kscarbel2

Kenworth To Say Farewell To Venerable T660 Kenworth Truck Company Press Release / August 16, 2016 Kenworth announced that it will sunset its successful, fuel-efficient Kenworth T660 by year-end after 10 years of production, and offer customers a “last call” opportunity to order from the final production allotment of 500 T660s. “The Kenworth T660 has been a fantastic truck for our customers with more than 60,000 T660s sold since its introduction in 2007,” said Jason Skoog, Kenworth assistant general manager for sales and marketing. “Due to its popularity, we continued to offer the T660 after introducing the award-winning T680 four years ago. Since that time, more and more T660 customers have converted to the T680. We want to give our excellent customers one last chance to own this industry favorite.” When it entered the Class 8 market, the T660 became the latest evolution of Kenworth’s legendary aerodynamic product line and reinforced Kenworth’s leadership in both quality and fuel economy performance, taking the reins from the Kenworth T600 – the industry’s first truly aerodynamic truck that debuted in 1985. The Kenworth T660 also featured modern styling, superior forward-lighting technology, advanced technology, and increased driver comfort. Fleets and truck operators interested in ordering the Kenworth T660 may contact their Kenworth dealer for more information. The T660 is standard with the PACCAR MX-13 engine rated at 455-hp and 1,650 lb-ft of torque. The T660 is available in 38-inch, 62-inch, 72-inch and 86-inch AeroCab® sleeper configurations. .

Associated Press / August 21, 2016 Derrick Ryan Dearman, 27, is charged with murdering five adults and an unborn baby in Citronelle, Alabama. Arrested in his home state of Mississippi, he will be charged with six counts of murder in Mobile County district court. Lester had been in hiding out at her sister’s home since August 19 “in an attempt to leave an abusive relationship” with Dearman. Someone at the home called police about 1am Saturday to report Dearman on the property, but Dearman vanished before police arrived. He returned sometime between 1.15am and daybreak and slaughtered the five people as they slept using both a gun and an ax. Dearman entered the home where his girlfriend was staying with relatives and attacked the people sleeping inside using "firearms and several other weapons," according to the Mobile County Sheriff's Office. A 3-month-old baby of one of the victims survived the attack. "In... a 20-year career as a prosecutor, I have never seen a scene where there were five people brutally and viciously murdered. That's what we have here," said Mobile County District Attorney Ashley Rich. "There was some type of instrument other than a firearm used on them," said Mobile County sheriff's Capt. Paul Burch. After the killings, police say Dearman kidnapped his girlfriend, Laneta Lester, and the surviving baby. He drove them across the Mississippi state line to his father's home, where Lester and the child were freed. Dearman and his father then went to the Greene County Sheriff's Office in Mississippi where Dearman surrendered Saturday afternoon. Police named the victims as Robert Lee Brown, Chelsea Marie Reed, Justin Kaleb Reed, Joseph Adam Turner and Shannon Melissa Randall and Chelsea Marie Reed, who was five months pregnant. .

Chicago Tribune / August 21, 2016 At least 25 people were shot over 14 hours in attacks across Chicago beginning Saturday afternoon into early Sunday, police said, equivalent to someone being shot every 33 minutes. Four of the shootings were fatal, including an attack in Marquette Park at about 2:50 a.m. Sunday. Darius Brownlee, 25, was on a porch in the 7000 block of South Artesian Avenue when someone walked up and asked if he had any marijuana, according to family. When he said he didn't, the person shot him in the head. He was pronounced dead at the scene. "He had a heart. He was respectful," said his sister, Iesha Brownlee, at the scene. "A very respectful young man. He would help anybody." Five minutes after midnight, a 24-year-old man was shot dead in the Homan Square neighborhood. Police responded to a call of a person shot in the 3700 block of West Grenshaw Street and found him on his porch with a gunshot wound to the chest. He said he had been shot in another location and walked back to his home to tell his family he had been wounded, police said. From there, he was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital and pronounced dead. At 8:10 p.m. Saturday, a 20-year-old man was on the sidewalk in the 2700 block of North Harding Avenue in Logan Square when someone shot him in the head. He was pronounced dead on the scene. Nonfatal shootings: About 6:45 a.m. Sunday, a male whose age was not available was shot in the Homan Square neighborhood. He was in the 3600 block of West Lexington Street when he was shot in the head. He was being treated at Mount Sinai Hospital; information about his condition was not immediately available. Just after 4 a.m., a 14-year-old boy was fatally shot the Austin neighborhood during a gang-related attack. He was in the 5500 block of West North Avenue on a sidewalk when an occupant inside a vehicle that pulled up opened fire hitting him in the head, according to Officer Bari Lemmon, a spokeswoman for the Chicago police. The boy was taken to Loyola University Medical Center in critical condition but he was pronounced dead there, according to police. Just after 4 a.m., two people were shot in University Village. A 21-year-old woman and a 23-year-old man were in the 1200 block of West Washburne Avenue when someone fired shots from the rear seat of a passing vehicle. Both went to Stroger Hospital. The woman was shot in the stomach and listed in serious condition. The man was shot in the leg and his condition was stabilized. Just before 3:15 a.m., a 37-year-old man was shot in Rogers Park. He was in the 1700 block of West Greenleaf Avenue when he was shot in the left hand. He went to Evanston's Saint Francis Hospital in good condition. About 2:30 a.m., two 26-year-old men were shot in West Pullman. They were standing outside in the 11600 block of South Morgan Street when someone driving a black Taurus pulled up and fired shots. Both men were shot in the leg and went to Roseland Hospital. Their conditions were stabilized. Just before 2:20 a.m., a 25-year-old man was shot multiple times in Lawndale. He was stopped at a stop sign in the 4100 block of West 21st Street when someone walked up and opened fire in his direction. The 25-year-old man went to Mount Sinai Hospital in critical condition. Just before 1:30 a.m., two men were shot in Englewood. The men, 19 and 23, got themselves to Holy Cross Hospital after being shot in the 6800 block of South Bishop Street. The younger man was shot multiple times and later transferred to Mount Sinai Hospital in critical condition. The older man was shot in the right leg and his condition was stabilized. Just after 12:30 a.m., a 21-year-old man was shot in Ravenswood. He was in the 4800 block of North Damen Avenue when he was shot in the back of the head. He went to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center and his condition was stabilized. At 11:45 p.m. Saturday, a 27-year-old woman was shot after a dispute with her boyfriend in Rogers Park. They were in the 1500 block of West Jonquil Terrace when he pulled out a gun and shot her in the left arm. She went to Saint Francis Hospital in Evanston and her condition was stabilized. Just after 11:30 p.m., a 47-year-old man was shot in the South Loop. He was in the passenger seat of a car in the 500 block of West Taylor Street when someone approached firing shots. He was shot in the leg. Information about where he was being treated was not immediately available. At 10:30 p.m., an 18-year-old man was wounded in a shootout in Lawndale. He and another person were shooting at each other in the 2100 block of South Kildare Avenue, police said; the 18-year-old man was shot in the back and taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in serious condition. Police have recovered his weapon. As of midnight, police did not know whether anyone else was wounded in the shootout. At about the same time, a 16-year-old boy was shot and critically wounded in Edgewater. He was in the 6200 block of North Hermitage Avenue when two people approached him on the sidewalk and opened fire, shooting him multiple times. He was taken to Saint Francis Hospital in critical condition. About 10:10 p.m., a 18-year-old man was shot in the Stony Island Park neighborhood. He was on the sidewalk in the 8500 block of South Cregier Avenue when someone got out of a nearby Dodge Caravan and fired shots. He was shot in the foot and went to Advocate Trinity Hospital in good condition. At 9:35 p.m., a 21-year-old man was shot in Longwood Manor. He was in a vehicle leaving a gas station in the 9900 block of South Vincennes Avenue when someone fired shots, hitting him in the back. He was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in serious condition. At about 7:45 p.m., a 17-year-old boy in the 1000 block of West 79th Street in the Gresham neighborhood was wounded when two vehicles approached and someone inside fired shots. He was grazed in the upper back and went to Stroger Hospital. His condition was stabilized. Three teen boys were shot in North Austin just before 7 p.m., police said. They were in the 1200 block of North Parkside Avenue when they were shot. A 17-year-old boy suffered a wound to the upper chest and was taken in serious condition to Stroger Hospital. Another boy, 15, was shot in the buttocks and abdomen. He was taken in serious condition to Mount Sinai Hospital. The third boy, also 15, was shot in the leg. He was taken to Loyola University Hospital in Maywood where his condition was stabilized, said Officer Michelle Tannehill, a police spokeswoman. Earlier Saturday, a 37-year-old man was critically wounded in the same neighborhood. About 4:45 p.m., he was inside a vacant building in the 5300 block of West Division Street when two men damaged the door and came inside. The two men pulled out a handgun and shot the man in his stomach area when he tried to flee. He was taken in critical condition to Stroger Hospital.

