kscarbel2

Press Release / June 22, 2015 Maritime Transport has ordered 120 new 460 horsepower Daf XF105 FTGs with Super Space Cabs, which will take the manufacturers presence in the haulier's fleet to around 20% of its 1,000 vehicles. The new trucks, 70 of which are fitted with predictive cruise control, will be in operation at Maritimes Felixstowe HQ by the end of September. To date, 70 have been delivered. Fleet engineer Stuart Wardlaw said: "Selecting the right vehicle and specification plays an important part of the driver experience at Maritime. "The new Daf is an exceptionally good design and the Super Space Cabs provide excellent comfort, and our drivers simply love them," says Wardlaw. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvnjhoLkOdM

Fleet Equipment / June 2015 Integration is not a new idea in the trucking industry, but the amount of efficiency OEs are pulling out of engine, transmission and axle combinations are reaching staggering new heights. One of the biggest talking points in today’s performance-packed powerplant arena is “downspeeding.” There are different levels of downspeeding and the experts at Detroit, which offers its integrated Detroit powertrain, featuring the Detroit DD15 engine, Detroit DT12 transmission and Detroit axles, stressed the importance of downspeeding education, stating that many engine OEMs are using downspeeding to achieve fuel economy, but there is more to meets the eye in terms of downspeeding. Fleets need to understand what they are purchasing. Downspeeding the engine impacts all the other components on the powertrain. “Downspeeding is basically programming the engine to run at lower cruise RPMs than the industry has traditionally run,” said Jim Bingaman, Peterbilt application engineering manager. “If the engine is running slower, it should typically use less fuel and thus be more efficient. Regarding available ratios, they vary with the rear axle manufacturer but can be between 2.26 and 2.93, depending on the rest of the powertrain spec to get into the downsped ranges.” “[Downspeeding] allows a vehicle to cruise down the highway with the engine turning in a range of 1,150 to 1,200 RPM. This is roughly 150 to 200 RPM slower than previous drivetrain systems and typically results in at least a 3% improvement in fuel economy,” said Aaron Peterson, Navistar chief performance engineer, on-highway tractor. “Engine hardware has been selected and calibrated to run efficiently at these lower speeds. By turning slower there is a reduction in engine friction as well as a reduction in the power being consumed by the parasitic systems mounted to the engine. Reducing friction and parasitic loads reduces the fuel needed to move down the road. The second contributor to improving fuel economy is better management of power/torque. Delivering only what is required to perform the job. Excess power/torque means greater fuel consumption.” A bit of background: Prior to 2010, engine manufacturers designed engines to run at their peak efficiency between 1,400 and 1,500 RPM. Since then, engine manufacturers have turned to reduce engine speeds as a means to counteract the fuel economy impact of emissions technologies. “Recommended engine speeds for linehaul trucks have been steadily reduced by pairing updated torque curves that make peak torque at 1,000 RPM with new automated transmission shift strategies and faster gear ratios,” explained Kevin Baney, Kenworth chief engineer. “Demonstrated gains of up to several percent from downspeeding have resulted in increased interest in faster gear ratios from fleets. Given that interest, Kenworth has developed a range of ratios with our axle suppliers that now go down to 2.26 to enable even the most aggressive direct drive transmission customer to spec a downsped driveline.” Based on Kenworth’s testing, the general rule of thumb is that every 100 RPM reduction at typical operating speed yields: • Up to 1.5% fuel economy improvement between 1,300 and 1,500 RPM; and • Up to 0.75% fuel economy improvement between 1,150 and 1,300 RPM. Three main factors impact the RPM at cruise: transmission ratio, axle ratio and tire size. The ratios determine what RPM an engine will run for at given road speed. The engine must be able to produce adequate torque at those RPM and the vehicle must be able to manage any additional vibration from running a lower RPM. “Ratios and RPM work in concert rather than one driving the other. An engine could not run at 1,150 RPM and reach cruise speed without the corresponding axle ratio, transmission ratio and tire size to match,” said Ryan Trzybinski, Eaton product strategy manager, Linehaul. “One concept that often gets confused is direct drive versus overdrive. The Eaton direct drive powertrain with even as low as a 2.26 axle will not be as heavily downsped as the Eaton ‘small step’ since the transmission ratio in top gear is 1.0 for direct versus 0.80 for the overdrive small step. The 0.8 overdrive ratio represents a 26% step that enables further downspeeding.” Trzybinski went on to detail the main factors fleet managers should take into consideration when spec’ing specific downsped engine ratios: Gross combined vehicle weight (GCVW); terrain (grade percentages); and road speed should all be given a close look. Downspeeding is most effective for vehicles 80,000 lbs. GCVW and below since it can run with a very fast axle and still have adequate startability and gradeability. As the weight of the vehicle increases, a slower or higher numerical axle is often required and thus cruise RPM increases. As road speed increases, for a given gear, RPM also increases. For example, the Fuller Advantage Small Step used in SmartAdvantage and with the MX and N13 engines is optimized to run at 65 MPH with a 2.64 axle. Grade also deserves special attention as the engine-transmission-vehicle combination can actually sense load and when the tractor is ascending or descending a grade, said Stu Russoli, Mack Trucks highway and powertrain products marketing manager. This allows for more efficient operation at lower engine speeds, while maintaining higher average road speeds.

Owner/Driver / June 18, 2015 A driver died when the brakes on his truck failed. The company’s owner has now been convicted of manslaughter. The owner of a South Australian trucking company who put his driver behind the wheel of a truck with dodgy brakes has been held responsible for his death. The South Australian Supreme Court convicted Peter Francis Colbert, who runs Colbert Transport, of manslaughter in relation to the death of Robert Brimson in March 2014, News Limited reports. Brimson was travelling on Main South Road at Happy Valley when the truck’s brakes failed, causing him to crash into a pole. The court heard that Colbert received repeated warnings to fix the brakes on the 1994 model Mitsubishi tautliner Brimson was instructed to drive, but did not act. As News Limited reports, the case represents the first time an owner of a company has been held liable for the death of an employee because of workplace negligence. It says the court was told Brimson tried to use his brakes 11 times before the accident. The ABC reports Colbert was also convicted for endangering the life of another employee, who drove the same truck two days before Brimson’s fatal accident and also experienced brake failure. According to News Limited, Colbert denied claims he received multiple warnings to fix the truck’s brakes and that he relied on his mechanic to maintain them. Colbert pleaded not guilty to the charges of manslaughter and endangering life. Brimson had only been working for Colbert Transport for 10 days before the accident occurred, the ABC says. "That vehicle had a history of brake failures which were brought to the attention of the accused on a number of occasions and, despite that, the accused deliberately failed to deal with those reported failures," prosecutor Tim Preston says. "He still directed the deceased to get into the cabin of that truck. "In my submission, that truck was a death trap." Preston says Colbert did not take any steps to repair the truck. The bookkeeper for Colbert Transport, Eryn Williams, gave evidence the faulty truck caught fire one month before Brimson’s accident while Colbert was behind the wheel, the ABC reports. Williams says Colbert told her he did not have money to fix the brakes and he used a ball bearing in the brake line to stop fluid from leaking. Colbert Transport drivers reported hearing air hissing from the vehicle and another had to use gears to slow the truck down because the brakes were poor. Colbert denied conversations about faulty brakes took place, the ABC reports. "There was never a significant drop in air pressure during the time I was driving the truck," Colbert told the court. "There was no need for me to look at the brakes because there was no report of any slight issue." Sentencing submissions are due to be heard in August.

