kscarbel2

Today's Trucking / March 3, 2015 Apples and oranges. That's how Brian Mormino describes the difference between the emissions regimes of the previous decade and the one that was launched last year and will enter its second phase in 2020. Executive director, worldwide environmental strategy and compliance at Cummins, he says all the hard work and heartache of dealing with engine emissions from 2002 on to 2010 has left us well equipped for the next steps. We've already taken the first of those steps, starting a year ago, with Phase 1 of the fuel economy and greenhouse gas regulations as decreed by President Obama. Back in 2010, with so-called 'criteria' pollutants like nitrogen oxide (NOx) under control, he ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Administration to move on. He told them to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, along with other gases in lesser amounts, while improving fuel economy in medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The challenge was anything but small, the timeline short, but the 2014 targets were met, largely because so much had already been achieved. And the next target in 2017 will be met as well. "I'd like to help people understand that the industry is in a great place from the standpoint of technology and the future," Mormino told me in a lengthy recent interview. "What I mean by that is that we now have diesel particulate filters, we have SCR systems, we're taking care of emissions in the exhaust. And we have learned and improved on those systems. "And so when we look at meeting the first GHG and fuel-consumption standard in 2013, a year early, how did Cummins do that? We did it by improving the engine architecture that we already had in place. And what are we going to do for 2017? We're going to improve on the engine architecture that we already have in place. And I would even venture to say that when we look at 2021, we're going to improve on the engine architecture that we already have in place." The New Regime Phase 1 of the GHG and fuel-economy regime does not involve just engines as in the past, but trucks as well, with tires and aerodynamic devices tested and taken into account. The present 2014-19 rules say that heavy-duty tractors must achieve as much as a 20-percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by 2017, a little more by 2019. Engines, tested separately, had to improve three percent by 2014, and six percent by 2017. Mixers, refuse haulers, and other vocational machines must get to a 10-percent reduction in fuel consumption by 2017. None of this change caused a stir last year, and initial targets were met with ordinary improvements of existing hardware and software. Things will get tougher on engines in 2017 but radically new hardware -- like waste-heat recovery -- won't be required. When these rules were announced it seemed to many observers that, with so many variations in commercial vehicles, it would be near impossible to find a standard that applies to all. But not so, apparently, and for reasons similar to those cited by Mormino. "It's complicated but we've been able to manage all the configurations in Phase 1," said Sean Waters, director of compliance and regulatory affairs at Daimler Trucks North America. "Mostly we're able to manage all the differences because we spent a lot of money developing fuel-efficient technologies years ago. All those decisions that have paid off for our business and paid off for our customers, have also paid off in the regulatory world and enabled us to deal with all the different configurations out there." Phase 2 Tougher Phase 2 of the fuel-efficiency/greenhouse gas regulations will soon be unveiled. A draft rulemaking proposal was due to be released this month by the EPA and NHTSA, but I'm hearing there's a delay. Regardless, the final rule is due some time in 2016, affecting trucks built in 2020 and beyond. We don't know much about it, and even the people I've talked to lately who keep track of what's going on in Washington can only guess. All we really know is that Phase 2 will demand even tougher, more stringent CO2 and fuel-consumption reductions. Much tougher, it seems. But our firm knowledge stops there. Will trailers be added to the mix? It's almost certain, it seems, and there are suggestions that it will happen in 2018. At least for dry vans and reefers. One test or two? Engines and vehicles are tested separately in Phase 1, but there are those who urge that just one test, with engines rolled into the whole truck like any other component, is the better approach for Phase 2. Both sides are pretty vehement. As things stand now engines are tested on a dynamometer as they have been all along, and Cummins thinks it should stay that way. Among other reasons, Mormino says that this would preserve spec'ing flexibility for truck buyers and ensure repeatability in the testing process. Trucks, on the other hand, are tested by way of computer modelling in Phase 1, with some inputs coming from on-track trials using standard SAE protocols and that data then fed into the modelling software. Daimler and Volvo (including Mack), the only fully integrated OEMs, are arguing that a single all-inclusive test would be simpler and more cost-effective. Mormino says the implementation of Phase 1 was pretty much seamless, and he attributes that success largely to the continued use of familiar regulatory tools and testing methods that had been in place for decades. For 30 years engine makers have tested NOx and particulates on the dyno, and it was easy to include CO2 as well. "We just added CO2," Mormino says, "which means that we allowed all that diversity to continue in the marketplace because the engine is certified to operate in a wide range of vehicles and applications. So customers and end-users still have all the choice that is really, really important... in terms of all of their preferences and the types of work they have to do. The regulation didn't... limit their choices." Perhaps a more compelling argument is the one he makes about the huge number of fuel-economy variables when a truck is put to use. Like driver skills, terrain, trailer