Colin Powell sets record straight on involvement in email scandal Page 6 / August 21, 2016 Colin Powell has broken his silence about his alleged involvement in the Hillary Clinton email scandal, saying her team is falsely trying to blame him. When asked by the FBI about her email use at the State Department, Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of State Powell had advised her to use a personal email account at a private dinner. But Powell, who had said last week in a statement that he had no recollection of the conversation. On Saturday, Powell said: “The truth is she was using it (her personal email) for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did [during my term as Secretary of State]. “Her people have been trying to pin it on me.” When asked why Clinton’s team was attempting to blame him, he responded, “Why do you think?” Despite appearing angered by the situation, he added, “It doesn’t bother me. It’s okay, I’m free.” The story about Powell advising Clinton to use personal email was included in FBI notes of their interview with the Democratic nominee handed to Congress on Tuesday. James B. Comey, the bureau’s director, decided not to pursue criminal charges against her. Journalist Joe Conason reported a conversation between Clinton and Powell took place at a dinner party hosted by Madeleine Albright at her home in Washington in his upcoming book, “Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton,” according to the Times. Conason writes that those present – including Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice were all asked to offer “one salient bit of counsel” to Clinton early in her term as Secretary of State. “Powell told her to use her own email, as he had done, except for classified communications, which he had sent and received via a State Department computer,” Conason wrote, “Saying that his use of personal email had been transformative for the department,” Powell “thus confirmed a decision she had made months earlier — to keep her personal account and use it for most messages.” But Powell did not have a server at his house nor use outside contractors, as Clinton did, the Times reported. Plus the rules governing electronic communication got more strict between Powell’s time in office and Clinton’s. Powell’s office said in a statement released Thursday night that he had no recollection of the dinner conversation. He did write Clinton an email memo describing his use of personal email for unclassified messages “and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department,” the statement said.

The LDS427, LD465 and LDT465 were intended to run ordinarily on diesel. In an "emergency", they could run on AVGAS, gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel (JP7, JP8) and kerosene. Those American Bosch rotary fuel pumps never got along with me.

Canada looking to align with new Phase 2 GHG standards Today’s Trucking / August 19, 2016 Canadian regulators are looking to align with the second round of vehicle emissions standards that the U.S. will roll out between 2018 and 2027. The Phase 2 standards will ultimately slash Greenhouse Gas emissions by up to 25% – improving fuel economy as a result – and were officially released earlier this week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). “The Phase 2 standards, like the Phase 1 standards which apply to Model Year 2014 and later heavy-duty vehicles and engines, will be aligned with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards,” confirmed a spokesman with Environment and Climate Change Canada, responding to questions from Today’s Trucking. “This alignment helps keep the costs down for industry, consumers and governments since most vehicles and engines sold in Canada are the same as those sold in the U.S.” The first draft of the Canadian version of the regulations should be released in Canada Gazette Part 1 by the end of this year, he said. That is ultimately followed by a 75-day comment period before final regulations are published in Canada Gazette Part 2. Still, there are unique challenges to address when comparing the jurisdictions, not the least of which is heavier Gross Vehicle Weights. “The Government of Canada will be considering specific implications for the Canadian heavy-duty vehicle, engine and trailer sectors during its regulatory development process,” the spokesman says. Once the rules are released, they will guide how most engines, trucks and even trailers are designed. Tractors Proposed standards for tractors roll out in 2021 Model Years, tighten in 2024, and are fully established by 2027. The specific benchmarks vary by vehicle weight class, roof height, and cab type. Compared to Phase 1, carbon dioxide emissions drop 24%. That is to be met through enhanced engines, transmissions, drivelines, aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires, idle-reducing technologies, and other accessories. Trailers Voluntary standards begin with certain types of trailers in the 2018 Model Year, while mandatory standards begin in 2021. By that point, the standards will apply refrigerated and dry vans. The standards become tougher in 2024, and the final round of changes come in 2027. The goal is to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 8%, relying on such things as aerodynamic devices, low rolling resistance tires, automatic tire inflation systems and reduced weights. Vocational vehicles The rules for vocational vehicles -– which represent a fifth of the emissions from medium- and heavy-duty equipment -- roll out in 2021, toughen in 2024, and reach final levels in 2027. They include three vehicle weights and three driving cycles. Compared to Phase 1, their carbon dioxide emissions will drop 16% thanks to changes in engines, transmissions, drivelines, lower rolling resistance tires, workday idle reduction technologies, and lower weights. Diesel engines Carbon dioxide emissions from diesel engines will drop 4% when compared to Phase 1, requiring optimized combustion, improved air handling, lower friction, enhanced aftertreatment for emissions, and waste heat recovery. There are ways for manufacturers to offer equipment that doesn’t meet the specific targets, though. The U.S. rules include Averaging, Banking and Trading (ABT) provisions that allow manufacturers to certify engines and vehicles that fall short of the standards, as long as they are offset with engines or vehicles that do better. It’s similar to an approach established in the Phase 1 rules, but with minor revisions, according to the regulators. “We are not proposing to include a full ABT program for the trailer standards because the nature of the industry makes it a challenge for manufacturers to benefit from this type of program. Instead, we are proposing limited averaging provisions for certain trailer manufacturers,” the U.S. regulators added. Still, there will be a limited number of credits available, despite the fact that on/off-road equipment, heavy haulers and Long Combination Vehicles also account for a larger share of Canada’s equipment. “I definitely hope that there will be some allowances because we know that some [referenced] technologies don’t work here,” adds Yves Provencher of PIT Group, a third-party testing organization based in Quebec. Low Rolling Resistance tires, for example, are not always practical when trucks face snow-covered roads. Some of the referenced technologies, such as engine heat recovery systems, are not even available yet, he says. “On one hand it’s good for our business, but we just hope the OEMs will have the chance to do the testing and do the necessary improvements – if need be – and hit the market with technology that is proven.”

