kscarbel

The various models of Mack rail buses include the AB, ACP, ACR, ACX, AQ, AS, BK and FCD. There also were AH and AR rail buses but I have no informaton on those two models.

I have a wealth of information on the Mack FCD, the pinnacle of Mack rail bus development. Always leading America forward with cutting edge technology, Mack Trucks was a pioneer in the United States of the concept now commonly known as "light rail". Envisioned by Fred Dumaine of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad and developed into reality by Mack Trucks, the advanced Mack FCD was the first modern example of "light rail" in the United States.

No, those are Mack "CR" trolley buses (CR-3S), not the 6-CQ-4S Mack hybrid bus. The Mack CR trolley bus was an immensely popular product for Mack Trucks. Some major users were Baltimore, Wilkes-Barre, Cincinnatti, Toledo, Wilmington, Kansas City, Portland and Winnipeg, Canada. (I'll post photographs if/when BMT allows me to post pictures again) Trolley buses were powered by overhead power lines like a street car. They remain very popular today overseas because they are low maintenance, zero emissions vehicles. _______________________________________ Those rail buses of the Wilkes-Barre and Hazleton Railway are Mack "BK" rail buses (#204 and #206) in 1932.

The first truck was delivered in July 1959 and was still being tested at Aberbeen Proving Grounds as of March 1960. The final prototype was still undergoing long-term testing in the mid-sixties.

The company that build Autocar Xpeditors (in Hagerstown, Indiana), Autocar LLC, is owned by a private investment and holding company outside Chicago (Highland Park) called GVW Group that is headed by South African. It's an embarassment to the Autocar name to be on the grille of a White Xpeditor. Interestingly, GVW was able to convince Bendix to produce the White Xpeditor cabs for them (in Huntington, Indiana). Bendix had never produced truck cabs before. I believe Orrville has been the cab supplier. When Volvo wanted to buy Mack, the US government wouldn't allow Volvo to own both the Mack MR and the White Xpeditor, and have a monopoly on the US refuse market. Volvo then agreed to sell the Xpeditor model to GVW Group (Grand Vehicle Works Holdings LLC). ________________________________________________ Fleet Owner / July 26, 2001 Volvo agrees to sell Xpeditor To comply with a deal it entered into with the U.S. Dept. of Justice when it acquired Renault VI and Mack Trucks Inc. in December 2000, Volvo Trucks North America Inc. said today it will sell its Xpeditor truck product line to Grand Vehicle Works Holdings LLC. The agreement involves the assembly and sale of low cab-over-engine (LCOE) heavy-duty Class 8 trucks and unique aftermarket parts. As part of the deal, Volvo will license the Autocar truck brand name to Autocar LLC, a newly formed subsidiary of Grand Vehicle Works Holdings, which will use it to market the LCOE products. The trucks included in the deal are the Xpeditor models WX and WXLL. In addition to the license for the Autocar brand name, the terms of the agreement include model-specific designs, tooling and other assets, including component tooling located at supplier facilities. Upon completion of the sales transaction, there will be an up to 24-month transition period during which Volvo will continue to assemble LCOEs for Grand Vehicle Works Holdings on a contract basis. The Class 8 LCOE segment represents less than 3% of the total heavy truck market in North America, and 8% of Volvo Trucks North America's sales. This divestiture will not materially impact the volume or production capabilities of Volvo's New River Valley, VA truck assembly facility. According to the OEM, no layoffs will result directly from the closing of the transaction.

My friend, I have several very good photographs. But since a few weeks ago, the website is no longer allowing me to post pictures. When BMT allows me to post pictures once more, I'll quickly add the supporting photographs. I apologize for the inconvenience.

You have an extremely good point and one that I brought up previously when mentioning the Australian Metro-Liner tractor. Given the popularity of short-nosed day cab tractors for regional LTL and local delivery, it’s a mystery why the Mack Metro-Liner tractor isn’t offered in America. We see the equivalent short hood Volvo VNM daycab on a daily basis. Is the reason because Volvo Group doesn’t want their Mack brand to steal market share from the one Volvo model that has any meaningful sales numbers? While the Pinnacle has a 117.3” (2,979mm) BBC, the Metro-Liner has a 105.1” (2,670mm) BBC, superior to the Volvo VNM’s 113” (2,870mm) BBC for enhanced maneuverability in around town delivery and on the job site. Both trucks use the Volvo VN series frame (rebadged as Mack “Advantage”). However, while the 113” BBC Volvo VNM daycab is available with the Volvo D11 (MP7) and D13 (MP8), the 105” BBC Metro-Liner is only offered with the Cummins ISL. Essentially sharing the same frame, certainly the Metro-Liner could also be fitted with the Volvo D11 as the VNM is. Volvo made a haphazard attempt at selling the vocational version of the Metro-Liner in America years ago, but it was such a poorly planned execution that most people don’t know. With the success of “baby 8s” in the vocational market and the need for such a truck to meet municipal bids (the mismatched Granite medium heavy-duty isn’t selling), one once again wonders why the Metro-Liner hasn’t been launched into the U.S. market and promoted with the same vigor as the Pinnacle and Granite.

