Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Truckiní through new EPA regulations
NetRight Daily ^ | August 11, 2011 | Rebekah Rast

Posted on 08/11/2011 4:00:18 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

By 2018, America’s 18-wheelers will be rolling on getting 20 percent more miles per gallon due to new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules addressing new fuel standards for heavy vehicles.

But as nice as it will be for big-rigs to save four gallons of fuel for every 100 miles traveled, fuel efficiency comes at a cost. The Wall Street Journal estimates the costs to be $1,050 for work trucks, $380 for vocational trucks and $6,220 for supercab tractors.

President Obama and the EPA promise the upfront costs will more than pay for themselves after a year or two, but some worry the upfront costs may be too much for the trucking industry and cause irreparable harm.

“Americans don’t need the added burden of new regulations during a time when the country is trying to rebuild itself,” says Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG). “These new rules and regulations could potentially put small companies out of business.”

In a statement from Institute for Energy Research (IER), President Thomas Pyle echoed Wilson, “As with the recently announced fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles, these new rules will benefit a small group at the expense of American consumers. Far from protecting the American public, President Obama is using the power of the federal government to protect large corporations from competition and to suppress entrepreneurs and small businesses.”

Is this added cost for consumers and those in the trucking industry worth the benefits? If these rules and regulations are so helpful to the industry, wouldn’t such advancements come into the marketplace on their own?

(Excerpt) Read more at netrightdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: epa; fuelmileage; regulations; trucking

1 posted on 08/11/2011 4:00:21 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084; SheLion; Gabz; Hank Kerchief; 383rr; libertarian27; traviskicks; bamahead; CSM; ...

EnvironMENTAL Nanny State PING!


2 posted on 08/11/2011 4:01:32 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (It's the Tea Party's fault!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
If these rules and regulations are so helpful to the industry, wouldn’t such advancements come into the marketplace on their own?

Exactly . . . when did governmental eggheads ever come up with a profitable idea . . . ever.

I thought Squeaker of the House Boner was going to reign in on these asshats . . . and the NPR . . . and the Planned Predator tax money . . . (crickets}

3 posted on 08/11/2011 4:04:40 PM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Recession, Depression...whatever. You just can’t spend too much money to save the planet.


4 posted on 08/11/2011 4:17:18 PM PDT by Rudder (The Main Stream Media is Our Enemy---get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Nuke the EPA. Tell all the parasites they are fired and they just got their last Federale (welfare) check. Then bulldoze every EPA building.


5 posted on 08/11/2011 4:23:00 PM PDT by dennisw (NZT -- works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The trucking industry has been chasing better fuel economy for decades. A fraction of 1 mpg is a massive improvement for a Class 8 truck and a competitive advantage in the marketplace.


6 posted on 08/11/2011 4:28:57 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

They will get the mileage increase by lowering the weight. that will mean more trucker jobs to haul the same amount of freight,,,,,,more union jobs,,,,,,


7 posted on 08/11/2011 4:29:51 PM PDT by joelt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; laweeks

We used to have good fuel mileage until the engines
had to meet ever increasing emissions standards.

The 20% increase their wanting, we lost, starting in 2004.

I stay pretty busy tuning engines, especially at $4.00 gal. for diesel.


8 posted on 08/11/2011 4:31:10 PM PDT by twistedwrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
When this story was first reported a couple of days ago, my reaction was that it has absolutely nothing to do with environmental protection at all.

The real reason for this kind of regulatory nonsense is that it forces premature obsolescence into the economy, thereby stimulating manufacturing activity that otherwise would have been unnecessary. This, after all, is why major truck manufacturers are such big supporters of the new fuel efficiency standards.

I mean, did anyone really think GE was using the Obama administration to push those silly new light bulbs on Americans because the company truly cares about the environment?

9 posted on 08/11/2011 4:59:59 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Does Obastard think that drivers and owners haven’t been asking for engines that get better mileage? Does he not understand the physics of moving an 80,000 truck down the road? Why not just declare that the mileage of large trucks to be 20 mpg? Why not just make it 500 mpg?


10 posted on 08/11/2011 5:15:29 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: twistedwrench
We used to have good fuel mileage until the engines had to meet ever increasing emissions standards.

Plus the huge added expense of maintaining these engines is staggering!

Most of my Cummins ISX and Detroit Series 60 work is EGR related.

Lots of problems with the '07 emmission engine's. Our fleet is now getting 13 new '12 KW's with ISX.

11 posted on 08/11/2011 5:15:54 PM PDT by MountainDad (Support your local Militia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
...President Obama and the EPA promise the upfront costs will more than pay for themselves after a year or two...


Probably true if you assume $10/gallon for fuel.

12 posted on 08/11/2011 5:35:05 PM PDT by az_gila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MountainDad

And that’s a “reality” the watermelons can’t acknowledge ! The math is pretty simple and there are no “magical solutions” to moving a load of freight down the highway. Every OEM serving the industry has been spending mega-bucks for incremental efficiency gains already ! Obviously these government idiots think they can bamboozle the public with yet another fuel efficiency scam - and make the consumers stand in line to pay the piper for their ignorance ! Its worked before !

One “snake in the woodpile” may be the plethora of TV channels. Right now a program featuring Kwhoppers is on Speed Channel. They’re going to great lengths to itemize just how much they’re doing to improve fuel efficiency and how difficult that process is. >PS


13 posted on 08/11/2011 5:44:40 PM PDT by PiperShade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MountainDad

Yes Sir, I agree. Were a Detroit Diesel dealer out here in California
and the majority of work is EGR valve, Turbo and Sensors.