Special Report: Fuel Economy Phase 2 Fleet Owner / June 8, 2016 The joint announcement by EPA and NHTSA last year of proposed new greenhouse gas emissions regulations (GHG Phase 2) for heavy-duty trucks has brought about plenty of conjecture within the industry about what the rule will say when it’s finalized this summer and how truck makers and fleets will comply. These goals are expected to include an approximately 24% fuel efficiency gain for tractors, 8% to 12% for trailers, and 4% for engines. 1. GHG Rule: Explaining Phase 2 Touted by the Obama Adminis­tration as a win-win-win for the enviro­nment, trucking industry and consumers, the proposed second round of fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are meant to reduce climate change impact while bolstering energy security and spurring manufacturing innovation. But nearly a year after being jointly published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Dept. of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the honeymoon between the government and the industry—if there ever was one—is certainly over. The greenhouse gas (GHG) final rule is still up in the air, and no one is quite sure what to expect from it when it is published. Broadly, the proposed rule pits the trucking industry, which wants a cautious, doable program, against clean air groups that insist on the most aggressive of the proposal’s goals and timelines. Even within trucking, factions have developed: Engine maker Cummins supports a separate engine-only standard, and trailer makers argue that EPA has no authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate them at all. There’s also more than a little concern that any “technology-forcing” goals could result in performance and reliability issues similar to the implementation of EPA’s NOx regulations a decade ago—and that new, more strict NOx restrictions will be included in the GHG final rule, or follow shortly thereafter, with contradictory goals. As for the timing, the rule is slated to be finalized this summer, but there is no statutory deadline. Here’s a general outline of where the proposal stands and the cases for or against the various elements in the complex and far-reaching plan. THE BASICS The proposed standards—dubbed Phase 2 as a follow-up to the original truck fuel economy standards that set targets for 2014 and 2017 model-year trucks—are expected to lower CO2 emissions by about 1 billion metric tons, cut fuel costs by about $170 billion, and reduce oil consumption by up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles account for about 20% of GHG emissions and oil use in the U.S. transportation sector but only comprise about 5% of vehicles on the road, according to the federal government. The proposed vehicle and engine performance standards would cover model years 2021-2027 and apply to semi-trucks, large pickup trucks and vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. They would achieve up to 24% lower CO2 emissions and fuel consumption than an equivalent tractor in 2018, based on the fully phased-in standards for the tractor alone in a tractor-trailer combination. Unlike the automobile fuel economy standards, Phase 2 does not use an mpg measure. EPA considers such a measurement meaningless for the many trucks and applications covered under the proposal. For highway tractors, the key is freight efficiency, or the amount of freight that can be hauled per mile, per gallon of fuel. In 2027, EPA estimates the average line-haul truck would achieve a 50% improvement with that potentially rising to 90% with the development and adoption of more efficient technologies. Experts at the Environmental Defense Fund did the hypothetical math and put the 2027 goal at about 9.5 mpg for highway tractor-trailers compared to about 6 mpg in 2010. In this next phase, EPA and NHTSA are also proposing efficiency and GHG standards for trailers for the first time. The EPA trailer standards would begin to take effect in model-year 2018 for certain trailers, while NHTSA’s standards would be in effect as of 2021. Credits would be available for voluntary participation before then. DOABLE, OEMS SAY, BUT… The goals for the federal truck fuel efficiency requirements will be achievable, says the head of the country’s largest truck maker—he’s just not sure yet what the solutions are going to be. And all bets are off if EPA’s Phase 2 GHG reduction program strays from the preliminary standards proposed, Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) President and CEO Martin Daum told trucking media representatives last fall. That proposed tar­­get of a 24% im­provement in heavy-duty fuel efficiency by 2027 is “a lot,” he concedes. While DTNA is generally supportive of the program’s goals, Daum objects to the possible engine-only standard on top of the whole-vehicle requirements. “I’ve never seen an engine alone running down the road,” he quips. “We need all the pieces to fit together to optimize [fuel efficiency]. But the higher the engine standard, the less room we have for optimization.” DTNA would like to see a single national standard, but the real concern is for the possible development of a new NOx limit. Daum worries that the GHG rule will be finalized and manufacturers will begin to work toward meeting the requirements, and then EPA will set another NOx standard causing an industry disruption similar to 2006. More formally, DTNA joined with Caterpillar, Navistar, Paccar, and Volvo Group in filing comments on the proposed rule. To assure that the rule benefits customers—and achieves environmental goals—the Phase 2 regulation must be finalized with seven basic principles in mind, the truck makers note: Regulation must appropriately reflect real-world reductions. There must be a single, national GHG regulation adopted by EPA, NHTSA and CARB. Expected technologies must be appropriately demonstrated. Expected technology penetration rates must align with market needs and legal restrictions. Regulation must take into account total cost of ownership. Protocols must be clearly defined and accommodate production and test variability. Regulation must recognize the trade-off of NOx and CO2 reduction targets. FLEETS WANT ROI Indeed, while the final rule is aimed at truck makers, truck buyers clearly have a stake. After all, if customers won’t buy the trucks, the environmental goals won’t be achieved, the American Trucking Assns. (ATA) notes in its formal comment. “The consistent message from fleets to ATA regarding the Phase 2 rule is abundantly clear: Achieve the greatest efficiency improvements at the least overall cost while minimizing downtime, maximizing durability, and recognizing a positive return on investment over the course of equipment ownership,” ATA says. Among ATA’s key points: ATA opposes the accelerated timeline option that pulls ahead the 2027 targets to 2024. “If Phase 2 results in customers being led down a path to purchase technologies that are not proven, cost-effective, or reasonable for a fleet’s applications, fleets will keep their vehicles and trailers longer and will pre-buy in advance of the changes, followed by a subsequent no-buy after the new standards take effect.” Technology costs remain suspect. “ATA believes the agencies under­estimated the costs of various technologies, making the payback period on these technologies much longer than is stated in the proposed rule.” Need for harmonization between state and federal GHG/fuel economy programs. “ATA supports these efforts as harmonization with California (or other states for that matter) is an extremely high priority. It is both unwise and unhealthy for the nation’s economy and the movement of the nation’s freight to allow a patchwork of state and federal tailpipe and fuel consumption standards for trucks to emerge.” Further evaluation and demonstration is needed before committing to a low-NOx engine standard. “Given EPA expects fleets to pay an additional $14,000 for a new tractor-trailer combination meeting the Phase 2 standards, the agencies must be sensitive to the cost impact additional regulatory pursuits will have on the trucking industry.” TRAILER AUTHORITY The trailer industry has questioned EPA’s right to even set trailer targets. “Unfortunately, by extending its proposed rule to semi-trailers, the EPA has adopted an unprecedented interpretation of its authority that exceeds its Congressional authorization,” Utility Trailer Manufacturing, the nation’s largest trailer builder, wrote in its filing. “Additionally, the agencies have based their analysis on assumptions that are completely untethered from the real world, resulting in proposed regulations that will yield minimal, if any, net greenhouse-gas reductions while imposing crippling administrative burdens on the semi-trailer industry.” Specifically, the agencies’ assumptions about speed—from which the aerodynamic savings are projected—“bear no relationship to how tractors and trailers operate on America’s highways.” Utility provides its own fleet test data to refute the proposal’s assumption that a trailer travels at 65 mph 86% of the time. Even the fastest tractor-trailer in a three-fleet test traveled at 65 mph just 33% of the time, according to Utility. The Truck Trailer Manu­­facturers Assn. (TTMA) urges the agencies to consider an alternative rule that would require trailer manufacturers to label and/or provide some test data to show that the trailer is capable of being assembled into a compliant tractor-trailer, and then impose the responsibility of combining compliant trailers with compliant tractors on the motor carriers. “While we stand by our contention that EPA’s SmartWay program provides the optimal solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption in the heavy-duty freight sector, we hope that if the agencies feel that additional regulation is needed, they will pursue the ‘alternative provisions’ approach and work with the trucking industry to create a set of reasonable and effective regulations,” TTMA writes. ENGINE REQUIREMENTS While the truck makers push for a “whole-vehicle” standard, engine maker Cummins makes the case for separate powerplant targets. In a public hearing on Phase 2, Brian Mormino, executive director of worldwide environmental strategy and compliance, pointed to the proposal’s own characterization of a separate engine standard as “fundamental to the success of the program.” An engine standard offers “a robust, clearly defined compliance program,” requires manufacturers to optimize CO2 and criteria pollutants together, and provides the only measure of engine fuel consumption and CO2 emissions under transient conditions, Cummins contends. Cummins is concerned that the Phase 2 proposal’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model compliance simulation application drives more interaction between the engine and vehicle programs. The result is that it would require Cummins to release “proprietary and confidential business information.” In Cummins’ formal comments, the company points to the advantages of a “well-established, representative, and robust set of engine test procedures” for emissions compliance enforcement. “Using the same protocols for criteria and GHG emissions ensures linkage between all pollutants, forcing consideration of all constituents when optimizing engine performance and emissions,” Cummins says. “With differing certification cycles, one could trade off GHG improvement at the expense of nitrogen oxide increases. Such a situation would undermine regulatory integrity and environmental benefits from criteria emissions reductions achieved over the years.” 2. OEM Perspective: Getting there With the tail end of the greenhouse gas (GHG) Phase 1 requirements now surfacing in engine makers’ more fuel-efficient 2017 lineups, a GHG Phase 2 rule is knock, knock, knocking on trucking’s door. How will the industry actually get there? How will manufacturers reach these fuel efficiency gains? Will they be measured as an average of all of an OEM’s products or carved out in segments? The first and most basic answer to “getting there,” in many ways, is to reduce friction while maintaining performance. Reduce drag on the truck and trailer bodies and improve aerodynamics; use various methods to reduce friction in the engine itself; literally reduce resistance where the rubber hits the road; and any other opportunities you find as you claw your way to moving a hauling machine of up to 80,000 lbs. down the road at higher mpg. By 2027, in what the involved federal agencies call “an ambitious, yet achievable program” in their proposal, combo tractors designed to pull trailers are likely to have a 24% fuel efficiency gain to meet and trailers another 8-12%, while separate standards for engines will likely call for 4% higher fuel efficiency compared with 2017 models. “For heavy trucks in 2027, let’s call it 9 mpg,” says Michael Roeth, executive director of the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), simplifying and summing up the target goal from that angle. There’s an app for that To a point, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have spelled out the technologies that come under GHG Phase 2 through their Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) compliance simulation application for manufacturers. Companies input specs, usage parameters and particular fuel economy technologies for their tractors, engines or trailers and are essentially given a unit’s fuel efficiency figures used to monitor if the OEMs’ products are compliant with GHG targets. “Each truck, for example, will get a number. As greenhouse gas stringency comes down from the federal government, manufacturers will run a number on every truck they build,” Roeth tells Fleet Owner. “You take all the trucks Kenworth builds, all the trucks that International builds and so on, and they’ll need a certain average to be compliant. “There are many technologies to choose from,” he continues. “There’s aerodynamics on the tractor and trailer, lower rolling resistance tires, engine changes, gear ratios for downspeeding, automated manual transmissions, idle-reduction solutions—there’s a whole bunch of things the EPA has defined as technologies in the GEM program.” According to EPA and NHTSA, the GEM program “is capable of recognizing most technologies that could be evaluated in both engine and chassis dynamometers and is [now] better able to reflect changes in technologies for compliance purposes.” In GEM, some technology options for tractors are vehicle speed limiters, weight reduction, low-friction axle lubricants, predictive cruise control, high-efficiency A/C compressors, electric engine coolant and power steering pumps, automated tire inflation systems, and extended idle reduction. Vocational vehicles can add power take-off options, while trailers can have things like aerodynamic drag, weight reductions, and tire pressure inflation systems. OEMs are innovating on their own, of course, as the GEM program envisions and is designed to accommodate. One driver of fuel economy innovation has been the SuperTruck public-private partnership, a project that’s now generated a sequel where the U.S. Dept. of Energy puts up grant funds to share costs for projects to reach large mpg improvement goals. Volvo Trucks, for one, says its team developed some of the company’s latest engine improvements working in the SuperTruck program. Some enhancements that came from it are going into 2017 D11 and D13 engines particularly. Those include Volvo’s “wave piston” technology and turbo compounding, and there’s also a new fuel rail, higher engine compression helping boost horsepower and torque, and other enhancements in terms of powertrain like improvements for I-Shift transmissions at both low and high speed. But the wave piston, as Volvo calls it, is one of the more standout technologies you’ll find claiming to unlock more fuel efficiency and making for a cleaner-burning engine. In that patented design, explains John Moore, powertrain product manager, Volvo reshaped the top of the piston and therefore the combustion chamber. Imagine carving out six U’s end-to-end around the top of a piston and connecting them in a circle. You’ll have the high points where each U begins, the low points at the bottom of the curve, and the high points coming back up out of the U. So think of those points as peaks and troughs of waves, and voila: “wave pistons.” Add to that a six-directional fuel injector nozzle that squirts fuel right at each wave trough or divot in the top of the piston. “You’ve got six holes on the injectors—one hole for each of those tabs on the piston—that spray fuel right