type, highway or city, load, and countless others. "That is a challenge for any type of regulation that tries to drive technology on vehicle aspects that are highly variable," Mormino says. "And the way that the regulation attempted to deal with that is that it separated out the most certain aspect, the engine, and provided a much brighter focus on something you can repeatably and accurately measure and do so in a way where it can be enforced." On the other side of this argument sits DTNA's Sean Waters, as well as the Volvo Group's Tony Greszler. "Our goal has always been to provide our customers with the lowest total operating costs to increase their revenues, and the most effective way to do that has been to provide better fuel efficiency," says Waters. "Regulations have interfered with this goal in the past where criteria-pollutant emissions control technology had a great negative impact on fuel economy. "It's critical that regulations to reduce fuel consumption do not in actuality result in negative impacts on real-world fuel efficiency gains, and this is where the current separate engine standard program has failed. Engine test cycles are based on historical operating data and cannot reflect changes in engine size, powertrains, or vehicle power demand and do not accurately represent the fuel used in the real-world, nor were they ever designed to do so," Waters suggests. "DTNA believes the best way to ensure that the Phase 2 regulation provides a total-cost-of-operation benefit to customers is to give manufacturers the ability to focus on improving the entire vehicle as it operates on the road and in the application for which its customers want to use the vehicle. Any regulation that doesn’t give manufacturers the flexibility to meet it in the manner that works best for our customers, results in vehicles that customers can’t afford, or doesn’t provide sufficient real-world payback and risks creating a pre-buy prior to the regulation becoming effective." Waters goes further, saying that the tests for criteria pollutants -- NOx and PM -- are based on a test designed in 1990 or 1991 "when trucks had higher horsepower, more torque. It was just a different way of operating an engine. The test was never designed for CO2." Nor was it designed to measure fuel economy, he adds. He figures the test was used for convenience in Phase 1 to get a rule done quickly. At Volvo Group North America, Tony Greszler is vice president of government and industry relations, and he's the point man on Phase 2 rules. "The bottom line here is that the engine test doesn't test the engine the way it runs in the truck," he says. "It's impossible for any engine test to do that. And it also doesn't account for the impact of the engine on the rest of the truck. Waste-heat Recovery "The technology of most concern is what we call waste-heat recovery," Greszler goes on. It's a tool that Cummins expects to deploy in 2020 or so, though Brian Mormino says some customers may get field-test units in 2017 or 2018. In fact all engine makers are developing it, and a variation is even used in today's Formula One race cars where they add it to the standard V6 and call the package a hybrid. It recovers exhaust heat and turns it back into energy. "It's essentially a second engine," says Greszler. "And it requires that you run the exhaust heat through a fluid, via a heat exchanger in the exhaust, and run it through an expansion machine to make power, and then condense that fluid again. Which means that you've got a lot more cooling demand. You've now got to cool most of the heat from the exhaust, because the process isn't very efficient, so most of that heat ends up in your condenser. "And we end up having to add substantial weight, space, and cooling capacity into our trucks," he continues, "which means that we lose aerodynamic performance and we lose freight capacity because of weight. So we add efficiency to the engine but we take it away from the truck. That doesn't make sense. "Why would you force us to do something like that? Give us the flexibility to look at the truck as a complete entity and make the best, most cost-effective decisions about how to improve the fuel efficiency in a way that meets the target," Greszler urges. "I think it's also obvious that a system like that adds a lot of components, a lot of sensors, a lot of complexity, and potentially a lot of unreliability. Which customers don't want or need. And if you're not getting the full benefit from it anyway, you're really kidding yourself when you measure the efficiency of the engine in a test cell where weight, space, and cooling demand are not accounted for at all." Waste heat recovery is just an example, of course, and there might be any number of similar examples that could come up in the future. "A particular customer could well benefit from efficiency improvements that have nothing to do with the engine and hit the overall targets that EPA will establish," Greszler continues. "Are we going to force him into engine efficiency solutions that don't necessarily match his operational requirements because EPA structured a rule that said X amount had to come from the engine? It just doesn't make sense to us." Depending on the stringency of the coming rules, and whether or not we have a separate engine test, waste-heat recovery may or may not be needed. "If we have a fairly stringent engine efficiency requirement measured in a test cell, then WHR may be the only available technology to meet that target," Greszler says. "If it's not applied to the engine but to the truck, we may find quite a few other options. "We're all developing waste-heat recovery," he adds, "don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's a technology that shouldn't be explored and exploited when and where it makes sense, but it ought not be forced into production on a time schedule that doesn't allow adequate reliability development and it shouldn't be forced into applications where it doesn't really deliver." So, much remains to be seen on this topic, and given how much information couldn't be packed into this space, a Part Three seems to be in order. Stay tuned.