It’s really a shame, the mid to late 90’s, Early 2000 engines were
good on fuel mileage and power.


14 posted on 08/11/2011 5:50:22 PM PDT by twistedwrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: twistedwrench

The old “chicken/egg” question. Do the penalities of increased fuel consumption and maintenance costs offset the better efficiency of “dirtier” engines ? IOW is a little bit of something noxious more injurious than a lot more of something marginally less so ? >PS


15 posted on 08/11/2011 5:54:06 PM PDT by PiperShade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: joelt
that will mean more trucker jobs to haul the same amount of freight,,,,,,more union jobs,,,,,,

very few union trucking jobs these days

most union (Teamster) outfits bit the dust when trucking was deregulated (shockingly - - under Peanut boy).

16 posted on 08/11/2011 5:59:31 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: twistedwrench

Lowering the compression to reduce Nox and pumping in the EGR are obviously negatives for efficiency. The level of complexity in the 2010 and up engines is very high, and I expect a lot of warranty and out of warranty costs.


17 posted on 08/11/2011 6:03:16 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: twistedwrench

Still recall my first few weeks driving a “stoichemetric” Mack ! The thing was a complete dog out of the hole ! If you needed “power right now” you had to keep the rpm up in idle. The dog burnt as much - if not more - diesel than earlier models doing the same work ! >PS


18 posted on 08/11/2011 6:03:16 PM PDT by PiperShade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
To meet the standard look for manufacturers to reduce engine power and/or load capacity while raising the price of trucks. That means more trucks will be needed to carry the same amount of cargo. This is the same kind of environmental malarkey that gave us ethanol in our gasoline that reduces mileage and increases oil consumption.
19 posted on 08/11/2011 6:05:45 PM PDT by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PiperShade

As you might expect, most of this is centered around California and some of the large metroplex cities back east.

We’re all paying a very high price for their cleaner air.


20 posted on 08/11/2011 6:05:52 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Buy railroad stocks now. They will not have to market their services, just answer their phones.


21 posted on 08/11/2011 6:27:59 PM PDT by Surfscoter (Surfscoter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PiperShade; twistedwrench
They’re going to great lengths to itemize just how much they’re doing to improve fuel efficiency and how difficult that process is.<

Yeah, and it's funny how the OEM puts out an engine that is suppose to get "great" mileage, only to fall flat on it's face!

I.E.- The CAT C-15 twin turbo. Junk as far as fuel mileage is concerned. And a money sucking engine to maintain!

No wonder there are so many convertion kits for these back to single turbo!

It all boils down to the EPA with their heads up their ass, as always!

22 posted on 08/11/2011 6:46:14 PM PDT by MountainDad (Support your local Militia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PiperShade
Still recall my first few weeks driving a “stoichemetric” Mack

Macks really ARE horrible "dogs".

E-tech engines are the worst. The MP7 seems to be a little improvement, but they will never be as good as the old E-7's.

What year and and model are you driving?

23 posted on 08/11/2011 6:59:58 PM PDT by MountainDad (Support your local Militia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Guess we can all just turn off our engines when going down hill - coasting silent saves fuel *major sarc*


24 posted on 08/11/2011 7:00:28 PM PDT by libertarian27 (Agenda21: Dept. of Life, Dept. of Liberty and the Dept. of Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertarian27

in the politically incorrect lingo of truckers...

“Mexican overdrive”


25 posted on 08/11/2011 7:02:50 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: libertarian27

Georgia overdrive!


26 posted on 08/11/2011 7:05:37 PM PDT by griswold3 (Character is Destiny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: twistedwrench
It’s really a shame, the mid to late 90’s, Early 2000 engines were good on fuel mileage and power.

Yes they were. Now with the EPA regs. we can no longer say that.

But hey! We get to spend more money on DEF now! Yippie!

27 posted on 08/11/2011 7:06:44 PM PDT by MountainDad (Support your local Militia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MountainDad

Nothin’ like a little “cow piss” to brighten your day, LOL.


28 posted on 08/11/2011 7:08:39 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
Nothin’ like a little “cow piss” to brighten your day, LOL.

Lol...Yep. And don't forget that the cow-piss freezes at 11 degrees F.

Make sure the DEF tank heaters are working!

29 posted on 08/11/2011 7:17:54 PM PDT by MountainDad (Support your local Militia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Trucking is already taking a hit because people aren’t buying as much. The EPA needs to be dismantled.


30 posted on 08/12/2011 3:43:44 AM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift

Gnip


31 posted on 08/12/2011 3:44:31 AM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“President Obama and the EPA promise the upfront costs will more than pay for themselves after a year or two,..”

Which is it? 1 year or 2 years to TARR the investment? The gov’t drones don’t really care or they would be able to answer that question, instead it is once again all about control and only control.


32 posted on 08/12/2011 6:44:46 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MountainDad

That was some 8 years’ back. They were R tri-axles with 350 hp engines ahead of what most of the drivers called a 13-speed.

They were a bad build, as the rears were too high, (low numerically). Trucks would cut out on high speed (75 mph on most) before high rpm. Way too fast for a tri-axle in the East. Made them a greyhound on the flat but a chiuahua on even a tiny hill. >MW


33 posted on 08/12/2011 7:06:34 PM PDT by PiperShade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson