truck.

Correct. 1986 I believe.

 

[bubbanbrenda]

http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel...ow-smart-is-smartway.aspx?ref=rel-recommended
Doesn't really cover "old skool" vs. aero on trucks, but is a fine example of how inflated the numbers are. Smartway is supposed to be a neutral 3rd party, how ever it doesn't seem so. My previous truck was a 2000 379 with a Signature 600 18B and 3.25's, if I drove it like I had some sense it would get 7mpg's all day long, my current truck is the T-600, 475, Acert Cat, 10C, 3.55's in my avatar, and average to date is 6.7. I know that is not a far comparison because of the power/drive-line differences, but my point is driving habits effect mpg's more than anything else. I'm betting if you put the same driver in a 389 and a Cascadia evolution with identical power/driveline specs you would be lucky see .2 of a difference. just my 0.02.

 

[Duck]

http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel...ow-smart-is-smartway.aspx?ref=rel-recommended
Doesn't really cover "old skool" vs. aero on trucks, but is a fine example of how inflated the numbers are. Smartway is supposed to be a neutral 3rd party, how ever it doesn't seem so. My previous truck was a 2000 379 with a Signature 600 18B and 3.25's, if I drove it like I had some sense it would get 7mpg's all day long, my current truck is the T-600, 475, Acert Cat, 10C, 3.55's in my avatar, and average to date is 6.7. I know that is not a far comparison because of the power/drive-line differences, but my point is driving habits effect mpg's more than anything else. I'm betting if you put the same driver in a 389 and a Cascadia evolution with identical power/driveline specs you would be lucky see .2 of a difference. just my 0.02.

How's that anteater treating you? I've liked the looks of those things since I was a kid. I even have a plastic model of one at my parents house that I put together when I was probably 10 yrs old. But since then I've heard from more than a few drivers that they're junk. But I still see a lot of them on the road that look like they're in good shape. In the tiny avatar picture, yours looks pretty decent as well. So I've been wanting to get an opinion from somebody who bought one on purpose.

 

[bubbanbrenda]

I like it, the compound turbo's on the Acert took a while to get a handle on, it's got the "new" style AG-400 (8 bag) air-ride that is surprisingly smooth, even with a smooth bore tank. I really like the 86" sleeper, really comes in handy running 60-70,000 miles a year.

 

[bubbanbrenda]

http://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/content/site310/contentblocks/66391peterbiltf_00000026201.pdf
Check out page 5 the 1988 Peterbilt 372 was the absolute first, a marketing failure at that time, but fuel was not $4.00 a gallon then. wonder how many 11 MPG trucks they could sell today.

 

[Mike]

You got a big division of people in this debate, with both on very opposite sides of the fence.

Trying to compare one truck to the next really doesn't work because you can put 10 trucks side by side, all identical setup, and likely get different mpg results from the same driver. This is especially true with emissions equipped trucks. Most cases, it is a matter of being able to track down what it causing the loss of fuel economy.

Those in the camp that support aerodynamic trucks throw out the number of a "1 mpg difference, directly related to body style". I don't believe this, which is why I wanted to see a good debate about it here. I do think there is a difference, but much like @bubbanbrenda , I think it is likely .5mpg or less. At the same time, I am not so arrogant to say that I could be wrong, and it could be over 1mpg.

The mpg value in an aerodynamic truck really kicks in though when you are talking multiple trucks.

For a solo operation, the benefit is still there in fuel economy, but it is a smaller amount in terms of total profit.

The type of truck is just one piece of the fuel economy puzzle though. If you want to keep a close focus on fuel costs, the truck is just the first step. There are other aftermarket options, which spark an entirely new set of debates we will have on the forum. Some of these items work, some may not. Do any of them work as much as advertised? probably not. However, if you can get a tenth here, and a tenth there, 4 tenths here, and another tenth there (etc.....), combine that with driving habits and you are running efficient with higher profits.

And, aerodynamics helps, whether you are driving 55, 60, or 75mph.

 

[Duck]

http://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/content/site310/contentblocks/66391peterbiltf_00000026201.pdf
Check out page 5 the 1988 Peterbilt 372 was the absolute first, a marketing failure at that time, but fuel was not $4.00 a gallon then. wonder how many 11 MPG trucks they could sell today.

 

[Coronado Kid]

The drag underneath the truck is a huge factor, but the overall shape of the truck is a factor as well.
I think the biggest gains on trailers have come from the undercarriage mounted products that push air under the axles. To apply this to trucks, something must be used to compress the air and push it under or out the sides to minimize the turbulence. Hard to do much about this other than keeping a low profile and closing off as much air intake as possible outside of the radiator area where you need it. Are these newer aerodynamic trucks doing anything to accomplish this?

Can't place a number on it, but I do believe there is a fuel economy increase.

The term negligible really comes down to a case of personal opinion. For those chasing the best fuel economy possible, every .1 mpg matters. Some believe in this theory, some don't. To some it matters, to others it don't.

Would a hopper trailer be considered good to mpg since the way its sloped and shaped

 

[Sinister]

View attachment 22926

When that truck was new it cost more than most conventional trucks. The cab didn't tip up to service the engine, the whole front up the truck swung upward instead.

 

[Pops65]

In all the years I've been on the road I've heard a lot on both sides of this issue, I think the biggest thing is driver habits. Heck I had a 69 cabover new with a 335, puling a flatbed that got 6.5 all day long and ran coast to coast. If your buying the fuel you learn how to feather the throttle. I check my MPG every single time I fuel, and I'am running 84k to 86k from Montana to seattle/Tacoma every week with a w900l, 6nz cat 650hp. 3 passes and Vantage hill and can average 6.7 for my round, but I have the power just very seldom use it. it has areo cab with upper flaring and side flarings, because my height is between 12ft to 13.6 all the time. Driving habits, Driving habits, Driving habits.

 

[syd]

My friend drove pro star international he used to drive rough and he used to get only 4 mpg. How you drive makes a big difference