at those tabs. The fuel actually will hit them, turn around and come back to the center of the cylinder,” Moore explains. “We call that ‘flame propagation toward the center,’ and it fosters a more complete, cleaner burn. “With the conventional pistons we were using before, you would spray fuel from the injector into the cylinder; it would come straight down, hit the crown of the piston dome on top, then scatter and go to the piston walls,” he elaborates. “And once it ignited, you might have fuel on the cylinder walls that turned to soot. “The wave pistons eliminate those ‘wet spots,’” Moore explains, “and that’s where we’re picking up a cleaner burn and increased fuel efficiency as well as 90% less soot output on the cylinder unit.” Far from the majority yet That’s just one closer look at how OEMs are finding myriad ways to boost mpg in trucks, engines and trailers, and you can expect to hear more—possibly from what’s been learned with concept vehicles—as 2017 engines start rolling off production lines. “But have you ever seen one of those ‘SuperTrucks’?” asks Charlie Fetz, vice president of design and development at Great Dane Trailers. “How many of those things do you see running around on the road?” It’s true, Fetz points out, that there are fleets reaching efficiency levels with their trailers today at the 2027 levels envisioned in GHG Phase 2. “There are fleets running lots of aero, running wide-base single tires, probably with weight savings and so forth,” he notes. “But they’re long-haul guys. Have you ever seen a tractor-trailer pulled up at a restaurant? “The guy is there in the lot with his ramps coming out. He’s wheeling boxes of stuff into the restaurant with a hand truck,” Fetz continues. “He’s got ramps stored under his trailer, beverage canister racks and pallet racks, and he’s got a roll-up door at the rear. “That trailer doesn’t have a lot of aero opportunities. He’s running short-haul. When he gets into the city, he’s going around doing multiple stops, creeping around restaurant to restaurant, probably averaging 18, 20 mph,” he explains. Thus, Fetz makes the point that trailers come in different shapes and sizes on trucks doing very different jobs, so getting to GHG Phase 2 fuel efficiency targets is far from cut-and-dried. “Although there are a number of devices on the market today, trailer side skirts and low rolling resistance tires have proven to be most effective; as a result, they are the most adopted by U.S. fleets,” says Brian Bauman, vice president and general manager of Wabash Composites. “Generally, the aerodynamic devices that are being adopted most are those that are proving to be the most durable and least intrusive to the daily operations of the fleet.” Stand-alone devices available for trailers can yield between about 1% to 9% fuel economy improvement in highway use, Bauman contends, and Wabash has device combinations available that can produce upwards of 10% fuel savings. And the nature of trailers themselves is complicated, Fetz contends. “You don’t go to a Ford dealership and say, ‘I really like that Taurus, but can you make it two feet longer and add another axle?’” he points out. “But that kind of thing is commonplace with trailers.” Before the final rule comes out, Fetz notes, trailer, truck and engine OEMs have stayed in touch with EPA and NHTSA to provide input and feedback. He notes that Great Dane has done that both on a one-on-one basis as well as with industry groups. “The EPA will be quick to tell you they want to have an effective rule that’s enforceable,” he says. “We also try to help fleets understand what’s in this rule and what they may have to do,” he says, such as add low rolling resistance tires or a tire inflation system to their trailers. “The burden of compliance falls on manufacturers, but there are implications about the buyer having to maintain technologies on the equipment,” he notes. Squishy balloon If you think OEMs getting to fuel efficiency targets in GHG Phase 2 is a given, you may have missed a few things, cautions Glen Kedzie, energy and environmental counsel for the American Trucking Assns. (ATA) and staff liaison for the organization’s Fuel Efficiency Working Group. It’s one of the channels by which federal agencies are interfacing with the trucking industry, as Fetz describes. ATA has raised a few concerns: the diversity of trucking, volatility in the cost of fuel, and the difficulty of being accurate with estimates EPA and NHTSA make in the GHG Phase 2 rule for things like a fleet’s return on investment after purchasing fuel-saving technologies. But there’s another big variable out there, Kedzie says, and that is a potential reduction in NOx emissions that could hit “smack dab in the middle of implementation of the Phase 2 rule.” He contends California is considering bringing a lower NOx emissions standard to the market soon. “Typically, when you’re trying to address NOx emissions, it’s going to have an inverse impact on fuel economy,” Kedzie tells Fleet Owner. “It’s kind of an unintended consequence we’ve seen. “It’s like an ecosystem: All these things are interrelated. I call it the ‘squishy balloon concept’: If you squeeze one of those long balloons on one end, the air goes to the other end,” he continues. “You’re still going to have the same amount of air in that balloon; it just depends on where the squeeze is happening and what the reaction is in other parts of it—unless it pops.” In the final rule, OEMs will likely be able to carry over fuel efficiency deficits, should they have them, for up to three years. But on the other hand, if OEMs overachieve the rule’s targets, any overage can likely be put in their ‘credit piggy bank’ to balance the books if need be,” Kedzie says, and credits can be carried forward up to five years. So he does have some advice for OEMs: Get started strong and quickly with fuel efficiency technology, and build up extra credits to carry forward in case later targets are difficult to hit. “Sell things that are super-efficient, and anything that’s over what the target is, bank those credits. It’s kind of a rainy day fund. It’s hard for OEMs to predict the future, but if they fall short, at least they can tap into their credit piggy bank.” In a final point, NACFE’s Roeth thinks the medium- and heavy-duty trucking industries should take a deep breath. “There are clearly challenges in getting to these levels of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions, but it’s possible,” he says. “We’ve got some time. We need the technologies to improve; we need their costs to come down; and we need their consequences to be reduced. But I believe it can be done.” 3. Fleet Perspective: Finding the right mix When it comes to figuring out how to benefit from the fuel economy improvements purportedly being offered by greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations, fleets are finding that a lot of hard-to-calculate factors are involved, especially in terms of driver behavior. “The biggest piece of fuel economy performance we’ve yet to really tap is the driver,” Glen McDonald, director of maintenance at Ozark Motor Lines, explains. “We give drivers all the tools—automated manual transmissions (AMTs), cruise control, etc. But radar [based cruise control] makes the truck stay back farther than they like. So how do we get the driver to sit back and let the truck do more of the work?” It’s also about compensating for other external factors, he says, such as seasonal differences, road type, road conditions, and even the direction of the wind. “I have a guy—one of my best drivers—who makes a run from Memphis to St. Louis and back. You can take his trip data and calculate his fuel mileage to a tenth of a mile every day,” McDonald says. “He can also tell you about real-world impact, such as tailwind, giving him 1 mpg better heading down to St. Louis.” That doesn’t stop Ozark from spec’ing its equipment as fuel-efficiently as possible with improved aerodynamics, McDonald stresses. Right now, the company operates a little over 700 Freightliner Cascadia tractors spec’d with the full Evolution aerodynamic package, a Detroit DT12 AMT mated to DD15 engines, and fuel-efficient tires. All of its 53-ft. dry van trailers are equipped with side skirts. The fleet has even switched to full synthetic yet thinner viscosity motor oils. Longer change intervals allow the company “to get more fuel mileage from them with less maintenance,” McDonald notes. Yet figuring out the role of specific pieces of the fuel-saving equation, i.e, AMT, trailer skirts, etc., is the tricky part. “We’re doing so many things at once. How does each piece contribute?” McDonald points out. “We really rely on our partners to help us pick the best specifications and solutions. We have to trust them. But I still have to use simple math to make it work. It has to pay out in the end. “And the real world is very different than the test track,” he continues. “It’s also hard to figure [those specific savings] with different drivers in different weather conditions on very different roads.” Driver training Paul Higgins, director of maintenance at Prime Inc., also struggles with similar questions and finds that the company requires a two-step solution that involves a focus on equipment specifications and on driver training. “We have classes to teach drivers how to be the most fuel efficient. [It’s] a fairly straightforward process and not necessarily a magic pill,” he points out. In terms of equipment, Higgins says Prime specs its trucks and trailers to be as “slick” as possible. “Aerodynamics offer a huge opportunity for all of us to improve fuel mileage. We also realize we’re not doing all that we can to be more aerodynamic,” he explains. “Based on our model, it’s crazy to spec a ‘square hood’ truck now.” Higgins points out that trailer skirts offer 6% fuel savings and can get up to 9% in some cases. “Since we make our own skirts, we can make modifications based on how we see them work,” he adds. Researchers are also starting to put some numbers to aerodynamic improvements. The latest Confidence Report compiled by the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), for example, determined that aerodynamic enhancements to Class 8 tractors can return a sizable saving in fuel efficiency—even for day cab models that many felt were incapable of benefiting from aerodynamics. “During the past 20 years, truck manufacturers have done a good job of improving the aerodynamics of sleeper tractors, saving up to 10% in fuel costs,” the group notes in its Tractor Aerodynamics Report. “Tractor aerodynamic devices improve fuel efficiency by reducing drag so that it takes less fuel to move down the road, especially at higher speeds.” Misperceptions Even though day cab tractors operate at lower miles per hour, NACFE researchers found they benefit from the installation of aerodynamic devices. “There is a long-standing misperception in the trucking industry that im­proved aerodynamics will only save fuel at speeds above 55 mph. Because of this, day cabs and other [tractor] duty cycles have lagged long-haul sleepers in their aerodynamic performance improvements,” the group notes. “But in reality, aerodynamic drag is acting against the vehicle at all speeds above zero mph. Given the many low- or no-cost design elements that can reduce drag, even fleets operating at lower speeds should consider adoption,” NACFE adds. Mike Roeth, the group’s executive director, believes truck manufacturers should make full aerodynamic packages like those offered on sleeper cabs standard on their day cab tractors. “Not only do those packages provide substantial fuel economy benefits even at lower speeds, but fleets tend to have much longer trade cycles for their day cab trucks,” he says. “The fuel savings over a decade can also help fleets limit the risks of future diesel price increases.” Other findings from the NACFE Tractor Aerodynamics Report include the following: If aerodynamic features are removed from an OEM’s aerodynamic base model, the fleet can expect to lose about 10% in fuel economy. Another 10% can be lost simply by pairing a mid-roof tractor with a dry van or refrigerated trailer. NACFE stresses that tractor and trailer heights should be matched for as many miles as possible. Even at today’s fuel prices of around $2/gal., a 10% savings in fuel represents $3,500 per year per truck. The greatest opportunity to benefit from aerodynamic tractor enhancements remains the on-highway van trailer segment for both day cabs and long-nose high-roof sleeper models. While the devices currently available on the market do add some weight to the vehicle, the impact of the weight on fuel economy is just 0.5 to 0.6% per 1,000 lbs. There is less than a 2,000-lb. weight difference between the most aggressively optimized aerodynamic tractors and the least, so the maximum mpg reduction due to aerodynamics is less than 1.2%—far smaller than the potential fuel savings offered by aerodynamic enhancements. Many day cabs operate at highway speeds during nearly all of their duty cycle, so aerodynamic styling can increase fuel efficiency for day cab models by as much as 13%. Even day cabs operating in start-stop city driving will see savings from certain aerodynamic technologies, NACFE found. Consider all costs Consulting firm Fleet Advantage takes all of that a step further with a new data index resource it has compiled. John Rickette, vice president of transaction management, notes the resource compares “all-in” costs of older model-year Class 8 trucks and calculates the savings of new model replacements to help fleets identify the sweet spot for replacement and which specs may add the most cost savings. That all-in approach means taking into account operating costs related to fuel, finance, maintenance and repair, and tires, he explains. “When you do that, you are looking for the point in time when a truck becomes economically obsolete,” Rickette says. “There’s always an inflection point, but that also depends on miles driven, type of duty cycle, etc. Roughly between 400,000 and 500,000 mi. is the sweet spot. That is when maintenance and repair costs spike; there’s degradation in fuel economy; resale value spikes; and warranty coverage begins to expire.” Using its index, Fleet Advantage calculates that companies using Class 8 trucks would save approximately $18,000 per truck in the first year by upgrading from a 2011 to a 2017 model-year day cab or sleeper unit while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 14%. Rickette does note that such calculations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis to account for variables such as usage patterns and weather. “The first six months represent the break-in period, so fleets may not be getting [the fuel economy gains] they expect to be getting. That also applies to the seasons, as winter can affect performance,” he emphasizes. On top of that, Fleet Advantage also plans to incorporate engine idle time, excessive speed, hours of operation, and other factors that affect vehicle wear and tear over the truck’s life­ cycle. “We’ll bake that in for the future,” Rickette notes. Ozark’s McDonald stresses that when fleets try to project any sort of fuel savings, they must include items such as potential accident and repair costs. “You’ve got to consider those,” he says. “For example, trailer tails save money on fuel for certain; however, one fleet I work with found that they got torn up so much that the cost of repairing them could make the fuel savings a wash. That’s got to be factored in.” Human behavior What’s the ultimate ingredient for maximizing fuel economy no matter the fuel-efficient specification? According to Prime, this ingredient affects about 80% of the fuel economy equation—and that’s the driver. So, anything that can be done to ease back on the vagaries of human behavior behind the wheel will help further boost fuel economy gains down the road. “We finally agree that AMTs can equal the best driver using a manual. AMTs are nice, fast, and smooth in terms of gear shifting now and are not nearly as herky-jerky as they once were,” Prime’s Higgins says. “Using GPS technology to adjust the truck to the topography is the next step; going around a corner, shifting in neutral because [the transmission] knows from GPS what the road is like there.” At the end of the day, Prime says, it all comes down to engine speed; driving the engine “slower” in terms of rpm makes a big difference not just in fuel consumption but also in safety and driver comfort. “The driver arrives more relaxed than before, not to mention accident-free. That’s a huge win,” Higgins says.