Unlike Mack's older style gear shift knob design which was serviceable with an o-ring kit (part-no. 14RC1131), the shift lever knob for the T-2180 (with the "flipper style" range selector and "rocker type" splitter switch) is not serviceable and must be replaced as an assembly.

In 1959, legendary fire apparatus manufacturer Mack Trucks designed and produced several prototypes of a revolutionary new high mobility fire/crash truck at the request of the United States Air Force. Designed with a cross-country capability to reach remote crash sites, the Mack MB-3 had a forward-control, cab-over-engine configuration and was the first Mack Truck to have an 8x8 drive axle configuration. The roof of the cab was fitted with a circular hose storage bin (almost resembling an oversize machine gun mount) from which coiled water hose could be easily drawn by firemen from any possible angle. A pivoting remotely controlled foam nozzle was mounted on the front of the truck. A rear-mounted V-8 engine drove power thru an automatic transmission and high-mounted centrally located transfer case. The forward and rear differentials were classic examples of Mack Truck’s engineering expertise. A single differential drove each bogie via 4 driveshafts exiting the differential in an “X” pattern (see photo 9 below). Mack designed a cutting edge fully independent suspension for the MB-3 utilizing a torsion bar suspension. Utilizing Mack's brilliantly engineered king pin-driven portal type axle design, the final driveshafts were positioned above the hub centers. The MB-3's unique portal axles operated similarly to the king pin-driven triple-reduction front drive axles on the Mack NO/NQ (model FA49) and M123/M125 (model FA491). The hub reduction design eliminated the need for universal joints within the hubs, reduced stress on the differentials and provided extremely high ground clearance. The lowest point of the truck was the sided panels at 14-1/4 inches. Though all 8 hubs were driven via the king pins, only the front two axles pivoted for steering. The brake drums were mounted inboard on each side of the differentials, rather than at the wheel hubs (Note photos 6, 7 and 9 below). This arrangement located the drums at a higher location where they could remaining dry while fording water. The MB-3 had a 128 inch wheelbase (tandem center to tandem center), and weighed in at 21,435 pounds. The truck overall was 22 feet long, 122.5 inches tall and 96 inches wide. The approach and departure angles were superb, at 55.5 and 43.5 degrees respectively.

A spectacular example of Mack Australia's Value-Liner (with the V-8 and sloped hood). Congratulations. http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/30016-mack-australia-the-other-value-liner/

Ordered by the U.S. Army in 1942 (under contract W-670-ORD-2159), Mack Trucks delivered the first prototype T19 in November 1942 (USA W4015647) and the second in April 1943 (USA W4015648). The T19 had a rear mounted 572 cubic inch 215 horsepower Continental R6572 engine (same as the M5 high-speed tractor) paired with a Mack synchronized four-speed transmission and two-speed transfer case. The Mack T19 was designed to transport 14 soldiers as an armored personnel carrier (APC), or tow the army’s 105mm howitzer with its gun crew and ammunition, at speeds up to 38 miles per hour. The Mack T19 was also test-mounted with the army’s 81mm mortar. With ¼” thick hull armor, the Mack T19 weighed in at 23,292 pounds (combat loaded at 28,800 pounds). The mounting arrangement for the 15-ton front winch was a brilliant example of Mack engineering. Positioned off-center, the winch was concealed within the front armor by a lift-up cover rather than mounted on the front bumper. This novel mounting arrangement improved the vehicle’s approach angle while reducing overall length.

