Proposal Pending on Mileage for Heavy-Duty Vehicles

WTF?

They are proposing that the current heavy trucks weighing 80,000 pounds that get 5 - 6 MPG should be able to get 1/3 to possibly 1/2 as much gain over that or roughly 7 - 9 MPG while going 65 MPH?

Yet the new diesel pickups that are 1/10th the wight and 1/4 of the aerodynamic drag are lucky to be getting double that number when traveling the same 65 MPH speed empty?

"For three decades the Federal government has been calculating the fuel economy of cars and light trucks..." And for three decades the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks has generally gone down not up despite the supposed great improvements in engine efficiency, vehicle aerodynamics, and overall weight reductions put into newer vehicles.

Anyone else think there is a greater a problem here with what cars and light trucks get for fuel mileage especially when compared to big commercial trucks that are 10 times there weight and that also have far greater aerodynamic drag levels as well?

Just out of curiosity, I used our state's DOT cameras to look at the semis going down the interstate. While most did have air deflectors on the cabs, some did not. Most trailers lacked any aerodynamic improvements (although admittedly looking through a DOT camera they may not be easy to see). So this casts some doubt that owners will always voluntarily maximize efficiency.

And as the article pointed out, manufactuers apparently don't design trucks in an integrated fashion - preferring instead to take bits and bobs as-is from parts suppliers. Handy, cheap and quick. But not necessarily the best approach from a fuel efficiency standpoint.

One example also mentioned in the article is how bucket trucks run their engines while the vehicle is at a standstill, just to provide a small amount of equipment power. Seems a bit of room for improvement there, no?

Normally I'd agree. If somebody wants to grill hamburgers over heaps of burning cash, that's fine by me. It's his business. Bon appetit!

But where oil consumption is concerned, it tends to become the concern of us all for reasons of shared economics and national security. Oil isn't just for making vehicle fuel. In some way or another its in most any product you care to name.

I agree that education is a good place to start. But without some sort of impetus other than personal responsibility, things often just don't get done. Even things that seemingly make fiscal sense or have a high moral value.

There are ways: http://www.drives.co.uk/fullstory.asp?id=933

or: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydraulic-hybrid-vehicle

The government, as usual doesn't know what it's all about. If you want so many miles per gallon, then say so, period. Don't put restrictions or conditions for attaining that mileage figure. Just say "you want cars to get 40mpg by 2015", period and leave it up to the car companies to reach that goal. They will come up with ways to accomplish this. Top speed and acceleration may suffer, but thats the penalty you have to pay for efficiency. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You want performance or you want economy. You can't have it both, at least not right now; maybe in the distant future. As for heavy trucks, the only way is to apply ton-per-mile figures. Trucks are as efficient now as they will ever get. Again, you can't impose conditions for improving fuel consumption. If you set parameters for a heavy truck at 65mph, you will get a certain mpg figure. Forget the mph number and set a mpg figure and see where it takes you. The bottom line is of course, top speeds will be lower and acceleration will not be as good. It's very simple. What part of fuel efficiency don't you understand?