Trucking seems cautiously optimistic about Phase 2 rules Fleet Owner / August 17, 2016 Trucking OEMs, suppliers, trade groups, and fleets in the main seem “cautiously optimistic” regarding eventual compliance with the final Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel efficiency rules issued this week by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), though in some cases the final rules benchmarks are tougher than what the agencies proposed in the draft phase of the rulemaking process. [NOTE: to read the entire 1,690 page final Phase 2 rule, go here. To read through the detailed 1,116 page “regulatory impact analysis” of the final rule, go here. For the simplified 5-page fact sheet concerning the Phase 2 rules, go here. To review the specific modeling programs used by EPA and NHTSA for gauging compliance with the new rule, go here and here, respectively.] Sean Waters, director of compliance and regulatory affairs at Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA), pointed out in a statement that improving overall efficiency for Class 7 and 8 tractors and vocational vehicles by as much as 25% over the course of more than a decade as called for by the new rules “is a tremendous challenge for an industry that has been treating fuel efficiency as a first order priority for our customers for many decades.” He added that the up to 5% engine efficiency improvements included in the overall efficiency Phase 2 target will require “continued development of engine technology” as well, though he stressed DTNA is “confident that we are up to the challenge.” The Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA), for one, is concerned that the final rule “appears to have more stringent benchmarks” than the original proposed rule, yet is pleased that 2027 remains “the final target date” for full compliance as both EPA and NHTSA had considered “speeding up that process” by making the final date 2024. “We are pleased that the EPA and NHTSA granted our request to have the final implementation year of Phase 2 remain in 2027,” noted Jake Jacoby, TRALA’s president and CEO, in a statement. “We’re also pleased that there appears to be harmonization of standards and some additional flexibility for the OEMs to reach these targets." Glen Kedzie, vice president and energy and environmental counsel for the American Trucking Associations (ATA) trade group, added that industry representatives worked with EPA and NHTSA for three-and-a-half years to ensure Phase 2 standards took into account “the wide diversity of equipment and operations across the trucking sector,” which he believes remains the case. “We are pleased that our concerns such as adequate lead-time for technology development, national harmonization of standards, and flexibility for manufacturers have been heard and included in the final rule,” he said in a statement. “While efficiency milestones for vehicles, engines and trailers have all been slightly increased over the agencies’ initial proposal, we are encouraged that they addressed several important issues in the final rule including undertaking annual rule assessments, not accelerating compliance timelines from those originally proposed and refining emissions modeling based on industry data,” Kedzie stressed. “However, while the potential for real cost savings and environmental benefits under this rule are there – fleets will ultimately determine the success or failure of this rule based on their comfort level purchasing these new technologies,” he said. Yet the American consumer is also expected to benefit from the Phase 2 rules as well, according to the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), largely due to lower fuel usage by freight-hauling trucks. For example, CFA calculates that the average American family spends more than $1,100 per year on indirect freight truck fuel costs passed on to consumers. “That’s almost as much as the average family spends on household electricity,” stressed Jack Gillis, CFA’s director of public affairs and vehicle expert, in a statement. “For a long time, an efficiency gap has forced consumers to pay the freight for inefficient shipping,” he said. “These standards will save consumers money, just as other energy efficiency goals have saved families and businesses money on the total cost of owning and operating cars, light-duty trucks, and home appliances such as refrigerators and water heaters.”