The Mack T1 was an experimental gun motor carriage featuring the 40mm Bofors semi-automatic anti-aircraft gun. Built in 1941, the T1 utilized Mack’s T3 three-quarter track platform. As a pre-production prototype, no armor was installed. The Mack T1 was well liked but the Army was frustrated with the Swedish gun*. (Note the Mack Trucks vehicle identification plate on the right side of the steering column) _____________________________________________ * In order to supply both the Army and Navy with much greater numbers of the guns, Chrysler built 60,000 Bofors guns and 120,000 barrels through the war, at half the original projected cost, and filled the Army's needs by 1943. Chrysler engineers introduced numerous changes to improve mass production, eventually reducing the overall time needed to build a gun by half. Most of these changes were in production methods rather than the design of the gun itself. There were many difficulties in producing the Bofors guns within the United States, beyond their complexity (illustrated by the use of 2,000 sub-contractors in 330 cities and 12 Chrysler factories to make and assemble the parts). The drawings were in metric, in Swedish and read from the first angle of projection, with lower precision than needed for mass production. Chrysler had to translate to English, fix absolute dimensions, and switch to the third angle of projection. The U.S. Navy considered the original Bofors Model 1936 design to be completely unsuitable for the mass production techniques required to meet its needs. Firstly, the Swedish Bofors guns were designed using metric measurement units, a system all but unknown in the USA at that time. And often, the dimensions on the Swedish drawings didn’t match the actual measurements taken from the weapons. The Swedish Bofors gun also required a great deal of hand work in order to make the finished weapon. For example, Swedish blueprints had many notes on them such as "file to fit at assembly" and "drill to fit at assembly," all of which took much production time in order to implement. Thirdly, the Swedish gun mountings were manually operated, while the U.S. Navy required power-operated mountings in order to attain the fast elevation and training speeds necessary for engaging modern aircraft. Another concern was the Bofors guns being air-cooled, thus limiting their ability to fire long bursts, a necessity for most naval anti-aircraft engagements. And finally, the navy rejected the Swedish ammunition design. Deeming it not to be bore safe, the fuse was found to be too sensitive for normal shipboard use and its overall design was determined to be unsuitable for mass production. US manufacturers made radical changes to the Swedish design in order to minimize these problems. As a result, the Bofors guns and mountings produced in the United States bore little resemblance their Swedish ancestors.

What didn’t Mack Trucks design and produce? While many are aware of the company’s off-highway mining trucks, trailers, locomotives, diverse range of rail cars and the best fire apparatus in the business, few realize how involved Mack Trucks once was with the United States military. Again and again, the U.S. Army turned to the engineering expertise of Mack Trucks for some of its most challenging projects. Previously, I mentioned the little known but extremely impressive post-WW2 Mack T54 five-ton tactical cargo truck (http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/15604-mack-military-truck/page-3). Today I’d like to introduce you to the Mack half-tracks. Ordered by the U.S. Army from Mack Trucks in December 1940, Mack Trucks’ T1 and T3 "three-quarter track” trucks were the result of a U.S. Army Ordinance Committee proposal calling for longer tracks than the M2/M3 half-tracks then in service to achieve the enhanced mobility necessary for pulling the army’s 105mm howitzer cross country. Delivered to the army in October 1941, the Mack T3 with its advanced raked superstructure was the first "three-quarter track” truck produced by a U.S. manufacturer. Unlike the army’s M2 and M3 conventional “half-tracks”, Mack’s three quarter track design was far less likely to get stuck. For standardization purposes, the Mack T3 utilized the rear suspension (vertical volute spring) and track assembly as the M2 light tank. Power from the 192 horsepower Mack EY707 engine (with twin carburetors) was directed thru a mid-ship mounted five-speed transmission and two-speed auxiliary transmission. A front-mounted winch was rated at 14 tons. The T3 weighed in at 20,720 pounds. (When BMT allows me to post pictures once more, I'll add the supporting photographs. I apologize for the inconvenience)

I do have a picture, but from a few weeks ago, the website is no longer allowing me to post pictures. I recall showing something like 3.91mb of available space, and then abruptly I began seeing the message "You have exceeded your allotted disk space for attachments ". Given that disc space is rediculously inexpensive nowadays, I'm puzzled.

What with hybrid (alternative fuel) vehicles being front page news now, I thought it fitting to note that hybrid technology was nothing new for Mack Trucks. Always leading with cutting edge technology, Mack Trucks introduced its first hybrid vehicle in 1935. Mack Trucks delivered a model 6-CQ-4S hybrid transit bus to Public Service Coordinated Transport of New Jersey who operated it as unit #3100. Public Service began developing the ASV (All Service Vehicle) gas/electric bus concept with trolley poles and contactor equipment in late 1933. This configuration, which was legally considered a streetcar and therefore immune to municipal consents required of motor buses in New Jersey, offered standard bus flexibility in obstacle avoidance and eliminated the need for investment in extensive track and internal wiring at bus garages. As a bidder for an expected large number of units, Mack built the ASV prototype at a cost of $13,000. Although Mack Trucks did not receive the order from Public Service Coordinated Transport (Yellow Coach won the ASV order and delivered 356 model 729 ASVs between 1935 and 1938), the company found other customers for its advanced model 6-CQ-4S hybrid transit bus and went on to sell almost 300 examples to eleven different operators nationwide from 1935 thru 1938. Mack Trucks added the ‘4S’ designation and special equipment to a model "CQ" municipal transit bus to create its first hybrid chassis. Most Mack CQs were 31-passenger municipal transit buses with “CF” engines and four windows between the doors. However the CQ hybrid seated 35, had five windows between the doors and a “CT” motor.