Australasian Transport News (ATN) / June 22, 2015 The Western Australian transport industry is moving further from the national regulator, with adoption of a new forestry sector Code of Practice, formally signed on June 18. The code was developed between the Western Australia Road Transport Association (WARTA) and the Forest Industries Federation WA (FIFWA), with specialist risk and compliance consultancy Latus also on board. Latus managing director Mike Wood says the new code provides a practical guide for highlighting effective work practices within the state’s compliance and enforcement (C&E) act. This differs from the Chain of Responsibility laws in other states, by pertaining to smaller vehicles as well as trucks. Any vehicle involved with transporting goods for business is covered, including utes and vans. In forestry, it means that a four-wheel drive vehicle called in to service an in-forest machine is considered part of the legislation. "This was an extremely important day in the short history of Western Australian C&E as this highlights the adoption of the new act and how all parties will be aligned with Main Roads WA standards," Wood says. He says Latus is also working on further codes of practice with WARTA, to be delivered for the WA general freight, agri-business, agri-bulk, and overmass and oversize transport sectors in the coming months. Having managed both large and small transport businesses over a long career, he says the scalability of the codes will be one of their key strengths. "It is really about how it can apply to everyone from the small operators right through to the big operators," he says. "Each code is scalable so that everyone is able to sign up and be responsible." WARTA CEO Ian King says the industry is happy to be involved. "WARTA and Latus have been working with other key sectors of the WA road transport sector highlighting the WA C&E requirements and supporting the drive by Main Roads WA to ensure all parties are aware of and understand their legal responsibilities," he says. .

Tim Giles - Diesel News Australia / June 18, 2015 We don’t know what Travis is like, and neither are we sure about Travis’s effectiveness. What are we talking about? Why, the Federal and Victorian Government’s scheme to develop a $4.4 million project called the Truck Rest Area Vacancy Information System (TRAVIS), of course. Forgive me for being cynical, but is this really a practical and effective suggestion? Yes, it would be great if a truck driver heading along one of our major freight highways late at night could know, precisely, whether there is room to park their B-double in a parking bay in the area where they expect to pull up for the night. The system is supposed to help drivers plan their rest stops. We have all been in the situation, with limited time left on the log book, of pulling into a parking bay, only to find it full. The trouble then starts, working out how far to the next possible stopping area and how much time is left on the clock. Not only is this situation bad for the driver, who tries to keep within the regulations, it is also stressful, worrying whether there will be any room to slot the truck into or not. Don’t worry, the TRAVIS will take good care of you and there will be no worries. The project will install detectors on an experimental set of six parking bays around the Wodonga/Benalla area. The information collected will be displayed on electronic signs on the highway, presumably over quite a distance leading up to the area. In all of the material published about the scheme so far, the emphasis has been on advancing the safety agenda and the annual economic cost of road crashes ($27 billion per annum). The Victorian Roads Minister, Luke Donellan, talks about listening to road safety and freight groups and the importance of managing fatigue on the highway at night. Looking at this idea from a purely practical perspective, and not from where the idea is to make it look like government is doing something, there are a number of questions raised. Will this system make a genuine improvement in the ability of truck drivers to park up and rest at night on the Hume, or anywhere else for that matter? The most obvious issue is the probability the signs will just tell us something we already know. The parking bay is full of caravans and camper vans, who have filled up all of the spaces dedicated to the trucks, which are vital to the country’s economy. TRAVIS may work to a certain extent on the major routes like the Hume of the Pacific. The more remote highways, where parking bays are few and far between and rarely signposted, are unlikely to be reached by TRAVIS. All of a sudden the governments are concerned about truck driver fatigue? If they have genuinely been so concerned about the welfare of the drivers who keep the populace’s supermarket shelves brim full, 24/7, then why didn’t they put plenty of parking bays on the highway in the first place? Yet again, we are in danger of throwing a load of money at something which will be, largely, ineffective, but will have the effect of making the governments look like something is being done. This is instead of spending the funds on doing something which would make the situation better for every truckie concerned, just building a load more parking bays on our highways and putting some signs up.

Australasian Transport News (ATN) / June 22, 2015 Parts of remote north South Australia remain impassable to vehicles after heavy rains at the weekend. Arrabury Road, Cordillo Downs Road (Arrabury turn off to Queensland border and Innamincka to Arrabury turn off) and the Birdsville Inside Track remain closed to all traffic . Birdsville Track (border to Mungeranie Mungeranie to Marree), Mt Barry to Arkaringa and to San Marino, Balcanoona to Blinman Mt Hopeless toBalcanoona (via Moolawatana) and the Iron Knob to Hiltaba road are open to four-wheel drive vehicles only. "Travellers and residents in the far north of SA are reminded to keep a close eye on outback road conditions, with closures and restrictions in place due to a large amount of rain," South Australia Police say. Police released images of a road train that was bogged in Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands to illustrate the point. .