Truck speed limiter proposal clears White House review Fleet Owner / August 15, 2016 After 15 months in review, the Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters Proposed Rule has cleared the White House Office of Management and Budget, meaning it is available to be published in a matter of days and a public comment period will be begin. The rulemaking, which originated nearly 10 years ago with petitions from Road Safe America and the American Trucking Assns., was officially initiated in May 2013 and was originally scheduled to be published in March 2014. This past March, responding to a Senate budget panel who wanted to know why a proposal that is supported by both a trucking industry association and highway safety groups was so slow in coming, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx testified that he expected the proposal to be published “within the next month, or so,” calling it “a top priority.” OMB approved the proposed rule as “consistent with change,” indicating the mandate meets federal regulatory guidelines, although it has been altered during the review period. OMB may also approve a rule without change or return it for revision by the submitting agency. Still unknown by the public is the speed at which the limiters would be set under the proposal. ATA has asked for a 65 mph limit. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA), however, opposes such a rule, calling it “politically motivated” and contending there is “a lack of solid science” to back up such a mandate and that speed-limited trucks “would make highways less safe.” More to come.

Q&A with Eaton on Phase 2 powertrain efficiency Fleet Owner / August 18, 2016 Hand-in-hand with the GHG Phase 2 final rule is the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model — GEM for short — which defines and assigns values to fuel efficiency-increasing technologies for testing compliance with goals the rule sets. Global power management company Eaton Corp. says it helped get a word in edgewise for trucking that improved compliance testing by allowing for more flexible powertrain consideration. Eaton contends the adjusted testing is "significantly improved" in that considers powertrain enhancements that can save fuel and help reach efficiency goals without simply having to add more technologies and cost to trucks. That's a key point, since the rule addresses fuel economy of medium- and heavy-duty trucks from a vehicle perspective as well as for heavy-duty engines themselves, and fleets and trucking companies may choose to spec non-OEM powertrain options like the SmartAdvantage joint product offered by Cummins Inc. and Eaton. Fleet Owner heard from Mihai Dorobantu, engineering manager for Eaton's Truck Group technology team, about the adjusted compliance testing. Q: Were there any changes from the GHG Phase 2 proposed rule to the final rule that you believe will help the trucking industry achieve the fuel economy goals set forth? A: "Since the proposed rule, the EPA has improved two key testing alternatives that offer flexibility in achieving the standards. Transmission efficiency tests allow OEMs to take advantage of advanced technologies such as precision lubrication and gears designed for fuel efficiency. "The powertrain test method also was significantly improved to allow the industry to quantify and take advantage of the efficiency driven by intelligent controls. Such technologies are not 'seen' by the default certification methodology, but do provide real fuel savings without adding cost, weight or complexity. "The EPA has worked with the major industry stakeholders to ensure the testing methodologies are sound. Our advanced transmissions and controls help cover anywhere from one-tenth to two-thirds of the compliance gap, above and beyond the original estimates in the proposed rule." Q: With the final rule, do you expect that all-new technologies will need to emerge and be added to improve efficiency? A: "The proposed rule showed one path to compliance that was a mix of incremental improvements — for example, better lubrication or engine downspeeding — and totally new technologies such as waste heat recovery and electrification, which makes compliance very hard, adding cost, weight and complexity. "As the industry started to think through the challenges of achieving compliance, other, better paths emerged. For example, our advanced automation and deep engine-transmission integration technologies also offer compliance value to our OEM customers between one-quarter and two-thirds of the compliance gap. "These are examples of advanced technologies that do not add weight, complexity or cost, yet have dramatic results in terms of reducing fuel burn, and thus help achieve compliance. In many cases, by advancing the controls and intelligence of our transmissions, we enable OEMs to simplify and actually take weight out of the system. "For example, improving transmission efficiency leads to cooler elimination, or using new dual-clutch technology allows the elimination of the notoriously inefficient torque converter while maintaining performance and drivability. "So although the rule will likely force some new technologies in engines and aerodynamics, the ingenuity of the industry is already finding cost-effective means to use intelligence and controls to help compliance without adding new systems or hardware."

Fleet Owner / August 17, 2016 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) officially rolled out “Phase 2” greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel efficiency rules this week aimed at four distinct commercial equipment types: Class 7 and 8 tractors, trailers, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, plus vocational vehicles. The “phase-in” period for the new rules stretches from model year 2021 thru model year 2027, by which time units within the four groups mentioned must be in full compliance. The EPA and NHTSA said the Phase 2 standards are expected to lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons, save vehicle owners fuel costs of about $170 billion, and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. Both agencies claim that the “typical buyer” of a new long-haul truck in 2027 could recoup the extra cost of the technology in just less than two years through fuel savings. In total, the program is expected to result in up to $230 billion in “net benefits” to society over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the program: benefits that include fuel savings, carbon reductions, improved health, better energy security, along with lower travel and refueling costs. Class 7 and 8 tractors and their engines account for roughly 60% of total GHG emissions and fuel consumption from the heavy-duty sector, according to EPA and NHTSA, and the Phase 2 standards for them start in model year 2021, increase incrementally in model year 2024, and are expected to be fully phased-in by model year 2027. The standards differ by vehicle weight class, roof height, and cab type (sleeper or day cab). The fully phased-in standards are expected to achieve up to 25% lower CO2 emissions and fuel consumption levels compared to the Phase 1 standards, EPA and NHSTA said. OEMs can meet the tractor standards via several avenues: improvements to engines, transmissions, drivelines, and aerodynamic design, along with the use of lower rolling resistance tires, extended idle reduction technologies, and other accessories. For diesel engines, Phase 2 standards begin to be applied in model year 2021, with interim standards to be met by 2024 before full phase-in occurs in model year 2027. A revised test cycle is being adopted as well for “weighting” tractor engines to better reflect actual in-use operation. The final diesel engine standards will reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by up to 5% for tractor engines and up to 4% for vocational engines compared to Phase 1, EPA and NHTSA said. Technologies that could be used to meet the Phase 2 diesel engine standards include: combustion optimization; improved air handling; reduced friction within the engine; improved emissions after-treatment technologies; and waste heat recovery. The Phase 2 program includes first-ever fuel efficiency standards for trailers. Compliance with the EPA’s Phase 2 GHG standards are voluntary starting in 2018, and are also voluntary for NHTSA from 2018 to 2020, with mandatory standards beginning in 2021. In general, the trailer standards apply only for box vans, flatbeds, tankers, and container chassis. Full compliance with the Phase 2 standards for trailers is expected by model year 2027; standards that should achieve up to 9% lower CO2 emissions and fuel consumption compared to an average model year 2017 trailer. EPA and NHTSA said that some of the technologies trailer makers may use to meet the Phase 2 standards include: aerodynamic devices, lower rolling resistance tires, automatic tire inflation systems, and weight reducing designs. Heavy- and medium- duty pickup trucks and vans represent about 23% of the fuel consumption and GHG emissions within the heavy- and medium-duty vehicle sector, EPA and NHTSA noted. The Phase 2 standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans, however, will apply largely in the same manner as the Phase 1 standards. Under this approach, all manufacturers face the same standards, but the average emission and fuel consumption rates applicable to each manufacturer depend on the manufacturer’s sales mix, with higher capacity vehicles (in terms of payload and towing) having less stringent targets. Thus the Phase 2 standards for pickups and vans take the form of a set of target standard curves, based on a “work factor” that, as in Phase 1, combines a vehicle’s payload, towing capabilities, and whether or not it has 4-wheel drive. The standards become 2.5% more stringent every year from model years 2021 to 2027, with fully phased-in reductions in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of about 16% beyond Phase 1. EPA and NHTSA believe most pickup and van manufacturers will choose to meet the Phase 2 rules some of the same technologies already being used to meet the Phase 1 2014-2018 standards, including improvements in engines, transmissions, and lower rolling resistance tire technologies. Under Phase 2, though, both agencies expect newer, more advanced technologies such as engine stop/start and powertrain hybridization will introduced more broadly into this segment. Vocational vehicles encompass a broad variety of units, including delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, cement and dump trucks, refuse haulers, public utility trucks, plus transit, shuttle, and school buses. Vocational vehicles represent about 17% of the total medium- and heavy-duty fuel consumption, EPA and NHTSA said, noting that Phase 2 rules for this segments start in model year 2021, with increased stringency in model year 2024 and full compliance by 2027. Vocational vehicle standards will be differentiated using vehicle weights, driving cycle, and chassis type for emergency vehicles, cement mixers, coach buses, school buses, transit buses, refuse trucks, and motor homes may optionally use application-specific standards. The fully phased-in Phase 2 standards should achieve up to 24% in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption relative to Phase 1, the agencies predict, with improvements to engines, transmissions, and drivelines, plus the addition of lower rolling resistance tires, idle reduction systems, weight reducing designs, and some application of hybrid technology, to be used to gain compliance with the new rules. The Phase 2 rules also include averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) compliance provisions for both the engine and vehicle standards in this program. EPA and NHTSA said such provisions allow manufacturers to trade credits, bank credits for future years, and average credits, which in turn allows manufacturers to certify engines or vehicles that do not perform up to the standard and offset them with engines or vehicles that perform better than the standard. However, EPA and NHTSA said they are not adopting a full ABT program for the Phase 2 trailer standards because, in their words, “the nature of the industry makes it a challenge for trailer manufacturers to benefit from this type of program.” Instead, the agencies will finalize an averaging program available in model year 2027 for manufacturers of dry and refrigerated box vans as well as exemptions for non-box specialty trailer types that remove or reduce the burden for many small businesses. The Phase 2 standards are fully aligned between EPA and NHTSA noted that the Phase 2 standards are “fully aligned” between them both as well as with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) so as to allow manufacturers to continue to build a “single fleet” of vehicles, equipment and engines for the U.S. market.