I hear you. But thinking of on-road LTL operators, and the falling availability of skilled truckdrivers, the application for the bullet-proof Maxidyne-Maxitorque 5-speed concept remains bright.

Transport Topics / October 8, 2013 Navistar received almost 5,900 orders for Classes 6 through 8 trucks in September, the highest monthly number since 2011. Over 2,100 of the orders were for Class 6 or 7 DuraStar trucks with Cummins ISB 6.7-liter engines. “September orders marked Navistar’s highest monthly order intake for Class 6/7 vehicles in almost two years, which strengthens our belief that the ISB will be the catalyst for improving our medium-duty business,” Bill Kozek, president of North America truck and parts for Navistar, said in the statement. Navistar estimated its Class 8 order share to have risen to 17.4% in September, up from 16.6% in August. Industry wide, new Class 8 orders rose 27.4 percent in September over the previous year, the eighth straight month of year-over-year growth. North American truck makers received almost 20,100 orders in September, the strongest total since May and up from 15,780 in the same month a year ago. On a sequential basis, September’s order intake rose 2.3% from August’s total of 19,649. Through three quarters, cumulative 2013 orders stand at 189,505, a 15.3% gain compared with 164,401 in the first nine months of 2012.

No, not really. Those familiar with the former Mack spec sheets can tell you that the minimalist information now shown on the website is far from what the industry standard spec sheets had. This minimalist information direction is signature Volvo.

Certainly you can upgrade to an on/off fan clutch. Give the folks at Horton a call.

Indeed, in the days of Mack Trucks, vendor power was available to meet the demands of all customers. Ninety percent of Ryder's Macks were powered by Cummins engines (Give the man what he wants). Air Products placed a large order for Silver 6V-92s. Vendor engines included Allis-Chalmers, Buda, Caterpillar, Chrysler, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Hall-Scott, Hercules, LeRoi, Scania (formerly Scania-Vabis) and Waukesha.

I realize that Fiat owns 50 percent of Italy's VM Motori. (The new DOHC intercooled VGT 2.0-liter diesel engine offering in the 2014 Chevrolet Cruze delivering 46 mpg highway was designed by VM Motori although it's produced by GM/Daewoo in South Korea. But ironically, GM now plans to sell their half to Fiat, giving the Italians full ownership) But I think Fiat's Sergio Marchionne is making a mistake here. The VM Motori engine, while fine for future Jeep brand products, is not going to promote pickup truck sales like a Cummins engine would. In the American pickup segment, and particularly at Dodge owing to the history, it has to be Cummins. That name speaks volumes to would-be buyers. And of course, Cummins is the only diesel in the US pickup segment with a stellar track record.

MP10-555M Maxidyne? Putting the legendary Maxidyne name on a Swedish Volvo D16 is quite a stretch. Unless the engine was designed by Mack Trucks engineers, it isn't a Maxidyne. The high-torque rise Maxidyne engine of course revolutionized the truck industry by allowing the use of a 5-speed transmission for on-highway operation (6-speed for vocational). But today, Volvo doesn't even produce a 5-speed Maxitorque transmission. _________________________ Anyone else notice the dumbing-down of the Mack website? No more truck and component spec sheets. Specifications, why would the customer want to know? This is the Volvo way my friends, putting out as little information as possible.