Truck News / March 3, 2015 Kenworth has announced availability of a heavier front axle for its T370 Class 7 truck. Customers can now choose between 18,000- and 20,000-lb axles. “The Kenworth T370 is already an extremely versatile truck, but now with the new 18,000-pound and 20,000-pound front axles, customers can put more weight on the front ends in fuel hauling, dump, mixer, utility and crane applications,” said Kurt Swihart, Kenworth’s marketing director. “This also allows more payload in a shorter BBC truck package – something our vocational customers will find attractive.” The announcement was made at the NTEA Work Truck Show. The package includes a heavy-duty, cross-brace reinforced front frame assembly. Bolted cross-members and either 10-3/4” or 10-5/8” frame rails with inserts complete the package. “These new axle options continue the momentum we’re seeing with our medium duty products,” said Swihart. “We had record sales and market share in 2014 and we expect that trend to continue in 2015. Customers are finding more versatility, driver comfort and durability with their Kenworths and it’s paving the way for mutual success.”

Heavy Duty Trucking / March 3, 2015 Ford's redesigned 2016 F-650 and F-750 trucks will offer a lower noise level than outgoing models mostly due to the redesigned turbo diesel engine, Ford announced on the eve of NTEA's Work Truck Show. The 2016-MY medium-duty trucks are powered by a Ford 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 that's 25 percent quieter in the cabin, according to Ford. When idling, the engine is as much as 45 percent quieter in the cabin and 35 percent quieter in front of the grille. "While the truck is able to work harder, we also made life inside the cab easier," said John Ruppert, general manager of Ford Commercial Vehicle Sales and Marketing. "Lowering in-cab and exterior noise levels improves driver comfort and minimizes disturbances while idling at work sites." When traveling at 60 mph, the level of engine noise in the cabin drops to 68 decibels from 74 decibels compared to the prior model, according to Ford. Idling levels have fallen to 48 decibels from 63 decibels. Ford achieved the quieter cabin through a engine engineering. Specific design upgrades were made to the fuel injectors to optimize the combustion process, which features a two-stage combustion event instead of a single-injection event to avoid harsh, sudden and loud combustion. A starter or pilot fuel injector in the engine begins the compression process before the main injection. The result is smoother combustion with less diesel clatter and a reduction of intrusive engine sound both inside and outside the truck, according to Ford. At idle, two pilot injection events make the firing process even smoother to aid in quietness. The "ticking" of the high-speed injectors is masked by specially designed covers on the engine. Mounting the engine’s turbocharger inside the engine block valley also brings improvements in overall noise, vibration and harshness. The trucks will be available this summer.

Heavy Duty Trucking / March 3, 2015 Navistar International Corp. announced on Tuesday that it is still losing money, but nowhere near as much as it did a year earlier. In releasing earnings for the three months ending Jan. 31, the truck and engine maker reported a net loss of $42 million, or 52 cents per diluted share, compared to a first quarter 2014 net loss of $248 million, or $3.05 per diluted share, better than many analysts were forecasting. The company attributed the improvement to higher sales and lower warranty costs. Revenues in the quarter were $2.4 billion, up 10% from a year earlier but slightly less than many analysts were expecting. "Our first quarter results reflect our continued momentum and ongoing progress in improving the fundamentals of our business," said Troy Clarke, Navistar president and chief executive officer. "In the first quarter, we once again increased our production, chargeouts and order backlog. Our improved product quality is driving reduced warranty spend and we continue to lower our breakeven point." Navistar implemented a financial turnaround plan when it began losing market share about three years ago, following problems with its engines meeting federal emissions standards that led to a big decline in sales. The higher revenues in the quarter were driven by a 17% year-over-year increase in chargeouts (trucks that have been invoiced to customers) for Class 6 through Class 8 trucks and buses in the U.S. and Canada. This included a 42% increase in school buses; a 25% increase in Class 6 and Class 7 trucks; a 7% increase in Class 8 heavy trucks; and a 5% increase in Class 8 severe service trucks. Higher sales in the company's export truck operations also contributed to the increase, according to Navistar, partially offset by a decrease in used truck sales. The company finished the first quarter with a 27% year-over-year increase in order backlog for Class 6-8 trucks. In a conference call with investors Tuesday morning, Clarke said 2015 is an important year for Navistar. Company plans call for it to begin with a strong first quarter, which he said it did, with sales momentum building in all of its core truck markets, while achieving cost savings in many areas. "We increased our sales across every product line in the first quarter, and we were especially pleased with our strong year-over-year gains in the medium truck and school bus markets, two key areas of strategic focus that will deliver profitable market share gains," Clarke said. According to Navistar, during the first quarter of 2015, structural costs continued to decrease with cost-reduction initiatives, while productivity improvements helped to further lower its breakeven point. Navistar previously announced changes in its reporting segments. The export truck and parts operations, formerly in the Global Operations segment, are now included within the results of the Truck and Parts segments, respectively. Parts required to support military trucks, formerly within the Parts segment, are now included with the rest of Navistar Defense operations and recorded in the results of the Truck segment. For the first quarter 2015, the Truck segment recorded a loss of $18 million, compared with a year-ago first quarter loss of $208 million. The Truck segment's year-over-year improvement was driven by a shift in product mix toward medium trucks and school buses as well as a $55 million benefit for adjustments to pre-existing warranties, according to Navistar. The Parts segment recorded a profit of $145 million, compared to a year-ago first quarter profit of $108 million, a 34% increase. The Global Operations segment recorded a loss of $15 million compared to a year-ago first quarter loss of $35 million. Navistar said the improvement was due to lower manufacturing and structural costs as a result of restructuring and cost-reduction efforts in the company's South American operations, and lower foreign exchange losses. For the first quarter 2015, the Financial Services segment recorded a profit of $24 million compared to first quarter 2014 profit of $23 million.