Watch the video to determine if you got your money's worth. Your taxes paid for it. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE Commits $137M to Advance Fuel-Efficient Tech Heavy Duty Trucking / August 17, 2016 The United States Department of Energy (DoE) is announcing up to $137 million in investments for two programs designed to develop next-generation fuel-efficiency technologies in commercial and passenger vehicles, including more funding for SuperTruck II. The program is designed to advance environmental and innovative technologies for heavy- and medium-duty vehicles while accelerating technology advancement for passenger cars and lighter trucks. One of the initiatives, SuperTruck II, will fund four projects to develop and demonstrate cost-effective technologies aimed at doubling the freight efficiency of Class 8 trucks. Through another initiative, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Vehicle Technologies Office Program Wide Funding Opportunity Announcement selections, 35 new projects will receive $57 million to develop and deploy an array of cutting-edge vehicle technologies. These technologies include advanced batteries and electrical drive systems to reduce carbon emissions and petroleum consumption in passenger cars and light trucks. “These investments will accelerate the development of innovative vehicle technologies that will save businesses and consumers money at the pump, cut carbon emissions, and strengthen our economy,” said David Friedman, acting assistant secretary. “SuperTruck II builds on the successful SuperTruck I program, which has already led to more than 20 fuel-saving technologies that have reached the commercial market.” Announced in March, the SuperTruck II initiative is a continuation of the SuperTruck program that was launched in 2010 to improve heavy-duty truck freight efficiency by 50%. For SuperTruck II, the Energy Department has selected four SuperTruck II teams for projects of $20 million in federal funding with each recipient matching that amount dollar-for-dollar. The four companies tapped participating in SuperTruck II are Cummins, [Germany’s] Daimler Trucks North America, Navistar, and [Sweden’s] Volvo Technology of America. Cummins will design and develop a new more-efficient engine and advanced drivetrain and vehicle technologies. Daimler Trucks North America will develop and demonstrate a tractor-trailer combination using a suite of technologies including active aerodynamics, cylinder deactivation, hybridization, and the electrification of accessories. Navistar will design and develop a vehicle and powertrain with electrified engine components that can enable higher engine efficiency and a significantly more aerodynamically reengineered cab. Volvo Technology of America will develop and demonstrate a tractor-trailer combination with a lightweight cab that achieves the freight efficiency goal using alternative engine designs and a variety of system technologies. For more information on both programs, click here. Related reading - http://www.slideshare.net/PaulMenig/tmc-2013-far-horizon-tech-session .

DOE Commits $137M to Advance Fuel-Efficient Tech Heavy Duty Trucking / August 17, 2016 The United States Department of Energy (DoE) is announcing up to $137 million in investments for two programs designed to develop next-generation fuel-efficiency technologies in commercial and passenger vehicles, including more funding for SuperTruck II. The program is designed to advance environmental and innovative technologies for heavy- and medium-duty vehicles while accelerating technology advancement for passenger cars and lighter trucks. One of the initiatives, SuperTruck II, will fund four projects to develop and demonstrate cost-effective technologies aimed at doubling the freight efficiency of Class 8 trucks. Through another initiative, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Vehicle Technologies Office Program Wide Funding Opportunity Announcement selections, 35 new projects will receive $57 million to develop and deploy an array of cutting-edge vehicle technologies. These technologies include advanced batteries and electrical drive systems to reduce carbon emissions and petroleum consumption in passenger cars and light trucks. “These investments will accelerate the development of innovative vehicle technologies that will save businesses and consumers money at the pump, cut carbon emissions, and strengthen our economy,” said David Friedman, acting assistant secretary. “SuperTruck II builds on the successful SuperTruck I program, which has already led to more than 20 fuel-saving technologies that have reached the commercial market.” Announced in March, the SuperTruck II initiative is a continuation of the SuperTruck program that was launched in 2010 to improve heavy-duty truck freight efficiency by 50%. For SuperTruck II, the Energy Department has selected four SuperTruck II teams for projects of $20 million in federal funding with each recipient matching that amount dollar-for-dollar. The four companies tapped participating in SuperTruck II are Cummins, [Germany’s] Daimler Trucks North America, Navistar, and [Sweden’s] Volvo Technology of America. Cummins will design and develop a new more-efficient engine and advanced drivetrain and vehicle technologies. Daimler Trucks North America will develop and demonstrate a tractor-trailer combination using a suite of technologies including active aerodynamics, cylinder deactivation, hybridization, and the electrification of accessories. Navistar will design and develop a vehicle and powertrain with electrified engine components that can enable higher engine efficiency and a significantly more aerodynamically reengineered cab. Volvo Technology of America will develop and demonstrate a tractor-trailer combination with a lightweight cab that achieves the freight efficiency goal using alternative engine designs and a variety of system technologies. For more information on both programs, click here.

Volvo introduces new factory-fill engine oil Fleet Owner / August 19, 2016 Volvo Trucks North America will offer a new factory fill engine oil for the Volvo D11, D13 and D16 engines, meeting new Volvo VDS-4.5 engine specifications. “Volvo models running the new VDS-4.5 will be able to travel for longer intervals between oil changes, saving customers money on service costs and increasing uptime,” the company said. Volvo VDS-4.5 is the same viscosity (10W30) as today’s factory fill, Volvo said. However, according to the company, “it will have enhanced performance for oil oxidation and oil aeration control. VDS-4.5 is compatible with and can be used in older, previous emissions-level engines.” For engine oil and filters, the new recommended maintenance intervals add extra miles to the previous life of an oil change for each of the three duty cycles – long haul, regional haul and heavy haul – as defined by fuel consumption. Those intervals were increased to be 55,000 miles for long haul, 40,000 miles for regional and 30,000 miles for heavy haul applications. “Assuming a 600,000 mile vehicle life in over-the-road applications, the new engine oil intervals will allow truck owners to skip between four and 16 oil drains, depending on duty cycle, compared with the prior maintenance schedule,” said John Moore, Volvo product marketing manager – powertrain. “In oil costs alone, that represents a savings of hundreds of dollars per year, even for the lightest duty cycles. Those savings would be substantially larger for operations that do not perform preventative maintenance in-house.” For owners that decide to use the current Volvo VDS-4 oil, current lower mileage oil change intervals will remain. If engine idle time is greater than 30%, operators should use the next shorter drain interval, Volvo explained. Volvo VDS-4.5 will be available beginning in October.

