10 MPG in a Tractor Trailer?

[TeamCaffee]

Henry Albert has started an experiment with his 2014 Cascadia Evolution DD15 with the new DT12 Transmission.

Henry's experiment involves slowing down from 65 to 55 mph to see what kind of fuel mileage he will get and then slowly increasing his speed.

Before starting the experiment his best fuel mileage was 9.8 and his worst has been 7.7 with almost 56,988 miles on the truck. The life time average fuel mileage is 9.16 in a tractor trailer. He usually weighs around 65,000 and has virtually no dead head. Before started the experiment his average cruise speed was 65 MPH.

In his blogs he talks about how the DD12 transmission has helping to increase his fuel mileage and how often the transmission goes into coast mode.

His first blog talking about this experiment has been posted on the Team Run Smart page.

I do not want to spoil the surprise but at 55 mph he is beating many straight trucks fuel mileage that I know of and he will post his new fuel mileage numbers soon.

Follow along on his journey:

Team Run Smart: Pro Henry Albert

Life in the Slow Lane!

 

[zorry]

The I-Shift has been coasting for years.
Also a 12 spd.
So dependable that it's now standard in all Volvo's.

I expect the D12 will do as well.
A DD 13 and D12 should be awesome.
That's still a little way off if I read it right.

 

[T270_Dreamin]

Give me a d11 72" sleeper with a 22 ft box and I'll be working instead of sitting

 

[Monty]

Many years ago, part of the training at MNX was to take a fully loaded truck for a spin and see what mileage you could master with the cruise control operational.

I did the run, then asked if I could do it again, not using the cruise. To demonstrate to the class how efficient the cruise was, I was allowed to do it again. I beat it by several miles per gallon.

Your driving habits determine so much toward MPG, and maybe more than technology.

There were very few times where I ever had "pedal to the metal". To me a wide open throttle was about halfway down ...... trucking is not a sprint race, what's ya hurry?

 

[zorry]

I was accused of fuel tax fraud for averaging 8+ mpg with a 97 Volvo pulling a 53' trl at Heartland.
I produced a printout showing high 8's LIFETIME for the truck and they backed off.

 

[BigCat]

Many years ago, part of the training at MNX was to take a fully loaded truck for a spin and see what mileage you could master with the cruise control operational.

I did the run, then asked if I could do it again, not using the cruise. To demonstrate to the class how efficient the cruise was, I was allowed to do it again. I beat it by several miles per gallon.

Your driving habits determine so much toward MPG, and maybe more than technology.

There were very few times where I ever had "pedal to the metal". To me a wide open throttle was about halfway down ...... trucking is not a sprint race, what's ya hurry?

My dad drove for mnx when they had the cab overs in the early 90's and he talked a lot about there fuel mileage.

 

[zorry]

As recently as a few years ago a KW engineer told me that a cabover was still more aerodynamic than a conventional.
Notice how Freightliner keeps trying to keep the Argosy going.

 

[Monty]

I like cabovers ... and the new technology makes them even more popular, I think.

At the same time, in 1989 an International Trucks aerodynamics expert named Gene Olson reported to Owner Operator magazine that cabovers could be just as aerodynamic as conventionals. International made COEs like the 9700 for some time after that, and they all had the rounded corners and other features Olson described as necessary to keep the flow of air “attached,” running smoothly against the surfaces rather than being bounced outward.

Peterbilt in 1988 introduced its radical 372 COE, often regarded as the most aerodynamic truck ever built. The vehicle featured a rounded front and a two-piece windshield that curved back vertically and on both sides. It had a visor that stood out from the roof and allowed airflow behind it to minimize sun glare without blocking air movement. It also had a front cover that opened at the bottom, allowing access to most minor maintenance items without tilting the cab.

From cabover to conventional | Overdrive - Owner Operators Trucking Magazine

 

[aquitted]

Who the hech wants to drive 55? I would rather spend the extra money and get the job done sooner.

 

[zorry]

That depends on if you need to hurry to " get on the board" or if you have a reasonably time predispatch.