Wall Street Journal / March 3, 2015 Navistar International Corp. on Tuesday said cost reductions and improving sales of its medium-duty trucks and school buses helped the company narrow its loss in the January quarter. The company’s results for the quarter ended Jan. 31 were mostly within the company’s projections for the quarter. Pretax income on an adjusted basis topped the company’s forecast and analysts’ expectations. “First-quarter was very much in-line with our expectations and we plan on building on that momentum,” said Chief Executive Troy Clarke during a conference call with analysts. Navistar’s stock was recently trading up 4.5% at $30.25 a share. The Lisle, Ill.-based maker of International brand trucks has been struggling to gain market share in a red-hot market for commercial trucks in North America. Navistar is in fourth-place in the heavy-duty truck market behind Volvo AB, Paccar Inc.–the maker of Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks–and Daimler AG ‘s Freightliner unit. Navistar’s marketing efforts have been emphasizing the improved reliability of the company’s trucks and engines after widespread problems with Navistar-built engines after 2010 eroded the company’s market share. The company said it is seeing improving sales of medium-duty trucks to rental companies, a major user of medium-duty trucks. The company said its share for the medium-duty market in the U.S. and Canada rose to 21% in the quarter from 19% for the quarter ended October 31. But the company’s share of the heavy-duty market–the largest segment of the truck market–slipped to 11% from 15% in October. Navistar’s truck business recorded a loss of $18 million in the quarter, compared with a year-earlier loss of $208 million. Income from replacement parts rose to $145 million from $108 million. The company said adjusted income before taxes and income expenses was $54 million on improved margins. Analysts expected $52 million. Overall for the fiscal first quarter, Navistar reported a loss of $42 million, or 52 cents a share, compared with a year-earlier loss of $248 million, or $3.05 a share. Revenue grew 9.6% to $2.42 billion. Analysts had expected a loss of $1.09 a share and revenue of $2.6 billion.

Two valve versions of the EM6-275L and E6-350 remained available for the DMM, and were equiped with Series Charged Air Cooling (SCAC) rather than Chassis-Mounted Charge Air Cooling (CMCAC). Is this DM possibly a DMM?

Press Release Diamond Specialty Vehicles LLC has announced the company will launch an all-new vocational and specialty truck model range in April featuring the truckmaker’s new T-Line “Driver II*” aluminum construction conventional cab. In addition, the company’s new set-forward axle TCS20 and set-back axle TCL20B powered and non-powered glider kits are now available for order (http://tlinetrucks.com/glider-kits-2/). For further information: http://tlinetrucks.com/ * The first generation "Driver" cab was designed by Autocar and introduced in 1950. The last Autocar to use the driver cab rolled off the line in Ogden, Utah in 1987. The last Western Star to use the Autocar cab, dubbed the Heritage cab by that truckmaker, was produced in 1997 (the new Constellation cab, designed by an team of Australian Western Star and DAF engineers, had been introduced in 1996). The Diamond Story - History Timeline: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania-based Loyal Osterlund, a former Diamond Reo dealer, obtained the legal rights to the name, all the spare parts at the Lansing, Michigan factory and the manufacturing dies following the truckmaker’s bankruptcy in 1975. FYI: Fire apparatus, custom truck chassis and Utilimaster brand body manufacturer Spartan Motors was founded in 1976 by former Diamond Reo Engineers effected by Diamond Reo’s bankruptcy. Osterlund created the Diamond Reo “Giant” range and established a 50 dealer nationwide sales network. Osterlund operated from 1977 thru 1993. It appears that in the summer of 1995, Loyal Osterlund's son Jan explored selling the operation to S&S/Superior of Ohio, who planned to produce Diamond T trucks as the Superior Truck & Tractor Manufacturing Company (ftp://nhtsa.gov/MfrMail/01-22-N11B-6002.pdf). In December 1995, William Snyder operating as the Diamond Reo Truck Company purchased Jan Osterlund’s assets and inventory, and built trucks until 1997 in Somerset, Pennsylvania. In 2003, Diamond Vehicle Solutions LLC under former Osterlund engineering head Joseph Whitman and other Osterlund veterans began supplying spare parts to Reo, Diamond Reo and Diamond T customers. In 2007, Diamond Vehicle Solutions LLC relocated to the Harrisburg plant constructed by Osterlund in the early 1980s. In 2008, the new company launched its “T-Line”* range of Diamond T trucks. Like Osterlund, Diamond Vehicle Solutions decided to target the vocational segment. * Not to be confused with the International Harvester "T-Line" heavy trucks once sold in Australia (http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/30957-those-magnificent-aussie-international-transtar-4670s/). (Because Sheller-Globe had stopped producing the Western Star cab, the Navistar S-Series cab was substituted until a proprietary cab could be created) In December 2013, Joseph Whitman announced that T-Line range production would resume in 2014, with order acceptance from January 6. Designed for vocational and specialty applications, component options include Cummins diesel and natural gas engines; PSI gasoline and natural gas engines; Allison, Fuller and Spicer transmissions; Dana and Meritor axles; TRW-Ross power steering; and Hendrickson and Neway suspensions. In addition, all T-Line models will be available as glider kits. .