Volvo Offers Low-Viscosity Oil Fill for New Engines Heavy Duty Trucking / August 18, 2016 Volvo Trucks North America will offer a new factory fill engine oil for the Volvo D11, D13 and D16 engines meeting Volvo’s VDS-4.5 engine specifications and exceeding API's new CK-4 oil specification. Volvo models running oils meeting the VDS-4.5 oil spec will be able to travel for longer intervals between oil changes, saving customers time and service costs, the company says. For engine and oil filters, the new recommended maintenance intervals are longer for each duty cycle, including long haul, regional haul and heavy haul, as defined by fuel consumption. Those intervals were increased to 55,000 miles for long haul, 40,000 miles for regional and 30,000 miles for heavy haul applications. Volvo VDS-4.5 underwent analysis and testing to ensure changes met Volvo’s reliability and performance standards. VDS-4.5 is compatible with and can be used in older, previous emissions level engines. The new oil will be available beginning in October. For owners who decide to use the current Volvo VDS-4 oil, current lower mileage oil change intervals will remain. If engine idle time is greater than 30%, operators should use the next shorter drain interval. “Assuming a 600,000-mile vehicle life in over-the-road applications, the new engine oil intervals will allow truck owners to skip between four and 16 oil drains, depending on duty cycle, compared with the prior maintenance schedule,” said John Moore, Volvo product marketing manager – powertrain. “In oil costs alone, that represents a savings of hundreds of dollars per year, even for the lightest duty cycles. Those savings would be substantially larger for operations that do not perform preventative maintenance in-house.”

Car & Driver / August 2016 The former auto executive at BMW, Ford, Chrysler, and GM, retired Marine Corps Captain and Douglas A-4 “Skyhawk” pilot, chats about his life, his cars, and his beloved but "doomed" automotive industry. C/D: Are you flying these days? BL: Still fly my Aero Vodochody L-39 fighter/trainer and my MD-500E helicopter. I must be the oldest pilot in the world to still fly a tactical military aircraft. C/D: What might save Lincoln? BL: In the time left for the automobile as we know it, it won’t be possible to make Lincoln a truly aspirational brand. The new Continental, while not as good as the concept, is a design language cribbed from Bentley. Which is fine, because if you’re gonna steal, rob from a bank and not a grocery store. But cars don’t matter much anymore—it’s crossovers that count. Will Lincoln ever again inspire an image of superiority, where your friends say you bought a cool car just because they admire the brand? Probably not. C/D: Will Tesla still exist 20 years from now? BL: As it is presently, no. As they say, “Socialism is great until they run out of other people’s money.” Tesla burns cash. It’s not a car company, it’s a cult of fanatics who think Elon Musk can do no wrong. But financially, it doesn’t work. C/D: What car are you most proud of? BL: Everybody laughs, but the Volt—the most difficult to accomplish in a corporate environment. So much advanced engineering in a car we knew we’d sell at a loss. C/D: Because automakers eat so much capital, will we eventually see only four or five remaining? BL: It’s likely. With autonomous cars, you’re gonna see more consolidation. Once we have transport modules, you order off the phone and brands won’t matter anymore. When brands don’t matter, the auto industry ends. It’s got another 20 years. C/D: How goes the VLF Destino supercar? BL: We’ve started delivery. Carlos Santana has his, I have mine. We had no more than 25 people on the project, so I was gratified at the refinement we achieved. We’ll produce 100 per year and sell them at former Fisker dealerships. C/D: What’s in your garage? BL: The Destino. My dad’s ’52 Aston Martin DB2 Vantage, an Autokraft Cobra, a ’34 LaSalle, a ’62 Buick Skylark convertible, my Cunningham roadster, and a ’71 Monteverdi 375 High Speed coupe. C/D: What’s to be done with Chrysler? BL: De-emphasize the automobiles and find partners to concentrate on Ram and Jeep only. The amazing thing about Jeep is that no one thinks of it as an American brand—it’s nationally neutral. A Jeep Grand Cherokee goes to owners of Audis and Benzes, where it’s considered the family car. Those buyers wouldn’t say that about a Ford Explorer or a Chevy Traverse. C/D: Your greatest influence? BL: The Marine Corps taught me commitment, courage, focus, and a value system that can easily suffice for people like me who aren’t religious. Then, also, Lee Iacocca, who taught me leadership via a balance of force, intimidation, kindness, understanding, humor, and being fatherly. He told me I wasn’t sufficiently humble, which I wasn’t. After the famous TV ads featuring Lee, he became like Musk—people bought the cars because they thought Lee was a visionary. C/D: What’s your take on car companies competing in F1? BL: Total waste of time. It provides nice outings for execs to visit hospitality suites, but it doesn’t sway purchasing decisions. The percentage of the public that gives a damn is dwindling. C/D: Is it possible that Ferdinand Piëch might be responsible for VW’s Dieselgate? BL: Yes. Employees have to be able to say to the CEO, “We figured it couldn’t be done, but we tried our best for you, and now we know it can’t be done.” But with Piëch, if you failed, it was, “Off with their heads.” People who fear losing their jobs start lying. C/D: What’s the most important thing you learned in Europe? BL: The overriding importance of product excellence. When I was at Ford of Europe and Opel, they were always gunning for best in class. Meanwhile, the mother ship in America’s motto was, “We don’t have to do good cars, just good enough.” C/D: Of the Big Three you worked for, which was the most thorny? BL: Ford, a very tight, finance-driven culture with everything quantified. Plus, there were elected execs and the Ford family, all meddling, yet we still had to serve the shareholders. C/D: Anything you’d have done differently? BL: I’d have paid more attention to my personal life and had fewer divorces. And I regret never being the CEO of a major auto company. If I’d not frequently treated Lee Iacocca with such disdain, I think there’s a good chance I’d have been CEO at Chrysler. But I was sort of a smartass, and I’d take on Lee in big meetings. His message after that was “ABL”—Anybody But Lutz.

.

.

.

The Wall Street Journal / August 21, 2016 Donald Trump’s campaign suggested Sunday that the Republican presidential candidate is prepared to soften his stance on immigration. Trump has made a tough stand on immigration a signature issue of his campaign, pledging among other things to create a “deportation force” to rapidly remove some of the country’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. On Sunday, his new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, dialed back on that pledge, suggesting the deportation force might not be set up after all. Asked Trump would mobilize this deportation force in the White House, Conway responded: “To be determined.” She added: “What he supports is to ensure that we respect the law. He will lay out the specifics of that plan.” Trump tried this past week to reach out to minority groups, in part by holding a meeting on Saturday with his Hispanic Advisory Council at Trump Tower in New York. Trump has angered many Hispanic leaders during the campaign, due to his comments about Hispanic immigrants being “rapists” and his plan to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. The meeting produced a tangle of reports that indicated Trump told the gathering that he was open to changing his view. Any retreat on immigration policies, which have been a signature issue for Trump, could be politically risky. On the one hand, GOP leaders have urged the campaign to soften its rhetoric in an attempt to improve Trump’s poor standing with the rapidly growing universe of Hispanic voters, who will make up an estimated 12% of eligible voters this year. But Trump’s fervent backers are counting on a continued tough line on immigration, including a promise to build a wall to keep immigrants from Mexico and Central America out of the U.S. Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, a key Trump adviser, was asked on Sunday whether the candidate still planned to quickly deport the 11 million people if he won the White House. He was noncommittal. “What I’m certain about is that he did not make a firm commitment yesterday, or the meeting the other day, about what he will do with that,” Sessions said. “But he did listen, and he’s talking about it.” Sessions emphasized that Trump isn’t backing off his plan for “extreme vetting,” or ideological assessments, for those coming into the U.S. “The American people clearly support the idea that if you can’t vet somebody from a dangerous area of the globe, they should not be brought into the U.S.,” he said.

RT / August 21, 2016 Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has threatened that his country could leave the United Nations, after the organization urged the Philippines to stop executing and killing people linked to drug business and threatened that “state actors” could be punished. "I do not want to insult you, but maybe we'll just have to decide to separate from the United Nations," Rodrigo Duterte said Sunday. "Why do you have to listen to this stupid?" “I don't give a sh*t about them,” he added. “They are the ones interfering. You do not just go out and give a sh*tting statement against a country.” Calling the UN “inutile", Duterte said the Philippines could invite China, African nations and other countries to create a rival international body. He went further, slamming the UN’s response to other global issues. “Look at the iconic boy that was taken out from the rubble and he was made to sit in the ambulance and we saw it," Duterte said. The picture of Omran Daqneesh, a five-year-old Syrian boy has recently gone viral around the globe. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160818142212-05-omran-daqneesh-aleppo-syria-super-169.jpg "Why is it that the United States is not doing anything? I do not read you. Anybody in that stupid body complaining about the stench there of death?" The Philippine leader also attacked the US for more members of the public dying as a result of police violence. "What do you think the Americans did to the black people there? Is that not rubbing off also? And critics say what?" The angry tirade at the news conference in Davao City came after the UN’s special rapporteur on summary executions, Agnes Callamard, urged the Philippines to stop extrajudicial executions and killings, saying “state actors” could be punished for the “illegal killings.” About 900 people have been killed by unidentified attackers since May, when Duterte was elected, and another 665 died at the hands of security forces, according to the national police chief. Duterte, however, has vehemently denied these accusations, and said that the police only fired in self-defense, while he also lashed out at the UN. He shrugged off the prospect of repercussions that could follow as a result of his remarks. "I don't give a shit about them. They are the ones interfering,” Duterte said.