Today's Trucking / June 22, 2015 Industry reaction to the proposal announced Friday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks has been swift and more positive than negative in tone. The plan for the 2021-2027 models years, which also calls for trailers to be subject to fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for the first time, drew support from the American Trucking Associations, but the fleet group said it remains concerned the rule may result in the use of certain technologies on vehicles before they can be fully tested. “Fuel is an enormous expense for our industry, and carbon emissions carry an enormous cost for our planet,” said ATA President and CEO Bill Graves. “That’s why our industry supported the Obama Administration’s historic first round of greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for medium and large trucks and why we support the aims of this second round of standards.” Since the first round of efficiency standards were announced in 2011, ATA szid has been working to evaluate their impact on the trucking industry and has been in constant contact with the EPA and NHTSA to make sure the second round of standards can be effectively implemented by the industry. “ATA has adopted a set of 15 ‘guiding principles’ for Phase II,” said ATA Vice President and Energy and Environmental Counsel Glen Kedzie, “and based on conversations with regulators and a preliminary review this proposal appears to meet 14 of those. “We believe this rule could result in the deployment of certain technologies that do not fully recognize the diversity of our industry and could prove to be unreliable. This unreliability could slow not only adoption of these technologies, but the environmental benefits they aim to create,” Kedzie said. “To prevent this, truck and engine manufacturers will need adequate time to develop solutions to meet these new standards.” The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and American Truck Dealers (ATD) expressed a similar concern about the use of untested technologies, as well as increased truck costs. "By the administration's own estimate, an average of just under US$12,000 to the cost of a new truck through mandates based on potentially untested technologies is a great risk to a still-fragile economy,” the groups said. “Recent history has shown that mandates with underestimated compliance costs result in substantially higher prices for commercial vehicles, and force fleet owners and operators to seek out less-expensive and less fuel-efficient alternatives in the marketplace. According to NADA and ATD, the costs could even drive small fleets and owner-operators out of business, costing jobs and only further impeding economic growth. “While supportive of affordable fuel-economy improvements, ATD is closely reviewing the proposal and the many potential impacts it will have on truck dealerships and their customers." As for driver reaction, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said it is reviewing the more than 1,000 page plan. “OOIDA still needs to examine the proposal to see if the input from small-business truckers was truly taken to heart. However, based on reviews of initial summaries, we do have concerns that the rule will push truckers to purchase technology that is not fully tested and may lead to costs such as maintenance and downtime that will eclipse the potential savings estimated in the proposal,” said OOIDA Director of Government Affairs Ryan Bowley. Meantime, the Canadian Trucking Alliance said it wants to ensure that equipment imported into Canada is ready and proven to operate in specific Canadian marketplaces, such as withstanding the country’s extreme weather conditions and operating conditions. It said staff has been travelling across the country to gather feedback from fleets on their opinions and concerns regarding Phase 2 and how they think governments should treat the Canadian version of the regulations.

Car & Driver / June 22, 2015 Everyone knows that certain cars are just better with no options. The first-generation Plymouth Road Runner was one of those cars. Back in the late ’60s, Chrysler designed the Road Runner to be cheap, simple, and most of all fast. The roughly $3000 base model was propelled by a 383-cubic-inch V-8 that made 335 (gross) horsepower and 425 lb-ft of torque hooked up to a four-speed manual or a three-speed automatic transmission. Moreover, for a little extra, buyers could opt for 426 or 440 cubic inches of grunt, which made the car’s 3400-pound curb weight a moot point. Out of the box, a correctly optioned Road Runner could run a mid-13-second quarter-mile, which in 1969 made it a seriously fast machine. The 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner Intro Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsgw17eneoA#t=43

Please review this information. You'll notice the ratios are different. .

This promotional film from GMC highlights the design and engineering of its latest cab-over-engine (COE) heavy duty models (for 1960). Both steel and aluminum tilt cab models are featured in the film.

Automotive News / June 22, 2015 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles’ Ram (aka. Dodge) division is firing the opening salvo in the 2016 model pickup wars by boosting the torque rating of its high-output, 6.7-liter diesel engine to 900 pounds-feet -- highest in the industry. The increased power comes standard on all versions of the heavy-duty Ram equipped with an optional beefed up Aisin six-speed automatic transmission. The high-output Ram 3500 also has an industry best maximum towing rating of 31,210 pounds, an increase of 1,210 pounds from a similarly equipped 2015 Ram 3500 with an Aisin six-speed transmission, FCA said today. Heavy-duty Ram trucks with FCA’s regular six-speed automatic transmissions remain unchanged at 800 pounds-feet of torque. Ford’s recently revamped PowerStroke diesel V-8, which is optional in its Super Duty pickups, is rated at 860 pounds-feet of torque, while General Motors’ Duramax V-8 diesel engine in its heavy-duty Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups carries a torque rating of 765 pounds-feet. GM and Ford are not expected to make major changes to their pickup diesel engines for 2016. Nissan plans to introduce an optional 5.0-liter Cummins diesel V-8 this fall in its redesigned Titan pickup. That engine develops 555 pounds-feet of torque, Nissan says. Ford, GM and Nissan offer their diesel engines with only one power rating. Torque -- not horsepower -- is the more important measure for heavy-duty trucks because it is directly related to the vehicle’s towing and hauling capability.

Related reading - http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/32014-the-gt-601-gas-turbine-powered-macks/

Bloomberg / June 20, 2015 U.S. regulators delivered a victory for engine makers such as Cummins in a battle over emissions regulations for heavy trucks. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department proposed fuel-economy standards Friday that would mandate efficiency gains in engines and transmissions made by companies such as Cummins and Eaton. The rules are intended to encourage the development of new technology, and the replacement of engines. Cummins rose as much as 0.4 percent to $136.96 during New York trading on Friday, and closed down 32 cents at $136.14. Eaton fell 1.2 percent to $70.20. Tom Linebarger, Cummins chairman and chief executive officer, said the Columbus, Indiana-based engine maker supports the EPA proposal. “It will help our industry grow in a more sustainable way, which is a win for our customers and win for the environment,” said Linebarger. Among freight carriers, publicly traded companies like Con-way, Swift Transportation, ArcBest, United Parcel Service and FedEx should be able to absorb the added costs or pass them along to consumers, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Lee Klaskow said. Owner OperatorsSmall truckload companies and owner-operators may have trouble affording the more expensive trucks, even with the two-year payback period estimated by the regulators. “This could push some smaller companies out of business,” Klaskow said. The American Trucking Associations, whose members include the industry’s largest companies, expressed overall support for the proposal as a way to reduce fuel expenses. The agencies followed 14 of 15 principles the industry was looking for. Still, some of the trade group’s members are concerned the regulation will push certain technologies into the market before they’re ready. “Unreliability could slow not only adoption of these technologies, but the environmental benefits they aim to create,” said Glen Kedzie, the Arlington, Virginia-based group’s vice president and energy and environmental counsel. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is looking at the regulation “to see if the input from small business truckers was truly taken to heart,” the Grain Valley, Missouri-based group’s executive vice president, Todd Spencer, said in a statement. Untested TechnologiesBased on an initial review, the agencies’ reliance on untested technologies “ may lead to costs such as increased maintenance and down time that will eclipse the potential savings,” Spencer said. Truckmakers had pushed for the elimination of a standard for engines, and backed just testing the whole vehicle the way automobiles are assessed. That way, fuel consumption targets could be met with less expensive changes, such as improved aerodynamics. Volvo AB’s North American unit told the agencies that overemphasizing engines in the regulations could result in added costs, weight and vehicle complexity. Daimler Trucks North America LLC warned against engine standards that aren’t aligned with real-world operations. Volvo fell as much as 2 percent in Stockholm trading on Friday. Daimler AG shares was little changed in Frankfurt. Flexibility Limits“The Volvo Group maintains that a separate engine standard is inconsistent with our interest in minimizing the complete, real world environmental impacts of our products,” John Mies, a company spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement. The approach “limits manufacturers’ flexibility to meet the regulated targets for each individual customer in a way that suits their specific needs.” Volvo is reviewing the proposal and plans to work with both agencies to ensure a final regulation is “good for both the environment and our customers.” The agencies are expected to accept comments on the regulation over the next few months and publish the final rule sometime next year. About 350,000 new heavy-duty trucks were sold in 2013 in the US. Daimler had the largest share, or 37.3 percent, of the 2014 market for the heaviest trucks, followed by Paccar, Volvo and Navistar. Daimler has been an industry leader in fuel economy and was first to certify trucks that met the agencies’ last round of truck efficiency regulations, said Sean Waters, director of product compliance and regulatory affairs at Daimler Trucks North America. “The rule should reflect realistic vehicle production and operating conditions, and consider the cost-efficient, fuel-saving technologies in fleet operations,” Waters said.

Tougher environmental rules effect heavy-duty pickups, vans Automotive News / June 19, 2015 Carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption by heavy-duty pickups and vans would be reduced by 16 percent from the 2021 to 2027 model years under rules proposed today by federal regulators. The standards, which would be phased in year by year during that period, would affect trucks such as the Ford Super Duty lineup, the Chevrolet Silverado HD range and Ram 2500 and 3500, as well as commercial vans such as the Ford Transit and E series. Like the regulations for light vehicles, the proposed rules are a joint national program overseen by the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They are part of a second phase of rules to curb greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption by medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, including long-haul semitrailers, trailers, vocational vehicles such as cement mixers and garbage trucks, as well as heavy-duty pickups and vans. Such vehicles account for just 5 percent of vehicles on U.S. roads, according to NHTSA, but 20 percent of all oil use and emissions from the transportation sector. In a statement, the EPA and NHTSA said the proposed standards for all medium- and heavy-duty trucks would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1 billion metric tons, save $170 billion in fuel costs and reduce oil consumption through 2027 by as much as 1.8 billion barrels -- or more than a year’s worth of U.S. oil imports from the OPEC bloc. Support from FCA In a statement, Fiat Chrysler’s U.S. arm said it “supports and commends” the coordinated approach taken by the federal agencies. “FCA US remains committed to the proliferation of clean technology and reducing vehicle operating costs, while ensuring our products deliver the performance and functionality our customers demand and deserve,” the statement read. Matt Blunt, CEO of the American Automotive Policy Council, which represents FCA, Ford and General Motors, said the group will work with the EPA and NHTSA as the rules are finalized “to ensure our customers receive the maximum utility and functionality that these work trucks provide.” Both FCA and the Policy Council said it was “imperative” that the rules continue to be aligned between the EPA, NHTSA and California’s Air Resources Board, as the current rules are. American Truck Dealers, a division of the National Automobile Dealers Association, voiced concerns about the higher costs of compliance and the potential effect on the economy if prices for commercial trucks rise. “While supportive of affordable fuel-economy improvements, ATD is closely reviewing the proposal and the many potential impacts it will have on truck dealerships and their customers,” the group said in a statement. Manufacturers and the public have 60 days to comment on the proposed rules. The agencies expect to issue final rules next year.

Feds Claim Phase 2 GHG Rules Will Cut Pollution and Save Money Heavy Duty Trucking / June 19, 2015 The federal government’s top vehicle and clean-air regulators on June 19 formally announced their proposal for extending fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas emissions rules, and predicted positive economic and health-benefit results. Phase 2 of the regulations for 2021 to 2027-model trucks and tractors and 2018-to-2027 MY trailers would cover entire vehicles, and there will be separate rules for engines, said the Administrators of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, in a hurried press briefing today. “The EPA trailer standards, which exclude certain categories such as mobile homes, would begin to take effect in model year 2018 for certain trailers, while NHTSA’s standards would be in effect as of 2021, with credits available for voluntary participation before then,” the agencies said in a joint press release issued prior to the briefing. “Cost effective technologies for trailers – including aerodynamic devices, light weight construction and self-inflating tires – can significantly reduce total fuel consumption by tractor-trailers, while paying back the owners in less than two years due to the fuel saved,” the release said. About $10,000 to $12,000 in new equipment would be needed by a tractor-trailer to meet the requirements, said Gina McCarthy, EPA’s administrator. Much off-the-shelf existing technology now used to meet current Phase 1 economy and GHG requirements can extend into Phase 2, but “innovative technology” will also be required, she said. “Some of the new technology is now in development,” said Mark Rosekind, who heads the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “We heard from plenty of companies who say they will be available soon.” McCarthy added that, “Everybody will have lots of choice. “There will be no one path.” The Phase 2 proposals resulted from “rigorous technical study” and more than 300 meetings with manufacturers, fleets, owner-operators, drivers, union leaders and others in the trucking industry, she said. That’s why they know that the innovative technologies involving better engine combustion efficiency, among other things, are close to being ready, Rosekind commented. The two officials declined to give mile-per-gallon estimates asked for several times by general media reporters during the call-in briefing. “There is no number to give,” Rosekind said, because medium- and heavy-duty trucks and combination vehicles vary greatly in configuration, weight and use. “What matters is freight efficiency,” McCarthy said. “Today’s proposal builds on the fuel efficiency and GHG emissions standards already in place for model years 2014-2018, which alone will result in emissions reductions of 270 million metric tons and save vehicle owners more than $50 billion in fuel costs,” the press release stated. “The current standards have been successful, with truck sales up in model years 2014 and 2015 due in part to improved fuel efficiency. “The proposal also builds on standards that the Administration has put in place for light-duty vehicles, which are projected to reduce carbon pollution by 6 billion tons over the lifetime of vehicles sold, double fuel economy by 2025, and save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump. These standards are already delivering savings for American drivers; new vehicles in 2013 achieved their highest fuel economy of all time.” A 60-day public comment period will follow the proposal’s publication in the Federal Register, the Administrators said. And NHTSA and EPA will host two public hearings and continue an “open-door policy of meeting with stakeholders over the course of the comment period.”

