- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Freightliner "Super Truck" 12.2 MPG real world conditions
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:28 pm
I think this can be called a legitimate game changer.
The tractor-trailer was developed in partnership with a five-year, $115 million Department of Energy program that challenged truck makers to improve big rig fuel economy by at least 50 percent, and match the funding by the same amount. Freightliner did that, and more. Its loaded 65,000-pound semi returned 12.2 mpg during a real world highway test, 115 percent better than the average truck on the road today.
There’s a waste heat recovery system that uses the exhaust to generate additional electricity by boiling water like a power plant, and solar panels on the roof of the trailer that can fully run its climate control system on a sunny day.
The SuperTruck would save a typical long haul trucker around 10,000 gallons of fuel per year, which translates to over $28,000 at today’s prices, but it’s only a concept, and not destined for production as it is.
LINK
The tractor-trailer was developed in partnership with a five-year, $115 million Department of Energy program that challenged truck makers to improve big rig fuel economy by at least 50 percent, and match the funding by the same amount. Freightliner did that, and more. Its loaded 65,000-pound semi returned 12.2 mpg during a real world highway test, 115 percent better than the average truck on the road today.
There’s a waste heat recovery system that uses the exhaust to generate additional electricity by boiling water like a power plant, and solar panels on the roof of the trailer that can fully run its climate control system on a sunny day.
The SuperTruck would save a typical long haul trucker around 10,000 gallons of fuel per year, which translates to over $28,000 at today’s prices, but it’s only a concept, and not destined for production as it is.
LINK
8
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:33 pm to tigerpawl
quote:
but it’s only a concept, and not destined for production as it is.
I'm sure it would be too expensive to really put on the roads in any meaningful numbers. Fun stuff though.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:36 pm to tigerpawl
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:37 pm to tigerpawl
Let me know when they design one that won't flip on I-10/I-12.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:38 pm to tigerpawl
Bye Bye CNG
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:42 pm to tigerpawl
Like it says in the article, it's a proof of concept truck and most of the technology is being put into practice gradually. It's not practical to release this thing in one lick.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:45 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:The point is that the technology has been proven and exists. "Getting it online is another matter entirely", said Orville and Wilbur.
It's not practical to release this thing in one lick.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:45 pm to tigerpawl
Not gonna make it anywhere. The truck weighs 65,000lbs, so it can pull 25,000lbs worth of goods.
Regular truck weighs between 15 and 25,000lbs, so it can pull around 70k worth of stuff. Yeah, the fancy truck isn't happening. That is, depending on what their definition of "loaded" is
IIRC, if big trucks are loaded and babied, they can get 10mpg. My truck gets 10mpg unloaded
Regular truck weighs between 15 and 25,000lbs, so it can pull around 70k worth of stuff. Yeah, the fancy truck isn't happening. That is, depending on what their definition of "loaded" is
IIRC, if big trucks are loaded and babied, they can get 10mpg. My truck gets 10mpg unloaded
This post was edited on 3/27/15 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:01 pm to Hammertime
it sounds like the loaded weight was 65,000, as in with a load--what the split is, well, is a guess. 
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:08 pm to Hammertime
Yeah, it wouldn't make any sense for the truck to be heavier if it's supposed to get better gas mileage. I thnk you read wrong.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:09 pm to Hammertime
I read it as it was a loaded weight of 65,000lbs, so still 15,000lb short of legal capacity.
For reference most flatbeds will haul from 42-48000lb, vans and reefer units typically ~40-42000lbs. Some more, some less depending on configuration/setup.
For reference most flatbeds will haul from 42-48000lb, vans and reefer units typically ~40-42000lbs. Some more, some less depending on configuration/setup.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:10 pm to Marco Esquandolas
quote:
it sounds like the loaded weight was 65,000, as in with a load--what the split is, well, is a guess.
Most shippers won't sacrifice the lost 15,000lbs of payload in exchange for higher rates. It's a lose/lose for them, so carriers won't be getting too excited to buy them anytime soon.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:16 pm to tigerpawl
It saves $28,000 in fuel, but costs 2 mill to buy. Hmmmmm
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:18 pm to Jack Daniel
It probably costs more than that for the first one.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:20 pm to Jack Daniel
quote:
It saves $28,000 in fuel, but costs 2 mill to buy. Hmmmmm
That sounds like almost as good a deal as ethanol fuel.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:23 pm to YOURADHERE
I think our loggers used to do like 87k in LA and 91k in Mississippi maxed out. I wouldn't expect them to do OTR with that type of weight though. I also think that most OTR trucks pull around 20-40k usually
I can understand adding cosmetic mpg helpers, but not stuff that will reduce the amount of weight you can carry significantly. This would probably only be implemented in companies with their own trucks, but I doubt it if the weight reductions happen. This is also on the heels of the EGR/DPF stuff that significantly increased cost of ownership and gave lots of people major headaches. Just more expensive stuff to break
After reading around, news articles are saying it was a 65k GVWR. I am curious to see where that weight came from. If they could've gotten it lower, you'd bet your arse they would
I can understand adding cosmetic mpg helpers, but not stuff that will reduce the amount of weight you can carry significantly. This would probably only be implemented in companies with their own trucks, but I doubt it if the weight reductions happen. This is also on the heels of the EGR/DPF stuff that significantly increased cost of ownership and gave lots of people major headaches. Just more expensive stuff to break
After reading around, news articles are saying it was a 65k GVWR. I am curious to see where that weight came from. If they could've gotten it lower, you'd bet your arse they would
This post was edited on 3/27/15 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:25 pm to Hammertime
Ag can get exemptions to 100k if they stay off fed roads
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:25 pm to Hammertime
I know owner ops who can legally scale 52,000lb coils. No way a flatbed guy would ever be able to run that truck without changing a bunch of laws.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:27 pm to CadesCove
I'd imagine the savings in fuel will add up quickly the mileage truckers run.
If you can keep it out of the shop that is.
If you can keep it out of the shop that is.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:40 pm to jimbeam
In Canada and Northern Maine, they can run 150-250k all day long with the same trucks. It's nuts seeing how loaded down they are
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News