CAT trucks are assembled by Navistar, but as is obvious, Caterpillar has gone to great lengths to create for themselves a uniquely designed truck for the Australian on-highway market. In the beginning, CAT Australia trucks were assembled at a NC2 CAT-Navistar joint venture plant in Tullamarine, Victoria. But when Navistar NC2 Global Australia became a wholly owned subsidiary of Navistar in 2011, and was renamed Navistar Auspac Pty Ltd, production shifted to North America in 2012. In the US market where CAT is focused on vocational with the CT660 and CT681, due to incompetent people, the company is going nowhere. However in Australia where CAT is focused on on-highway, and has some real truck people on the team, the company's efforts down under have legs. With the closing of Navistar's Garland, Texas plant (the former Marmon truck plant) in late 2012 where WorkStar, PayStar, TranStar and MaxxPro military vehicles were built, some Prostar* and all CAT truck production shifted to Navistar's Escobedo, Mexico plant. * Prostar production, as well as Durastar, is spread between Springfield and Escobedo. US market CT660 and CT681 vocational models are also built in Escobedo. http://www.internationaltrucks.com/trucks/experience/escobedo_plant I have to tell you, I feel the Australian market CAT trucks are extremely good looking trucks (unlike the Tonka toy-like US market CT660). The CAT C15 is well liked down under, and the company seems to have resolved its issues. In comparison, the next generation Kenworth T680 and Peterbilt Model 579 with the new cheaper-for-Paccar common cab are hideous looking. And this brings forth a little discussed matter. In the past, each evolutionary step in truck development provided operators with greater value in terms of operational costs, durability and comfort. Truckmakers competed by offering the customer more value. But we have now arrived at a juncture where truck development is focused around saving the truck manufacturers money to enhance their bottom line (not unlike today's car industry). Content is being removed where truckmakers perceive the customer either won't mind, or won't notice. The price you pay will continue to escalate, but the value of the truck you receive is going down. Make no mistake about it, you're getting less truck for your money. Paccar's new common cab is a perfect example, with a drastically lower production cost than the Kenworth and Peterbilt cabs it replaces. The introducion of Paccar's common cab is entirely about injecting greater profitability into the company's bottom line, and has no benefit to the customer.

Caterpillar's CT630S and CT630SC are engineered for Australian B-double applications, as well as B-triple and road train double configurations. http://www.cattrucks.com.au/trucks/ct630-s/#tab=1 http://www.cattrucks.com.au/trucks/ct630sc/#tab=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKRiiw5Z1Yo#t=27