Trucking industry reactions to GHG Phase II vary Fleet Owner / June 19, 2015 Reaction has been swift and varied to the Obama administration’s proposed second round of truck fuel efficiency standards: An environmental group is calling it “historic,” while an association of truck dealers isn’t so sure. And many industry groups are taking a wait-and-see approach, as experts sort through the 1,300 page proposal. Here’s a sampling of the reaction so far: “Affordable transportation is the bedrock of the American economy, and adding—by the administration's own estimate –an average of just under $12,000 to the cost of a new truck through mandates based on potentially untested technologies is a great risk to a still-fragile economy,” said the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and American Truck Dealers (ATD) in a statement. “Recent history has shown that mandates with underestimated compliance costs result in substantially higher prices for commercial vehicles, and force fleet owners and operators to seek out less-expensive and less fuel-efficient alternatives in the marketplace. The costs could even drive small fleets and owner-operators out of business, costing jobs and only further impeding economic growth. While supportive of affordable fuel-economy improvements, ATD is closely reviewing the proposal and the many potential impacts it will have on truck dealerships and their customers.” “The proposed Clean Truck standards will move us miles down the road toward a cleaner, safer future,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. “The standards will sharply reduce climate pollution from the transportation sector and will reduce America’s reliance on imported oil. This week, Pope Francis called on all of us to live up to our moral obligation to help turn back the climate threat. Today’s proposal is the latest step this Administration has taken toward meeting that obligation.” “Cummins supports the proposed Phase II rule and believes it will help our industry grow in a more sustainable way, which is a win for our customers and win for the environment,” said Tom Linebarger, Chairman and CEO, Cummins Inc. “The rule, which was developed through a collaborative effort with agencies and industry partners, builds on the emissions reductions and fuel efficiency gains that the Phase I standards helped make possible. We look forward to the process of finalizing these new standards. Cummins is committed to continuing to use our technological leadership to develop products that our customers rely on, while also reducing our environmental footprint.” “Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) and its subsidiaries have focused for decades on improving freight efficiency in order to lower customers’ total operating costs. As the market leader in fuel efficiency, and the first to certify all of our products to Phase 1 GHG standards, DTNA shares EPA and NHTSA goals to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gases,” DTNA said. “We believe that the rule should reflect realistic vehicle production and operating conditions, and consider the cost-efficient, fuel-saving technologies in fleet operations in order to successfully meet our shared goals. We have provided the EPA and NHTSA with information about the fuel-saving potential of many technologies, as well as their relative cost and affordability for our customers. We are just beginning to review the details of the NPRM, and will continue to work with EPA and NHTSA on developing a final rule consistent with our goals of providing emissions and fuel economy benefits that reduce the Real Cost of Ownership for our customers.” “As the largest semi-trailer manufacturer in North America, we will continue to work with the EPA and NHTSA as they finalize a trailer program intended to improve fuel economy in our industry,” said Richard Giromini, President and CEO of Wabash National. “As a leader in advanced trailer aerodynamic technologies, we want to ensure that the new rule offers multiple options, in an effort to simplify compliance, while maximizing environmental benefits and overall cost savings for the fleets.” "As a power management company committed to increased fuel efficiency and reduced greenhouse gases, Eaton strongly supports the next phase of standards for medium and heavy duty commercial vehicles," said Alexander M. Cutler, Eaton Chairman and CEO. "These standards provide important incentives to help deploy the next generation of fuel efficient technologies. Eaton stands ready to provide cost-effective advanced drivetrain technologies that make vehicles more efficient while achieving significant operational savings for our customers' commercial vehicle fleets." “We look forward to continue working with EPA, NHTSA and the Administration on this national Phase II program,” said Michael L. Ducker, President and CEO of FedEx Freight. “We need to ensure national harmonization of standards and compliance requirements in order to maximize environmental benefits and fuel cost savings for fleets so as to decrease U.S. dependency on oil. This would serve as an effective complementary approach with equipment improvements like the use of 33 ft. twin trailers, which can reduce fuel use by millions of gallons per year through up to an 18 percent improvement in operational efficiency. The use of 33 ft. trailers has the added benefit of enhancing safety and reducing emissions due to fewer truck trips needed to transport the same amount of freight.” “With or without standards, we strive to be one of the most fuel efficient fleets in the country. Clearly, the Phase II rule is intended to further improve the efficiency of how we move goods throughout the United States,” said Doug Stotlar, President and CEO of Con-way Inc. “The devil is in the details, but we will continue to work with our partners to ensure the final rule is strong but still implementable for our industry.” “Since 2011, MEMA has worked closely with the administration in an open and constructive manner to provide feedback and data in the development of this proposed rulemaking on fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions for heavy trucks,” said Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Assn. (MEMA) President & CEO Steve Handschuh. “Our heavy vehicle supplier member companies will carefully review the proposed rule and we look forward to our continuing productive relationship with the U.S. EPA and the U.S. DOT’s NHTSA. MEMA and its members understand that a consistent national program will foster long-term investment, product reliability, validation and product cost-effectiveness.” “On the home front, efficiency makes us more resilient. Just as important, technologies developed to improve fuel efficiency for the U.S. trucking industry will likely also improve military operational effectiveness and save lives,” said Gen. Ron Keys, USAF (Ret),CNA Corp. Military Advisory Board chairman. “As the world’s greatest innovators, the U.S. must lead global efforts to deploy advanced technologies that lower the demand for oil. To date, fuel economy standards for cars and trucks have proved to be powerful tools that have speeded innovation, decreased our dependence on oil and improved our nation’s overall security. The CNA MAB supports the next phase of rulemaking for medium and heavy-duty trucks as a matter of national security.” And the American public seems to be support the proposal as well. The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) is releasing a new poll that finds a large majority of Americans favor requiring manufacturers to increase the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks (71 percent) while less than one quarter oppose such a requirement (24 percent). “Our poll found that Americans understand that big truck fuel costs are passed on to them, which means they understand that raising big truck fuel economy standards will save them money,” said Jack Gillis, CFA’s automotive expert. “As the federal government takes another step forward in addressing the nation’s energy challenges, today’s proposal to increase big truck fuel economy will not only further reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but reduce the cost of everyday consumer purchases.”