Fleet Owner / October 3, 2013 Cummins today unveiled its new ISV5.0, a new 5-liter V8 diesel that extends the engine maker’s range to cover various North American commercial light- and medium-duty vehicle applications, up through Class 5 GVW ratings, with a powerplant that the company said is engineered to “deliver performance and a low total cost of ownership”. The engine will soon be available as an option in the Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra. Cummins said the ISV5.0 will be aimed at customers in the U.S. and Canada and will be certified to the near-zero NOx and PM emissions levels required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. At launch— slated for the fourth quarter of next year— the engine will also meet federal greenhouse gas (GHG) requirements through 2016 as well as 2015 Air Resources Board (ARB) standards, including on-board diagnostics. Applications for the new engine will include step vans and medium-duty trucks as well as school buses and Class A RVs that had typically been spec’ed with gasoline-fueled engines. “Cummins ISV5.0 creates new opportunities for our OEM customers as a compact and lightweight engine that delivers best-in-class fuel efficiency and total cost of ownership,” stated Dave Crompton, vice president and general manager - Engine Business. “Many of our OEM customers have asked for a Cummins alternative for gasoline or other small-displacement automotive diesel engines,” he continued. “The ISV5.0 represents the next dimension in fuel economy and performance as Cummins continues to broaden our on-highway product line.” Crompton said the engine has been designed to easily fit where a comparable V8 or V10 gasoline engine was previously installed. He explained that multiple front-end accessory drive options handle the common automotive accessories required by a wide spectrum of applications, including the alternator, air compressor, A/C compressor and hydraulic pump. Crompton noted that these available options “coupled with Cummins integration expertise minimize OEM engineering time and vehicle retooling costs. Together, the OEM and Cummins complete a rigorous installation quality assessment, ensuring that the highest-quality product is delivered to our mutual customers.” A key design goal for the ISV5.0 was to deliver “maximum durability in a lightweight package” as well as to ensure “excellent” excellent noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) characteristics. To provide that durability, the engine boasts a compacted graphite iron (CGI) cylinder block, forged steel crankshaft, high-strength aluminum alloy heads and composite valve covers. Per Cummins, those features along with dual overhead camshaft, contribute to the engine’s MVH performance. Crompton also pointed out that high-injection pressures from the latest Bosch High Pressure Common Rail (HPCR) fuel system and piezo fuel injectors provide precise fuel control for optimized in-cylinder combustion. He said that leads to better fuel efficiency and reduced emissions. With multiple injection events driven by integrated electronic controls, the HPCR fuel system along with the Cummins VGT Variable Geometry Turbocharger “contributes to a very impressive peak torque of 560 lb-ft and quick throttle response. Ratings from 200 to 275 horsepower will be available. “This engine delivers torque where you live vs. what is capable from a gasoline engine,” pointed out Mike Taylor, director—custom engineering. “The result is lower engine speeds, which males driving less tiring and more productive for the operator. And the ISV5.0 provides a lower total cost of ownership due to its better fuel efficiency versus a gasoline engine and its expected higher resale value.” Other key features of the ISV5.0 include: An advanced ceramic glow plug system for us in cold weather that significantly reduces start time and electrical current draw, reducing vehicle charging system requirements. The ceramic glow plugs are designed to last the life of the engine, with no maintenance.A two-stage fuel filter system that features the latest NanoNet media from Cummins Filtration to ensure that the HPCR fuel system is fully protected against fuel contamination. NanoNet's unique construction provides lower fuel-flow restriction and traps greater than 99% of all particles as small as 4 microns.A high-efficiency coalescing filter for eliminating crankcase hydrocarbon emissions and oil mist, further adding to the clean-engine credentials of the ISV5.0. Proven air handling and emissions control technology that draws on Cummins extensive emissions technology expertise. Cummins VGT Turbocharger, cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) and Cummins Emission Solutions Aftertreatment System, featuring a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), result in near-zero oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions while delivering better performance and fuel economy.“Cummins has integrated the latest technologies in the ISV5.0 to deliver performance, fuel efficiency and durability in a highly sociable package,” remarkedJim Katzenmeyer, executive engineer – V8 Program. “Every day, drivers will appreciate the smooth, quiet operation of the ISV5.0 “In addition,” he continued, “the fuel savings offered by the ISV5.0 compared to gasoline engines will result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions– a great environmental benefit.” “The support of this engine will easily be integrated into Cummins distributors and authorized dealer shops, and into customer operations with fleets that are running the broad range of dependable Cummins power,” noted Jeff Jones, vice president - North American Engine Business. As for the sales outlook on an engine that will enter production roughly a year from now, Jeff Caldwell, general manager - Pickup Truck Business, told FleetOwner that he “expects that OEMs will all dip a toe in this [the ISV5.0} to offer it. We know that with is engine, we’ll deliver a lower installed cost for OEMs and a lower total cost of ownership compared to gasoline engines as well as better NVH performance. And that NVH factor is a big benefit—this engine is quite, a real whisperer.” The ISV5.0 will be manufactured at Cummins’ Columbus, Indiana engine plant.