Truck News / February 27, 2015 US and Canadian trucking companies have much in common, including their growing frustration over government interference in their businesses, with seemingly little thought given to the full implications of their decisions. That was evidenced during a panel discussion on The Impact of Rules and Legislations on Fleet Operating Costs, hosted by Performance Innovation Transport at its second annual conference. Providing a fleet perspective on the subject were Mike Kelley, vice-president, YRC Freight and Mark Irwin, director of maintenance, eastern region, Bison Transport. Among their shared frustrations was the idea that government does not hesitate to foist costly regulations on the industry, while it continues to prohibit the use of safe and proven systems such as larger pup trailers in the US and 6×2 axle configurations in Canada. YRC’s Kelley said the LTL trucking industry in the US would like to move from 28-ft. pup trailers to 33-footers, which would provide an 18% increase in capacity. “The last time we’ve had any significant productivity increase was in 1982,” he complained. “We can save four billion tonnes of CO2 annually. But this will be anything but an engineering decision, it’s going to be a political decision and we’re in for a dogfight.” Closer to home, Irwin would like to see the latest generation 6×2 axles allowed in Canada, pointing to weight savings of several hundred pounds. “We need to get into this,” Irwin said. “This is something where we’re seeing significant fuel savings. It has been tested by PIT and we have confidence in PIT and what they do. The restrictions or the limitations of operating in Ontario as a result of this actually impacts our ability to perform business in Ontario.” He noted US carriers are coming into Canada using 6x2s and gaining a competitive advantage and that some Canadian fleets are also using the system, despite it being illegal. Geoff Wood, vice-president of operations and safety with the Ontario Trucking Association and Canadian Trucking Alliance warned they do so at their own peril. “If you have technology that is not allowed and doesn’t fit within the provincial framework and something happens, you might have a problem on your hands legally and civilly,” he suggested. He noted the associations are discussing the issues related to 6x2s with government, but added a formal position has not yet been taken. While governments in both countries seem bound on limiting productivity in some ways, they are also not afraid to introduce new legislation that brings tremendous cost to the industry, Kelley pointed out, citing electronic logging devices as a timely example. “We’ll have two years to put ELDs in 8,000 trucks. This is ironic, because we’ve been talking about this since 1997 and we’ll have a two-year implementation window and we can’t act on it now because we don’t know what the standards will be,” Kelley said. He is also worried about talk a Pigovian tax could be applied to the trucking industry as punishment for the carbon emissions it produces. Kelley would prefer to see a modest increase in fuel taxes, since only 2-4% of the money collected in this manner goes towards administrative costs. A Pigovian tax, which is an extreme tax intended to change behaviour, won’t work in trucking, because the deliveries must still be made, Kelley pointed out. He would prefer the government shift its attention to helping the industry, through the elimination of barriers, including traffic congestion. He cited a stat that suggested traffic congestion at freight chokepoints in the US each year produce an outcome equivalent to 51,000 trucks and drivers sitting idle for an entire year. “We should be able to align industry, environmentalists and the Administration to get a long-term comprehensive plan to address freight chokepoints,” he said. Kelley also had concerns with how the latest emissions standards for heavy trucks have been implemented, driving up costs of new trucks by 45% while at the same time, cars have increased in price just 15%. While Kelley said he agrees with the importance of cleaning the air, the new standards have resulted in less reliable equipment that has been especially troubling in an LTL environment with ever-tightening delivery windows. “The nation’s commerce is on wheels,” he said. “We have some of the biggest retailers in North America that we serve now and if we are late by three hours, they don’t have product on their shelves and they get really upset with us and then they don’t pay us.” Bison’s Irwin agreed that customer expectations are constantly rising and that regulations that curtail productivity are a hindrance. He’d like to see Ontario’s long combination vehicle (LCV) program expanded more rapidly, as one example. The company has been running LCVs for 11 years and they now account for 26% of all its miles travelled, or 2.8 million miles per month. They average about 5.5 mpg compared to the single-trailer fleet’s average of 6.5 mpg, but looked at another way, they nearly double trailer productivity to 11 mpg per trailer. “That’s pretty efficient and that’s the world we want to live in,” Irwin said. He also has an issue with roadside enforcement being overly aggressive when inspecting LCV equipment. An ABS light out results in the loss of a permit for three to four months, even though the braking system is still functional. Irwin would like to see government trust the research done by organizations such as PIT and the OEMs and more quickly approve new technologies that can improve freight.

Navistar (International Harvester) left South Africa in the late 1970s because of then-occurring financial problems. The Cummins distributor for South Africa, ProPower Diesel, became Navistar’s importing distributor in 1986. In 1988, Tyco International became Navistar’s importing distributor. After the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986 forcing Navistar, Cummins and other U.S. companies to withdraw from South Africa, spare parts had to be imported from nearby Botswana and elsewhere. American truckmakers were “officially” allowed to return to South Africa in 1995, and within two years attained a 40 percent market share. In 1997, South Africa’s vehicle distributor titan Imperial Group bought a stake in Tyco, and took it over in 1997. International Trucks Southern Africa (NITSA) was formed in 2008, talking over the importer/distributor role from Imperial and adding SKD (semi-knocked down) manufacturing at its new $40 million Apex assembly plant in Benoni outside Johannesburg. In 2013, Navistar subsidiary NC2 South Africa decided to end production at its Apex assembly plant (which was assembling 7600 and 9800 models). Navistar is now only providing parts and service out of its Gaoteng office while it looks for a buyer willing to carry on the South African business at the very least for after-sales support while assuming all financial responsibilities. As of 2010, around 10,000 Navistar trucks had been sold in South Africa (mostly 9800s). The total population including gray market trucks is around 12,000 units. Footnote: While an American in South Africa might be pleasantly surprised by the country’s beauty, they will probably be shocked at the sight of seeing the highways highly populated with late model American cab-over-engine (COE) International 9800i and Freightliner Argosy heavy trucks. They typically run 14,000lb to 16,000lb front axles and 46,000lb drive axles, paired with 315/80R22.5 rubber. .

In 1973, an assembly plant was briefly set up in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. After taking a 33 percent stake in Dutch truckmaker DAF that same year, International Harvester began importing right-hand drive variants of DAF's new FT2800 into South Africa with Cummins E290 and DAF powerplants paired with Fuller and ZF transmissions respectively, and selling them under the International brand. International Harvester owned a stake in DAF reaching 37.5 percent from 1973 thru 1983, many years before Paccar acquired DAF in 1996. Ref. http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/39077-millionth-daf-truck-manufactured-in-eindhoven/?p=280700 .