 

[BigCat]

Yep i agree with zorry. Ozark always has me preplanned so i can calculate when i arrive and get 10 hr break. Last Week I did 3021 miles at 61 mph getting 7 mpg and had no scheduling conflicts on loads. Hmmm could be why they keep me on fedex loads.

 

[Turtle]

Hmmm could be why they keep me on fedex loads.

I seriously doubt it.

 

[BigCat]

I seriously doubt it.

Well the way they do it here is if your ever late on fedex load you dont pull them again. Most everyone pulls heavy arse roll stock loads and ive only done a few of those. Its a nice thought anyway lol.

 

[EasyDoesIt]

I owned a1992 9700 COE, 350 hp and 9 speed trans. I pulled a reefer between Detroit, Cincy and Green Bay and was able to coax 6 mpg out of it. Having a set back front axle it was like a yard dog with a big sleeper. Every time you raised the cab everything not stowed ended up on the dash.

 

[zorry]

Two questions:
1) I get pretty much the same mpg at 55 as I do 65. Would this be because I am not working the truck hard ?500 hp D Unit. Most loads lighter than B units haul .
2) Every dealer I've talked to said there'd be no mpg gain by decreasing the hp. This defies my old school thinking.

 

[jt1980a]

Two questions:
1) I get pretty much the same mpg at 55 as I do 65. Would this be because I am not working the truck hard ?500 hp D Unit. Most loads lighter than B units haul .
2) Every dealer I've talked to said there'd be no mpg gain by decreasing the hp. This defies my old school thinking.

I agree with the the dealer. There will probably be no mpg gain by decreasing the hp. If anything zorry you will probably lose mpg by decreasing the hp. Not that hp really means anything because it is a fictional number made up based on torque. Which I don't really understand myself because decreasing the hp doesn't decrease the amount of torque a engine puts out. getting away from the subject, sorry.

Zorry, if your are getting the same mpg at 65 as 55 then I am going to guess (Id even be willing to put some $$$ up) that you have a CAT engine. These engines could idle for 24 hours straight and average 5.5 gallons per hour. Doesn't seem to matter if you are 80K or 50K, running at 45 mph or 75 mph, 5.5 mpg is the normal. Especially if you have a C15 or C16. Once you start getting into the marine applications like a C18 or C19 then you will start seeing 10 mpg in a truck. Obviously this isn't a common thing but I personally know one person setting up a C18 2000hp engine in his truck because a buddy of his has it and it getting 9 mpg running around town with only about 20% highway miles. I'd call his bluff but my friend isn't the kind of guy to spend $60K on an engine just because he heard someone talking.

 

[zorry]

Nope, Volvo.

 

[jt1980a]

aaah, thought I had that one for sure. Heard good and bad things from Volvo drivers on mileage. From what I gather some trucks just didn't get that good of mileage, almost like it was just that particular motors thing. Still, I very much dislike CAT!

 

[zorry]

Dislike Cats ?
We could start a pretty large club of people that dis-like Cats over here.
I bought new Cats in '88 & 90.
The 90 killed me on Cats. Have bought 8 trucks since the 90 and never even considered a Cat.

 

[rollincoal]

I can push near 7.0 mpg in my truck if I drive like a senior citizen. As it is I routinely see 6.1-6.5 mpg. I tend to drive the speed limit most times. When I've got plenty of time in a 70mph zone I'll keep it around 65. Although you may see me push it up to and over 70 from time to time. I have probably the worst motor CAT ever produced, a 2003 bridge engine. It was the last single turbo they ever put out before the ACERT twin turbo C15's hit the scene in '04 year model trucks. When I got this truck in stock form it was all I could do to rarely swing 5.8 mpg out of it... ...more often than not it averaged 5.0 mpg. After installing a good non-wastegated turbo and tuning the horsepower up to 550 from 475 along with a few other tweaks, this motor gets excellent fuel mileage.. ..for what it is. If it's driven, tuned, and maintained properly a C15 or C16 CAT will surprise you the kind of economy it gets.