EPA proposes tougher mileage demands for medium to heavy trucks.

Unfreaking believable.

The mileage in heavy trucks has steadily gone up over the years as the technology has improved. The biggest problem to increased mileage is the EPA itself.

There are many tweaks that increase mileage in big trucks, but they are banned by the EPA as they increase emissions! When one has spent the amount of time in the trucking industry that I have, one can only conclude that this move-like most regulations- benefit the big companies over the little guys or the owner-operators.

Now add in the massive increase in oil reserves in the U.S. and virtually 'clean' engines being demanded, DEF is the latest example, all this will do is drive the cost of these vehicles even higher. A bare bones O.T.R. tractor runs easily in the 160,000+ range now. This move would only increase the base cost which further benefits the bigger companies as their 'fleet discounts offset that expense to a large degree.

As diesel prices are already falling in relation to gas almost to 1980 levels, the EPA is now concerned about diesel consumption? I don't think so.

I could list a number of moves that would increase mileage, they are blocked by emission issues. The system in place that reduces emissions also reduces mileage. (deliberate?). Unfortunately, I must go burn some diesel to pay the bills so I don't have the time to give examples right now.

Thoughts?

a reply to: nwtrucker

my thought is screw the extra couple miles and lets keep those emissions down.
i live in a steel town and i hate seeing this trucks puking plumes of black # out every time they take off.

because of all the big trucks on the road up here we have to go through a lame ass emissions check with our passenger cars. only 6 counties in the whole state.

so yeah...i dont really care about the rigs getting better miles

edit

be like the rest of the world and buy 'gently used' and save a boat load

www.truckertotrucker.com...

Gas is still too cheap, eh?

Okay, time for a price check!

Here in Northern Germany, right now:
diesel oil = 1.211 EUR/Liter = 5.204 $/gallon.
Super (98 octan) = 1.469 EUR/Liter = 6.313 $/gallon.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The EPA should focus on emissions left in our skies by jet fuel emissions, in the air we breathe. I will pay them more attention when they clean up our skies.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The system in place that reduces emissions also reduces mileage. (deliberate?). Unfortunately, I must go burn some diesel to pay the bills so I don't have the time to give examples right now.

I agree. I don't know about Diesel, but reburning emissions also clogs engines and catalytic converters with more carbon, increasing maintenance cost and reducing useful life.

They 'choke' the engine to make it 'cleaner'.

a reply to: Mugly

New trucks have almost zero emissions as it is, and are ten times more dangerous for the driver than at any point in history.

Well considering the high mileage of European diesel vehicles, and such, and they're not allowed here, it seems to be an issue of everyone asleep and they don't unite on this issue. Bad guys win when people don't get together and oppose them.

a reply to: Phelan15

explain please.
i mean i see emissions puking out of their stacks all the time.
how is it more dangerous for the driver?

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: nwtrucker

The EPA should focus on emissions left in our skies by jet fuel emissions, in the air we breathe. I will pay them more attention when they clean up our skies.

The EPA has been paying attention to emissions that planes put out.
Aircraft

a reply to: Mugly

Those are older trucks, or tucks developing problems. I have a 2014, and I'll bet that my emissions are at least as good if not better than many cars.

As part of the exhaust cleaning method they installed two filters designed to catch exhaust particles. Those two filters normally run at 1400 degrees, and during the cleaning cycle over 2,000 degrees.

Truck fires are more numerous, and a lot more intense due to those filters (they also run oxygen through them). Trucks are getting into what used to be minor accidents, that cause a fluid leak, that drips onto the filter housing, and ignites. Once it's burning, because of the added oxygen the truck is engulfed much faster.

There is very little evidence that these filters actually serve their purpose, and several reports that the research behind them was skewed to show they were necessary and performed as claimed.

a reply to: Phelan15

the thing is, trucks do develop problems and what is going to make the owner fix it?

those things dump hydrocarbons and you will never convince me otherwise

a reply to: Mugly

The fact that when you have a problem, your fuel mileage drops. I average over $100,000 a year, before rebate, and over $50,000 a year in fuel alone. And that's averaging 6-8 mpg a week. In 2012 I spent something like $70,000 in fuel for the year.

Emissions standards for trucks:
www.dieselnet.com...

You can find a number of pdfs on this page from 2011 showing updated emissions standards.
www.epa.gov...

The DEF that all trucks are required to have now bonds with the emissions and separates some of the nastier stuff.

a reply to: buster2010

Agreed. Plane engines are far cleaner than in the day, even the military jets are far cleaner than in the past.

One possible improvement in overall mileage for heavy trucks is using an Auxiliary Power Units. They save a tremendous amount of fuel due to idling. The problem being they cost thousands.

Of course, the Feds quickly subsidize alternative fuel development but not helping with the cost of APUs. A big truck on slow idle burns about 1 gal per hour. On fast idle about 2 gals. per hour. High and low temperatures require idling. Multiple that by several million trucks......

a reply to: nwtrucker

They also add almost 500 pounds to the truck wrough weight, which can lead to burning more fuel in mountainous regions.

a reply to: Mugly

The truck owner that doesn't maintain his vehicle won't be in business for long. It is his lifeblood, so to speak.

There are exceptions, but by and large, owner-operator equipment is better maintained than fleet units.

a reply to: Unity_99
I don't know where you get your information from, but Canada runs up to 140,000 lbs. GVW. I know of no Euro nation that pulls anywhere near those weights.

Volvo, Mercedes-Benz are regular engine suppliers in North America. Some of these have slightly better fuel mileage, at the expense of less power/torque.

As with all Euro vehicles, they are bitches to fix and cost a fortune, to boot.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Mugly

The truck owner that doesn't maintain his vehicle won't be in business for long. It is his lifeblood, so to speak.

There are exceptions, but by and large, owner-operator equipment is better maintained than fleet units.

that may be true but it does not change the fact that every day i see trucks puking smoke out from a stop..
every day...there are loads of trucks around here.

i guess there are an awful lot of not properly maintained vehicles.

oh well....
i honestly dont care all that much. carry on

a reply to: Mugly
Where do you live?