Forbes / September 27, 2013 Truck operators in California are complaining that several new rules issued by the state’s Air Resources Board (CARB) are either too costly or impossible to comply with, given current engine and fuel technology. In at least one case, industry charges, a diesel soot filter mandated by CARB caused a major fire in Washington state, leading to the destruction of nearly 4,000 acres of forest and grassland. CARB is phasing in a requirement that all trucks manufactured between 2000 and 2004, with gross weight of more than 26,000 pounds, be fitted with diesel particulate filters (DPFs). The devices trap soot, ash and toxic metals, cutting down on noxious emissions. Vehicles that fail to comply with the rule will be banned from operating in California, with violators subject to fines ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 a day. Truckers claim that the filters don’t integrate well with older vehicle models. They have been known to shut down engines and result in increased equipment downtime, said Michael Shaw, spokesman for the California Trucking Association (CTA). The filters need to be periodically regenerated, or cleaned out. The 2011 fire in Washington was set off by sparks escaping from a CARB-approved filter that had gone into an uncontrolled regeneration cycle, Shaw said. CARB immediately had the suspect filter removed from the market. Erik White, chief of the agency’s Mobile Source Operations Division, said the particular model contained a metal substrate that can melt under high temperatures. Most diesel filters consist of heat-resistant ceramics. “We felt that the right course of action was to cease any future sales of that device,” said White. But CARB insists that all other filters on the market are safe, and essential to reducing diesel emissions from older trucks. In cases where a filter causes engine shutdown, the reason is nearly always the failure of truck operators to follow the manufacturer’s maintenance procedures, said White. “When we follow up, and they incorporate those changes into their practices, we don’t see repeat problems,” he said. Shaw said the filter retrofits “are not going to be a long-term viable option.” What CARB really wants is for truckers to scrap their older models and buy newer, cleaner-burning vehicles. In the meantime, operators are faced with a cost of $15,000 or more for each filter installed on an existing unit. Many older trucks aren’t worth more than that. CTA estimates industry’s total cost of compliance at $1 billion a year. The CARB rules come with several financing mechanisms to help truck owner-operators pay for the retrofits, including both outright grants and loan guarantees. Passage of state Proposition 1B in 2008 made available money for the purchase of cleaner trucks. Another measure earmarked $10 million in loan guarantees, and White said CARB is recommending that the state invest an additional $8 million to extend funding through the end of the year. “We will see an extension of the program,” said Shaw, “but more needs to be done.” The trucking industry is also upset over CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program, which mandates the increased use of low-carbon transportation fuels. Shaw said the standard “far exceeds the technological capability of engines we have in the fleet today. Currently, even the most modern engines cannot deal with more than a level of 20-percent biodiesel.” What’s more, he said, the use of biodiesel fuel at CARB-mandated levels would violate manufacturer warranties. CARB replied that it isn’t specifying which alternative fuels need to be used. And it refutes industry claims that there aren’t enough of them around to meet the LCFS. “These assertions tend to overlook the existence of low-carbon-intensity natural gas and electricity as fuel sources,” the agency said in a statement. In addition, CARB said, industry is dramatically under-estimating the amount of biodiesel that can be produced, while ignoring the growth of low-carbon sources such as corn oil and waste oil. “In short,” said CARB, “these negative predictions generally assume there will be no technological development and investment in alternative fuels, which is an assumption already being proved wrong.” Yet another source of friction between CARB and truckers is the agency’s mandate for the installation of trailer skirts, to cut down on aerodynamic drag. The plastic or metal panels are placed between the wheels of the tractor and trailer. In addition, the agency is requiring the adoption of low-rolling-resistance tires to reduce road friction. The problem, in industry’s view, lies in CARB’s assessment of the benefits of that equipment. Shaw claimed the agency is basing its calculations on trucks driving at 62.5 miles per hour — seven and a half miles faster than the legal speed limit — 80 percent of the time. In reality, he said, carriers travel at 55 MPH about 40 percent of the time. As a result, said Shaw, CARB’s estimate of $3 billion in efficiency benefits delivered by the trailer skirts and special tires is really a cost to industry of $4 billion. In a statement, CARB replied that it “knows of no study arriving at those conclusions.” It asserted that skirts cut fuel consumption by 5.9% to 7.4% at test speeds between 60 and 62 MPH. But that’s still over the 55 MPH speed limit enforced on many of the state’s highways. In any case, the agency is sticking by its rules. Last summer, it released a study which credited the agency’s air-quality programs, especially those covering diesel fuel and engines, for an annual reduction of up to 13 percent in California’s carbon dioxide emissions.