GHG Phase II: 10 key points in the proposed truck standards Fleet Owner / June 19, 2015 According to the government, heavy-duty trucks are the second largest and fastest growing segment of the U.S. transportation sector in terms of emissions and energy use. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles currently account for about 20% of GHG emissions and oil use in the U.S. transportation sector, but are only about 5% of the vehicles on the road. The next phase of the federal government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by setting fuel efficiency standards for commercial vehicles was released Friday. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed the standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles meant to reduce the impacts of climate change. The proposed standards, for model years 2021-2027, are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1 billion metric tons, cut fuel costs by about $170 billion, and reduce oil consumption by up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. 1. Why? As National Highway Safety Administration Mark Rosekind opened the press conference to announce the standard, the Obama Administration is committed to act on climate change “before the planet is beyond fixing,” as the president promised two years ago when he revealed his Climate Action Plan. The CAP was billed as a “blueprint” for reducing carbon emissions, and the administration has taken steps to use the power of the executive branch to enact a number of reforms. A fuel efficiency standard for commercial vehicles is one of those initiatives. 2. Why trucking?According to the government, heavy-duty trucks are the second largest and fastest growing segment of the U.S. transportation sector in terms of emissions and energy use. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles currently account for about 20 percent of GHG emissions and oil use in the U.S. transportation sector, but are only about 5 percent of the vehicles on the road. And, as the industry routinely cites, trucking hauls about 70 percent of all freight in the U.S. 3. What does fuel consumption have to do with GHG?Simply, burning diesel and gasoline puts CO2 into the atmosphere. The less fuel a vehicle burns, the less CO2 is emitted. The program would save approximately 1.8 billion barrels of oil, or 75 billion gallons of fuel, over the lifetime of the vehicles subject to these standards. Those oil savings would exceed a year’s worth of U.S. imports from OPEC. 4. What are the trucking goals?Peppered with questions from the press about what the Phase II standards mean in terms of improved MPGs, EPA Acting Asst. Administrator Janet McCabe insisted that such a measurement is meaningless for the many trucks and applications covered under the proposal. For highway tractors, the key is “freight efficiency,” or the amount of freight that can be hauled per mile, per gallon of fuel. In 2027, EPA estimates the average line-haul truck would achieve a 50% improvement, with that potentially rising to 90% with the development and adoption an new, more efficient technologies. (Experts at the Environmental Defense Fund put the 2027 goal at about 9.5 mpg for highway tractor-trailers, compared to about 6 mpg in 2010.) More precisely, the metric for compliance under the standard will be a grams/mile emissions rate. In 2027 when the standard is fully phased in, heavy-duty vehicles across all classes would achieve up to the following CO2 emissions and fuel use reductions: 24% for combination tractors designed to pull trailers and move freight when compared to Phase I standards 8% for trailers when compared to an average model year 2017 trailer 16% for vocational vehicles when compared to Phase I standards, and 16% for pick-up trucks and light vans when compared to Phase I standards. 5. Just where are these impressive improvements going to come from? According to the proposal, the goals can be met with “cost-effective” technology that’s already available, or that is currently in development. Additionally, the standards do not mandate the use of specific technologies. Rather they establish standards achievable through a range of technology options, and allow manufacturers to choose those technologies that work best for their products and for their customers, the government says. Broadly, for example, these technologies include improved transmissions, engine combustion optimization, aerodynamic improvements and low rolling resistance tires. 6. How much is all of this going to cost a truck buyer?The cost, arguably, is the good news for truck operators. Unlike EPA emissions regulations aimed at NOx and diesel particulates—for which costly new technologies had to be developed, and these negatively impacted reliability and fuel efficiency—the required improvement is expected to immediately begin to pay for itself in reduced fuel expense. There are, of course, many details to come and some unforeseen market dynamics likely at work over the next decade—and that initial purchase price is still going to have to be financed. Given rough estimates of $10,000 to $12,000 added cost to tractor-trailers, and less for smaller vehicles, EPA puts the payback in model year 2027 at Two years for a tractor/trailer combo; Three years for pick-ups and vans; and Six years for a vocational vehicles. 7. Why trailers? Simply, trailers pulled by combination tractors are part of that vehicle, and trailers contribute significantly to carbon pollution emissions, and to the vehicle’s fuel consumption, EPA says. Cost-effective technologies, including aerodynamic devices, low rolling-resistance tires, and automatic tire inflation systems can offer significant CO2 emissions and fuel use reductions for the vehicle. Because EPA and DOT each have statutory responsibilities related to the matter, the agencies say they worked very closely to ensure that EPA’s CO2 proposed regulations and NHTSA’s proposed fuel efficiency regulations are fully harmonized. The agencies also propose that manufacturers would submit a single report to show compliance with both programs. The proposed standards would apply to certain trailer types beginning in MY 2018 for EPA’s standards, and would be voluntary for NHTSA from 2018 to 2020, with mandatory standard beginning in 2021. The proposed standards would extend to more trailer types in MY 2021. The fully-phased standards would apply to five categories of trailers: Long (longer than 50 feet) highway box trailers - dry vans; Long highway box trailers - refrigerated vans; Short (50 feet and shorter) highway box trailers - dry vans; Short highway box trailers - refrigerated vans; and Non-box highway trailers. 8. Why engine standards? As with the Phase I program, the agencies are proposing separate standards and test cycles for tractor engines, vocational diesel engines, and vocational gasoline engines—standards that some truck makers have suggested will complicate matters when it comes time to assess the complete vehicle. For diesel engines, the proposed standards would begin in model year 2021 and phase in to MY 2027, with interim standards in MY 2024. They are also proposing a revised test cycle weighting for tractor engines to better reflect actual in-use operation. The proposed diesel engine standards would reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by up to 4% compared to Phase I. Technologies that could be used to meet the standards include: combustion optimization; improved air handling; reduced friction within the engine; improved emissions after-treatment technologies; and waste heat recovery. 9. Who wins?The big picture benefits depend on how one feels about anthropogenic climate change, and how much one values the survival of civilization generations hence. But since global warming is an Obama administration priority, and since the White House gets to set the rules and do the math, here are the numbers used to justify the GHG proposal: The program would cut carbon pollution by about 1 billion metric tons, roughly equivalent to the GHG emissions associated with the electricity and power use from all U.S. residences for one year. The program would save vehicle owners $170 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles sold. When fuel savings bring down the costs of transporting goods, the average household could save nearly $150 a year by 2030 and $275 by 2040 assuming all savings and costs are passed through to consumers. In total, the program would result in about $230 billion in net benefits to society over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the program. The benefits to society outweigh costs over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the program by about 10 to 1. 10. Where are the details? The notice has yet to be posted in the Federal Register, but the 1,300-page prepublication version is here. Or, for those who prefer neatly organized summaries, EPA provides these: Overview Fact Sheet: Cutting Carbon Pollution, Improving Fuel Efficiency, Saving Money, and Supporting Innovation for Trucks (PDF) (3 pages)Detailed Fact Sheet: EPA and NHTSA Propose Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles for Model Year 2018 and Beyond (PDF) (6 pages)Fact Sheet on Trailers: Proposed EPA and NHTSA Regulation of Commercial Trailers Used with Combination Tractors: Frequently Asked Questions(PDF) (4 pages)Key Numbers Fact Sheet: EPA and NHTSA Propose Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks: By the Numbers (PDF)(3 pages)Proposed Rule (PDF) (1,329 pages)Redline/Strikeout of EPA Proposed Regulatory Text Relative to Current CFR (PDF) (378 pages)Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (PDF) (971 pages)See the GEM web page to read about the Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) for determining truck compliance.

