Really?

I seem to recall just a few months before the announced pull out that they were "here for the long haul". This was at MATS or GATS.

 

I don't know who said that one. I didn't hear it. Still, it doesn’t change the events leading up to the 2004 statutes. If you were around and/or in the side of the business I've been in, you may know how slow the whole industry was in mid 2003 about committing to meet the new 2004 EPA-emission standards.

For a while, it looked like the EPA was going to extend or modify the initial 2004 regs and they didn’t. So at first CAT paid the fines in early 2004 etc etc…then came the increaced 2007 new emissions demands & regs.

Corp execs can be like politicians. Whoever you're quoting was probably a different spokes-hole than the actual facts that CAT approached the new EPA 2004 diesel regs with. The EPA had no governance over diesel engines until 2004 (diesel was exempt). That was a first for the class eight eng-industry.

The problem really ramped up when the EPA 07/08 next level of engine requirement standards came in. That would be where I believe CAT decided they had enough. The original statutes were written into the bill from the 04 first level emissions.

I don’t blame CAT for getting out. It’s the same thing the “Big Three” are dealing with in the form of ‘Café Standards’…The problem?…Big-brother unrealistic emission’s or Café-mpg guidelines without the technology in place first! While requiring smog standards no other country has?

 

Rev... Interesting? You may be referring to folks like Paccar & Volvo performing wind tunnel & CAD design studies in conjunction with engine R&D engineers... Where they look at rolling resistance and how wind resistance passes over, under & around a truck's cab. Which has proven that “Aero designed trucks” get more mpg than long hood traditional designs.

They don’t stop there, they’ve compiled data on the different engine manufacturer's mpg’s in different cabs & hoods...producing different mpg’s. Even then, they have fleets run test programs in real world setups and scenarios. Werner is one of the testers for R&D. You think they may know something about the long hood’s future? They, along with Stevens, England, and Marten etc no longer buy long hoods.

Even areo at faster speeds causes more resistance. But much less than a long hood’s resistance at any speed. Try high diving into a pool with your hands behind your back. I’ll bet next time you’ll put your hands back out into the less resistant position in front of your head, spearing into the water instead of giving you a headache.

Either way, arguably “Aero” equals more mpg. I don't want the headache to look cool going down the road. I'll take the savings in my pocket to spend at home.

 

Actually, I was referring to engine manufacturers (Cummins, in particular) who have put out literature about fuel economy in relation to speed. It had nothing to do with aerodynamics per se.

A quick Google search showed that the difference between an aero truck and a non aero truck in terms of fuel economy is anywhere from 8% to 20%, depending upon the truck. That is a difference of anywhere between 1/2 mpg to 1.5 mpg. Those numbers, however, are based on wind tunnel testing, and not real-world situations.

Ultimately, the greatest asset or downfall to fuel economy is still, and likely always will be, the driver. A driver who runs a 379 Pete responsibly can get 7+ mpg, depending upon how it is speced. A driver who doesn't give a crap can get 5 mpg out of an aerodynamic truck.

But nowhere did I ever claim that aerodynamics were a myth. They aren't. But there is far more to it than simply aerodynamics. An argument could easily be made that an owner operator is going to care more about his fuel costs than a company driver, so he is going to operate his equipment in a manner to give him the best fuel economy he can get out of the truck. The company driver, on the other hand, isn't footing the bill, so it would make financial sense to the company to put that driver in a truck that will help compensate for that.

 

Rev...I think you've said it quite well. The essence of which you closed by focusing on the driver equation.

Boiling it down...it’s been my thesis here, that even a good O/O with great driving habits can get an improved bottom line owning & driving an Aero truck, verses the hood's handicapped non-areo design problems.

You said:> "A driver who runs a 379 Pete responsibly can get 7+ mpg," ...I agree totally (although I’d question 7mpg with a box-trailer). Maybe we are saying the same thing here? But with a caveat, put the same driver in today’s similarly spec’d Pete 387 (which I've done w/reefer trailers) and you get many more mpg's taking home more money.

That’s why the market place moved away from volume sales of hoods starting in early 08. They were forced to focus on them due to high fuel costs and the added 07/08 EPA regs, depleting mpg’s even more…For this reason, the longer term impacts to hood sales is still playing out.

 

Beachcomber, it was not a quote. It was their entire theme at a big truck show less then a year ago. Huge banner that said something like "we're here for the long haul".

 

"Many more" mpg? I doubt that. Maybe 1.5 mpg at the most, but more than likely around 1 mpg.

Sales of class 8 trucks have been down across the board since the beginning of 2008. The fact that even when fuel was steadily climbing over the past 9 years, that hoods were still being sold, as well as new large hood designs being developed by several manufacturers, contradicts your claim.

 

He didn't say hoods stopped selling. He said VOLUME sales of hoods stopped.

 

Along with volume sales of aero trucks. SNI started cancelling orders for aero trucks early last year. Sales are down across the board - period.

But I stand by my statement, that if aero trucks got that much better fuel mileage than non aero trucks, they would have been done a long time ago. Using the current market as a litmus test is a farce.

 

You're confusing a general slowdown with a complete STOPPAGE of volume sales of hoods. Sure aero sales might be down 20-30% on a volume basis, but how much are hoods down? Probably next to nothing. Many fleets simply aren't buying them at all any more.

The ones that are being bought, are bought by guys like you and others that simply prefer a hood over an aero. Nothing wrong with that, you guys will keep the market alive no doubt. I say within 10 years we will have TWO models of hoods. Currently there's the 379/w9/9900i/Classic/western star. The T800 might be more of a hood then an aero. T660, volvo vn830 and vn880 are all aeros influenced by hoods.

The Lonestar definitely is more like an aero truck. Hell the engine is further under the cab then my Volvo is! Combine that fact with the side air cleaners, it's a huge mess under the hood. There's no room. Besides, they will probably cancel the 9900 eventually, just like they canceled the 9200/9400 when the prostar came out.

And to say that if fuel mileage was that different, hoods wouldn't exist is ludicrous at best. There will always be folks that don't care. Also, some applications you NEED a hood. Others it doesn't matter as much. Heavy haul, oversize, car carriers and bull racks come to mind.