Bloomberg / September 27, 2013 Regulators determined to let Mexican trucks on U.S. roads under a trade deal have downplayed safety shortcomings with companies in a border-crossing pilot program, according to safety, trucking and labor groups. Trucking authorities violated their own rules by letting one company keep operating over the border after its safety rating was lowered, and overlooked other carriers’ failures to disclose affiliations with unsafe operators, according to protests filed with the U.S. government by advocates, trade groups and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union. “They need these companies, they need the numbers,” said Fred McLuckie, director of federal legislation and regulation for the Teamsters, which unsuccessfully sued to stop regulators from allowing Mexican trucks. “They’re looking the other way.” President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon signed an agreement in March 2011 to end $2.4 billion in Mexican tariffs on U.S. products, in exchange for opening the border to Mexican trucks meeting American safety and environmental regulations. The tariffs were imposed after the U.S. canceled a previous program to allow Mexican trucks. U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico fell 26 percent to $5.55 billion in 2009 after the tariffs were imposed on products including wine, pork, apples and onions. They had increased every month in 2008 from the same period a year earlier. Mexican companies allowed into the U.S. under the latest agreement have been cited for thousands of violations, records show. Speaking English One truck belonging to GCC Transporte SA de CV, the company that’s crossed the border most often, was stopped for violations 18 times between August 2012 and August 2013. It was found to have defective or missing axle parts, brake defects, a cracked frame, inoperative signals, oil and grease leaks, non-working lights, windshield-wiper defects and a tire-tread separation. Servicio de Transporte Internacional y Local SA de CV, the Mexican company that’s been inspected the most, was cited for 44 violations on a single day -- July 31, 2013. Citations included tire separations and leaks, oil and grease leaks, inoperative signals and a brake-compressor violation. Its driver-fitness score of 99.2 percent indicates fewer than 1 percent of U.S. carriers have worse records. Almost all of the violations are for drivers who aren’t fluent in English, according to government records. Mexican drivers must be able to read and speak English well enough to understand U.S. highway signs and signals, respond to official inquiries and fill out regulatory reports, according to an April 13, 2011, Federal Register notice. U.S. truck and bus drivers have similar requirements. There have been no fatal crashes involving Mexican trucks in the past two years and one involving injuries, according to regulatory data compiled by Bloomberg. Servicio has been involved in three crashes that resulted in vehicles needing to be towed away, records show. The records don’t say who was at fault. Companies Needed The U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which regulates truck and bus safety, set up a pilot program to help determine whether Mexican companies met the agreement’s requirements. It estimated in 2011 it would need 46 participants to generate enough inspection data to show the Mexican industry was safe enough to fully open U.S. roadways. Almost two years into the three-year border-crossing test, which stemmed from the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, only 13 companies are participating. Opponents of Mexican trucks are making “a ridiculous attempt” to impede the pilot program because they don’t want the border opened, said Porter Corn, a veteran U.S. driver who lives in Mexico and publishes the website Mexico Trucker Online. Special Attention Mexican companies’ safety scores are lowered by paperwork violations that don’t relate to safety, he said in an interview. All of the companies have a clean record on the most important indicator of all -- crashes, Corn said. Opponents “want every Mexican company to be held to a perfect standard,” Corn said. “They’re grasping at straws.” GCC Transporte and Servicio de Transporte Internacional account for almost 80 percent of the border crossings and 82 percent of inspections under the pilot program, according to FMCSA data. GCC accumulated 1,160 vehicle maintenance violations in a two-year period, according to Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a Washington consumer group connected to the insurance industry. Another applicant to the pilot program withdrew when a similar number of violations was disclosed, the group said. GCC’s vehicle-maintenance record places it in the lower 33 percent of carriers in the U.S. While regulators don’t usually intervene at companies not in the lowest 20 percent, they flagged GCC for added attention because of violations within the past year that were enough to take its trucks out of service, the agency’s website indicates. Skepticism Questioned GCC is a subsidiary of Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua SAB de CV, a building products company with operations in Mexico, the U.S. and Bolivia. It maintains a U.S. headquarters in Denver. Enrique Jaurrieta, GCC’s operations manager in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, who is listed as a company contact on documents filed with FMCSA, didn’t respond to two e-mails seeking comment. Servicio, also