Fleet Owner / June 19, 2015 Trailers added to fuel efficiency standards for trucks The long-awaited next phase of the federal government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by setting fuel efficiency standards for commercial vehicles was released Friday. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are jointly proposing the standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles meant to reduce the impacts of climate change, while bolstering energy security and spurring manufacturing innovation. The proposed standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1 billion metric tons, cut fuel costs by about $170 billion, and reduce oil consumption by up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. Putting those numbers into perspective, the government says these reductions are nearly equal to the GHG emissions associated with energy use by all U.S. residences in one year. The total oil savings under the program would be greater than a year’s worth of U.S. imports from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles currently account for about 20% of GHG emissions and oil use in the U.S. transportation sector, but only comprise about 5% of vehicles on the road. “Once upon a time, to be pro-environment you had to be anti-big-vehicles. This rule will change that,” said U.S Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “In fact, these efficiency standards are good for the environment—and the economy. When trucks use less fuel, shipping costs go down. It’s good news all around, especially for anyone with an online shopping habit.” The product of three years of testing and research, the proposed vehicle and engine performance standards would cover model years 2021-2027, and apply to semi-trucks, large pickup trucks and vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. They would achieve up to 24% lower CO2 emissions and fuel consumption than an equivalent tractor in 2018, based on the fully phased-in standards for the tractor alone in a tractor-trailer vehicle. In this next phase, the EPA and NHTSA are also proposing efficiency and GHG standards for trailers for the first time. The EPA trailer standards, which exclude certain categories such as mobile homes, would begin to take effect in model year 2018 for certain trailers, while NHTSA’s standards would be in effect as of 2021, with credits available for voluntary participation before then. Additionally, EPA notes that the proposed standards are: Grounded in rigorous technical data and analysis.Reflect extensive outreach with industry and other stakeholders.Rely on cost-effective technologies to enhance fuel efficiency and reduce GHG emissions that are currently available or in development.They do not mandate the use of specific technologies. Rather they establish standards achievable through a range of technology options, and allow manufacturers to choose those technologies that work best for their products and for their customers. (These technologies include improved transmissions, engine combustion optimization, aerodynamic improvements and low rolling resistance tires). Phased in over the long-term, beginning in model year 2021 and culminating in standards for model year 2027 – giving manufacturers the time and flexibility to plan.Flexible, by allowing banking and trading emissions credits for most manufacturers, and providing businesses the opportunity to choose the most cost-effective path to meet the standards.The American Trucking Assns. announced that it supports the proposal, but remains concerned that the rule may result in the use of certain technologies on vehicles before they can be fully tested. “Fuel is an enormous expense for our industry – and carbon emissions carry an enormous cost for our planet,” said ATA President and CEO Bill Graves. “That’s why our industry supported the Obama Administration’s historic first round of greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for medium and large trucks and why we support the aims of this second round of standards.” Since the first round of efficiency standards were announced in 2011, ATA has been working to evaluate their impact on the trucking industry, and the agency said it has been in constant dialogue with the EPA and the NHTSA to make sure the second round of standards can be effectively implemented by the industry. “ATA has adopted a set of 15 ‘guiding principles’ for Phase II,” said ATA Vice President and Energy and Environmental Counsel Glen Kedzie, “and based on conversations with regulators and a preliminary review this proposal appears to meet 14 of those. “We believe this rule could result in the deployment of certain technologies that do not fully recognize the diversity of our industry and could prove to be unreliable. This unreliability could slow not only adoption of these technologies, but the environmental benefits they aim to create,” Kedzie said. “To prevent this, truck and engine manufacturers will need adequate time to develop solutions to meet these new standards.” Kedzie said fuel is typically a fleet’s first or second largest operating expense and most fleets seek a return on their investment in new equipment within 18 to 24 months. A public comment period will be open for 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register. In addition, NHTSA and EPA will host two public hearings and continue to meet with stakeholders over the course of the comment period, the agencies said.