An often forgotten fact is that International Harvester once owned a stake in DAF. I-H purchased a 33 percent stake in financially struggling DAF in 1973, later increasing its position to 37.5 percent. DAF-powered PayStar vocational trucks were sold in Europe, while International-badged DAF FT2800 tractors were sold in South Africa. International Harvester then acquired UK truckmaker Seddon Atkinson in 1974. In 1980, I-H purchased a 35% stake in Spanish truckmaker Pegaso’s parent company Enasa Group, and together they formed "Pegaso-Internatonal" in which I-H held a 65% stake. I-H sold its Pegaso stake as well as Seddon Atkinson to Enasa in 1983. Also in 1983, I-H sold its stake in DAF. This concluded the company's attempt to establish a presence in the European truck market. .

UPS never minded paying for a product that saved them money, And Mack Truck's patented Dynamax wet clutch (designated CL-72 and CL-721) did. The Dynamax clutch was an option available to all customers but it actually came to be because UPS demanded it, initially in the F-model from 1970 and later in the MH (in those days, when UPS spoke, Mack listened). It was produced for Mack Trucks by Rockford Clutch Corp., and they lasted nearly forever. Clutch engagement took some getting used to but I wish more customers had tried it. The long life more than offset the added purchase cost. Mack basically worked with Rockford to very successfully adapt their wet clutch technology for off-highway construction machinery to the heavy truck application. The new Voith VIAB is a combination wet clutch and retarder. The clutch will, like Mack's Dynamax, last almost forever. VIAB allows for wear-free starting AND braking. Watch your bottom line grow, and your accountant smile. http://www.voith.com/en/products-services/power-transmission/turbo-retarder-clutch-viab-12877.html

Thank you very much Dave. My pleasure. To date, I have not read of discussion on purchaser refunds. This has been going on for 14 years, which would complicate a refund scheme.

Press Release / February 25, 2015 On Wednesday, February 25th, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte unveiled the millionth Eindhoven-produced DAF truck. He then presented the truck to Mr. Bálint Révész from the Hungarian transport company bearing the same name, which specializes in bulk and tanker transport. Since the early thirties the "van Doorne's AanhangwagenFabriek" (semi-trailer factory) had focused on the production of trailers, but in 1949 the company introduced its first truck chassis and this was why the company name was changed to "van Doorne's Automobile Factory. A new factory was built on the Geldropseweg in Eindhoven for the production of trucks. In 1955 the 10,000th truck rolled of the assembly line and in 1964 the 50,000th. The 250,000th followed in 1984, the 500,000th in 1999 and in 2007 the 750,000th. The first DAF truck was sold on September 1, 1949 and that year a total of 150 trucks left the factory in Eindhoven. A year later there were more than a thousand. A stark contrast to the 36,000 trucks that DAF produced in 2014. Recognition for employees DAF is one of the most successful truck manufacturers in Europe and is market leader in the Netherlands, Great Britain and Hungary. The basis for further growth is a comprehensive product range, which during the last two years has been completely renewed with a view to compliance with the Euro 6 emission legislation. Simultaneously, important innovations were introduced in the Eindhoven factory, where trucks are built to order and where currently 122 heavy and medium trucks roll off the assembly line each day. "We are very honored that Prime Minister Rutte has officially unveiled the millionth DAF truck manufactured in Eindhoven ," says Harrie Schippers, President and CEO of DAF Trucks N.V. “That is also due recognition for the 5,000 employees in Eindhoven, who daily give their all to supply our customers with trucks and services of the highest quality.” Millionth for Révész from Hungary One of those customers is Révész Group from Hungary, with a fleet of 480 vehicles specializing in international bulk and tank transport. "We are very honored to receive the millionth Eindhoven-manufactured truck to add to our fleet," said owner and CEO, Bálint Révész. "Our trucks drive an average of 130,000 kilometers per year and reliability and low operating costs are our main buying criteria, not to mention the highest driver comfort. DAF knows how best to combine all of these requirements, which is why our fleet consists of almost 100% DAFs. " Prime Minister Mark Rutte said in his speech that DAF's success proves that the manufacturing industry in the Netherlands certainly has a future. Rutte: "The millionth DAF truck manufactured in Eindhoven is the millionth piece of evidence that the prescription of the brothers Van Doorne still works. Continue to innovate, continue to grow and above all continue to invest in knowledge and people who are proud of the product they make and the company where they work. Innovation and craftsmanship go hand in hand here. " Related Media: http://www.daf.com/en/news-and-media/articles/global/2015/q1/25-02-2015-prime-minister-rutte-unveils-millionth-truck-manufactured-in-eindhoven 85 Years of DAF: http://www.daf.com/en/about-daf/daf-history