based in Juarez, ranks in the lowest 4 percent of trucking companies for vehicle maintenance, according to regulatory data. In 7,357 inspections, there were 11,700 violations. It was cited for 1,372 driver-fitness safety violations in the two years ending Aug. 23, according to the trucking regulator’s website. “Advocates cannot fathom why the FMCSA is not extremely concerned with the ability of STIL to adhere to U.S. safety regulations, and why the agency is not more skeptical regarding STIL’s failure to voluntary disclose its affiliates,” the consumer highway safety group said in its public comments when Servicio’s application to the pilot was pending. Sibling Companies Hector Mendoza, Servicio’s president, didn’t respond to two e-mails seeking comment. Maria Garcia, who is listed as an agent for both GCC and Servicio in FMCSA records, didn’t respond to two phone calls and an e-mail seeking comment. Advocates has filed comments with the FMCSA protesting its approvals of seven Mexican companies for the pilot program. One, Tristan Transfer, is part of a brother-sister combination with another company, Trujillo Transfer. Trujillo uses trucks owned by Transportes Cel, which had the worst record for repairs of any U.S. carrier tracked by the FMCSA, Advocates said in its public comments. None of these ties were disclosed in Tristan Transfer’s application, the group said. Tristan trucks have operated in the U.S. 18 times, agency records show. Ruben Martinez Cruz, listed as the company contact on Tristan Transfer’s application, didn’t return a phone call seeking comment. Trujillo Transfer and Transportes Cel didn’t respond to e-mails seeking comment. Nothing Missed Ram Trucking SA de CV of Laredo, Texas, shares a website, a physical address and a manager with Zaro Transportation LLC, a company that has more driver violations than 99.1 percent of the U.S. trucking industry and more maintenance violations than 94.4 percent, according to regulatory data. Ram has crossed the border once during the pilot program. Jorge Gutierrez, who identified himself as Ram’s safety manager, said in an interview that Zaro set up Ram as a separate company with a new truck and separate drivers. The company has a good track record, he said. “They are doing all of the compliance,” Gutierrez said. “They don’t want to miss anything with the U.S. DOT.” Seven of the 13 Mexican companies failed to disclose ties to U.S.-registered companies, and five of those seven have ties to carriers with bad safety records, said Shaun Kildare, research director at Advocates. The regulator’s application for the pilot program states, in English and Spanish, that companies must disclose any relationship they’ve had with another trucking company, broker or freight forwarder in the last three years. Thoroughly Vetted Applicants undergo a rigorous clearance process, and those selected to participate are monitored to ensure they operate safely, said Marissa Padilla, a FMCSA spokeswoman. Mexican companies in the pilot are subject to the same regulatory standards used to determine whether affiliated U.S. carriers are legally tied, Padilla said. “In every case raised, FMCSA thoroughly vetted the ties of the Mexican carrier applying to participate and determined it to be a separate legal entity,” Padilla said. “The agency cannot discriminate against one company based on the record of another.” The trucking regulator’s second-highest official, Bill Bronrott, said in an Aug. 14 letter to Advocates President Jacqueline Gillan that companies in the pilot program have passed exhaustive safety reviews and are operating safely. “To date, the safety record of the participating carriers demonstrates that the protocols built into the pilot program are a success,” Bronrott said. “FMCSA is confident that the program is working as designed.” Rating Lowered Bronrott defended the agency’s decision to allow Transportes Monteblanco SA de CV to remain in the pilot program after having its safety rating lowered from “satisfactory” to a temporary “conditional” after an audit. The rating was returned to “satisfactory” 30 days later. Transportes Monteblanco has crossed the U.S. border 192 times, according to regulatory data. The agency provides all carriers the opportunity to improve their safety ratings by correcting deficiencies, he said in the Aug. 14 letter. Transportes Monteblanco was audited, made changes and is now rated “satisfactory,” Juan Carlos Fuentes, a company manager, said in an e-mail. “We made the corrective actions for the items identified on the period requested for any transport company,” Fuentes said. The performance of an affiliated carrier, by itself, is not generally grounds to deny a Mexican company’s application, Bronrott said in his letter. Reincarnated Carriers Opponents say that counters the agency’s position behind its crackdown in the U.S. on “reincarnated” carriers. Mexican carriers can’t be allowed to use the pilot program “as an opportunity to reincarnate,” said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, based in Grain Valley, Missouri, which joined the protests and lawsuit. “It not only goes against Congress’s intent for the pilot program, but is opposite to the very foundation of our highway safety laws,” Spencer said. The owner-operators and Teamsters lost legal challenges to the program in April. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled Congress decided Mexican truckers with valid commercial licenses were qualified to drive on U.S. roads, the court ruled.