Renault Press Release / June 17, 2015 The independent certifying body, TÜV Rheinland, has just certified a 10.9% reduction of fuel consumption for a Renault Trucks T series "Optifuel" compared with a standard T series, after drivers had benefited from Optifuel Training instruction. After several months demonstrating and selling the Optifuel spec T series, Renault Trucks, confident of its offering in terms of fuel consumption savings, asked the independent organisation TÜV Rheinland to measure and certify the fuel savings it delivers. The TÜV Rheinland therefore carried out a series of tests designed to measure the Renault Trucks T Optifuel’s performance with regard to reducing fuel consumption. This resulted in a measured and certified reduction in fuel consumption of 10.9% for the Optifuel version of the Renault T series. “This figure, measured and certified by an independent body, demonstrates the benefits our customers enjoy when they choose a, Optifuel-equipped Renault T series truck,“ explains Bruno Blin, the President of Renault Trucks. He adds, “The T series' intrinsic qualities, combined with aerodynamic equipment and intelligent technology, significantly reduces costs associated with fuel which therefore contribute to their financial profitability.” The T series Optifuel is a comprehensive offering consisting of a vehicle optimised to reduce fuel consumption, combined with Optifuel Training instruction in economic driving provided by Renault Trucks instructors. The vehicle used for the comparison was a standard T model, without any options and before the drivers had been given any economic driving instruction. The TÜV Rheinland selected the two experienced drivers, making sure they represented typical long-distance truck drivers. Renault Trucks supplied the vehicles and the semitrailers, also providing the instruction in economic driving. The two vehicles were Renault Trucks T 4x2 tractors equipped with Euro-6 DTI 11-liter 430 horsepower engines having the same drive axle ratio (2.64). One was a “standard” vehicle, while the other featured the Optifuel configurations. The day before the test, the TÜV Rheinland carried out an in-depth check of the two rigs, in particular tyre wear and pressure as well as their weight and technical characteristics. The Optifuel version of the Renault T series offers, as standard, all aerodynamic equipment (adjustable roof and side deflectors, door extensions and side fairings) to maximise the vehicle’s penetration through the air. It is also equipped with a set of intelligent technologies incorporated into the Fuel eco-pack (inhibited power mode, eco-cruise control with the Optiroll controlled freewheeling mode, a disengageable air compressor, a variable flow steering pump and automatic engine cutout). The vehicle is configured with a default maximum speed of 85 kph. The TÜV Rheinland carried out its measurements on a 200 km route, typical of a long distance inter-regional haulage run. Both vehicles carried a 32 tonne load. On the first day, the two drivers drove over the route twice, once in each vehicle and with their semitrailer so as not to influence results. On the next day, they were both given Optifuel Training instruction in economic driving provided by a Renault Trucks expert. On the third day, the two drivers once again drove the vehicles over the same route, this time applying what they had learned during their training. This very strict test procedure, implemented by the TÜV Rheinland, made it possible to isolate the two vehicles’ intrinsic performance and exclude any impact on consumption from outside factors such as ambient temperature, differences in the two semitrailers’ rolling resistance or the prevailing road traffic. Following the test, the TÜV Rheinland experts observed and certified that, after the instruction, the Renault T series Optifuel consumed 10.9% less fuel than the standard spec Renault T series. This result reasserts the performance delivered by the Optifuel version of the Renault T series in terms of reducing fuel consumption and the importance of the instruction in economic driving. It demonstrates Renault's commitment to providing its customers with tools that are constantly being made more efficient to improve their business. This T series was designed to offer hauliers the perfect balance between fuel savings and life on board. Thanks to the new cab’s aerodynamic form, this range combines the efficiency and lower consumption on which Renault Trucks has founded its reputation. The Renault Trucks Long Distance range contributes to reducing its owner’s fuel costs. Thanks to its design, with a windscreen angle of 12° which improves the Cx by as much as 12% and its new driveline which improves yield, this range is one of the most fuel-efficient on the market. By investing in a T Optifuel, a Renault Trucks customer will have a return on investment from the 17th month of ownership, which is about one third of the average time a haulier keeps possession of a long distance vehicle (60 months on average). .

Heavy Duty Trucking / June 17, 2015 Autocar Industries is recalling 5,286 trucks to address their potential for excessive engine crankcase pressures that might ultimately pose a fire risk, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Autocar is issuing two separate recalls, the largest of which affects 5,245 Xpeditor trucks in the 2008 to 2016 model years. The Xpeditor trucks, which have Cummins natural gas-operated engines, were manufactured from July 30, 2007, through April 29 of this year. Excessive engine crankcase pressures may cause the 90-degree elbow of the vent tube assembly to detach from the crankcase ventilation breather. This condition might allow engine oil to come into contact with hot surfaces and pose a fire risk, NHTSA said. Cummins will notify truck owners on behalf of Autocar, and Cummins service centers will administer the repairs. These repairs will include securing the ends of the 90-degree elbow and reprogramming the electronic control module (ECM) with software that can adjust the engine output under misfire conditions to limit crankcase pressures. Cummins will perform the necessary repairs, free of charge. Autocar’s number for this recall is ACX-1503. The second recall involves 41 Xpert and XSpotter trucks in the 2014 through 2016 model years. They have Cummins Westport ISL G natural gas engines. The problem and recall remedy are similar to the first recall. Autocar’s number for the second recall is MDTT-01. Both safety recalls are expected to begin this month. Truck owners can reach Autocar customer service at (765) 489-5499 or Cummins at (800) 343-7357.

Great link......thank you. You're right, those lads were real drivers.

Motor Malaysia / June 18, 2015 American company Zero Motorcycles (http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/fleet/) now has more than 50 US police departments using its electric motorcycles. “This is a milestone for us, as more agencies embrace the benefits of Zero Motorcycles,” said Kevin Hartman, North American fleet sales director for Zero in a statement. “When compared to traditional police motorcycles, our patrol bikes have a lower total cost of ownership, are easier to maintain and – with minimal noise and no exhaust – are a vehicle for good community relations.” They also make it easier to nab the bad guys in the act. “This motorcycle is so quiet that we continuously sneak up on…..suspects while out on patrol,” Officer Steve Carbajal of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Off-Road Unit said. Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0QoGKk5YPE#t=57

Agreed, MAN produces a first-rate heavy truck. But it's expensive, like Mercedes-Benz, because of the high costs of German labor (double that of U.S.) thanks to the works councils (union), and the higher-than-the-global-norm number of employees at its German plants. This is alike why the VW brand is barely breaking even while Toyota and Hyundai see 8 to 9 percent margins.

Frankly speaking, I think most of us have tossed "good faith" in our country's management team to the curb and come to the realization that government more often than not acts in the interests of big business. Look at NAFTA. The sales pitch to the gullible masses was a complete fabrication, a brilliantly played out distraction from the truth. NAFTA was the idea of big business, a way for them to produce in low-labor-cost Mexico, and then import to the US without tariffs (which would otherwise evaporate the labor savings). I can appreciate US companies searching for a solution to rising US labor costs. But the government should have crafted a solution that kept production in America. Look at the costs of benefits to companies, eg. health insurance. The health care and pharmaceutical industries are two of the biggest scams of our lifetime. An MRI in overseas countries on a new General Electric machine costs US$75, but you pay $2000 to $3000 in America, and thus have stratospheric insurance premiums. Why doesn't the government serve the people and address this deplorable situation? Again, because it has the interests of big business (the highest bidder) at heart. It's all an extremely sad situation. As Nardelli said in the video, it makes no sense for Ford to dilute itself by merging with Chrysler. As for GM, I personally can imagine a merger with specifically the Chrysler unit of FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobile..........the near bankrupt Fiat is not part of my equation. In the commercial truck segment, Dodge's RAM 3500/4500/5500 are selling well to a majority of Americans, people who would never consider a Dodge in the old days. In the car side, Chrysler overall is weak. So if you combine: GM Colorado/Canyon + Silverado 1500/2500 Dodge commercially oriented 3500/4500/5500 (FAR more suitable for the US than Isuzu low cab forward N-series trucks) The full size range of GM automobiles Chrysler performance halo cars I can imagine an optimized blend of product.