Autoreview / No.2 2015 Russian truckmaker KamAZ has been chosen to provide Russia's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with additional trucks for humanitarian aid supply. The trucks, model 43118 6x6 rigids and 65117 6x4 rigids, feature Cummins ISBe and ISLe engines, Cummins Fleetguard filtration, Euro-4 selective catalytic reduction (SCR) exhaust after-treatment from Cummins Emission Solutions, and ZF 16-speed Ecosplit transmissions. For more information: http://trucks.autoreview.ru/_archive/section/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=143798&SECTION_ID=8050

Heavy Duty Trucking / February 24, 2015 Peterbilt has plans to expand its manufacturing facility in Denton, Texas after the Denton City Council approved an eight-year, 70% tax abatement for the facility's production, according to a report in the Denton Record-Chronicle. Peterbilt will break ground in the spring. The expansion is being done to increase production by improving the shipping/receiving and material handling process at the facility which produces heavy-duty conventional truck models. In response to the report, Leon Handt, assistant general manager of operations at Peterbilt said that the company is “pleased with the City Council’s vote and we look forward to breaking ground for the expansion.” “Peterbilt is proud to be the largest private employer in Denton County and we enjoy a positive working relationship with the city and county of Denton,” said Handt. “This expansion will allow us to continue to grow and increase the efficiencies of our operations.”

Transport Topics / February 25, 2015 Daimler Trucks said it expects “significant profit” this year and projects a 10% increase in its North American heavy- and medium-duty truck sales. The OEM said it nearly reached its 2015 target of 500,000 trucks worldwide last year, selling about 496,000 trucks, its highest level since 2006. It is targeting sales of 700,000 units in 2020 while projecting a midterm earnings before interest and taxes rate of 8%, Stuttgart, Germany-based Daimler said in a Feb. 23 statement. European markets in 2015 likely will remain flat compared with last year, and Daimler said it expects a slight drop in Japan. It projects a 10% increase in Indonesia and said the “weak period in Brazil probably will persist” with a decline of about 10%. The company, which makes Freightliner and Western Star trucks in North America, touted its “fully integrated powertrain” in that region and said that one in four of its Freightliner Cascadia models sold has an integrated powertrain with a combination of engine, transmission and axles from a single source. “We will consistently focus on our strengths,” Wolfgang Bernhard, chief of Daimler Trucks, said in the statement. “We are very well-positioned worldwide and offer our customers trucks that are best tailored to their requirements with leading technologies . . . [and] will consistently push forward our platform strategy.”

Transport Topics / February 25, 2015 Two current and two former African-American employees of Daimler Trucks North America have filed a $9.5 million suit against the truck maker, saying they suffered job discrimination, threats of violence and harassment. The action was filed in the Circuit Court of Oregon in Multnomah County, which includes Portland and DTNA’s headquarters. Daimler said in a statement: “As per company policy, DTNA will not comment or speculate on pending or active legal proceedings.” The plaintiffs — three men and one woman — filed the suit Feb. 24. In the complaint, the three male workers said white co-workers often used racial slurs, and the female employee said she was asked “demeaning” questions about her weight, blood pressure and risk of diabetes. The four previously received a right-to-sue letter from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. In Oregon, such discrimination cases can go to Boli, as the bureau is known, before proceeding to court. The workers were among 11 who filed civil rights complaints with Boli against Daimler. In January, the company settled with six of the workers for a total of $2.4 million in damages. The other worker has not filed a suit. Under the January agreement, Daimler said it would take steps to ensure a harassment- and discrimination-free workplace for current and future employees. The truck maker said it would: install a civil rights complaint hotline; institute supervisor logbooks for any future incidents; conduct mandatory supervisor trainings handled by Boli or a Boli-approved entity; and provide training for at least two designated managers to conduct internal investigations to address any future incidents. “DTNA has fully cooperated with the Boli investigation, including providing access to current and former employees and supervisors and access to documentation pertaining to these civil rights complaints,” Daimler said in a statement. The current suit alleges that the hostile and unjust work atmosphere the employees endured dates to 1993. The workers said in their suit that when they reported incidents of job discrimination, threats and harassment to company executives, the complaints went unheeded.

It's always great to recall Mack Trucks' superb "Dynamax" wet clutch.

My friend, it's good to catch up with you again. If you have a moment, I still have those two questions to ask you. Do you feel that the acquisition of Mack Trucks by a foreign truckmaker was good for America? Do you feel the dominance of America's truck industry by foreign truckmakers is in the best interest of the United States?

Now the question is, what will the US government do about the truck price fixing that occurred here in America ??? Does anyone for even a moment believe that two of the guilty parties, Volvo and Daimler, the two truckmakers that dominate the North American market, were not together price fixing in America as just as they were in Europe ??? And throw in Paccar as well, whose DAF unit was found guilty by the European Union Commission. I'm guessing that Ustian decided against Navistar participating, but in knowing of the illegal U.S. truck pricing cartel and not telling the feds......he is still guilty. In summary, let's see how the feds proceed with this............. This is one of those rare moments when the veil is lifted..........albeit briefly.