July 18, 2007 Vol. 3, No. 14

Before I get to the ‘Ya Gotta Wonder’ part of this piece, a word or three about my lead item here. Mack’s Idle
Free ‘Hybrid’ anti-idling system seems like very cool stuff, though they introduced it very quietly – like almost not at all. So quietly, in fact, that I don’t think there was even an announcement when it arrived on the scene in early June, and I missed it until just a couple of weeks ago. They’re a modest bunch down there in Allentown.

But I wish I had seen it before I wrote a few weeks ago about the Yendor power pack/inverter that exploits a
reefer’s alternator to replace an APU (‘Power for Free’, June 20). That one was invented by New Brunswick
owner-operator Rodney Foreman, and it’s patented. Or so I believe.

The thing is, Mack’s new system was also the brainchild of an owner-operator, Robert Jordan of Minnesota. It seems he’s been making a wide variety of anti-idling gizmos for some time, including something he calls the ‘Reefer Link System’, through his company, Idle Free Systems. He even won a gold medal at the 2004 Minnesota Inventors Congress with it. And it, too, utilizes a refrigerated trailer’s alternator as a power source, in this case to maintain a battery bank, to power existing 12-volt idle-elimination systems, or to power a Xantrex inverter/charger. It’s patented as well, but it looks like the very same basic idea to me.

Interestingly, on his website (www.idlefree.net) Jordan says “…the idle elimination systems on the market today
are overkill and too expensive.”

In any case, I have to admit that I was wrong in thinking the Yendor system is unique. At this point I haven’t the
foggiest idea whose patent holds sway, or where, but I’ll let you know next time out if I can make sense of this. In
the meantime, hats off to Mack for seeing the potential in the good ideas of a little guy in Minnesota.

OK, NOW, YA GOTTA WONDER how much money was spent in an 18-month study by Florida fleet-management specialists PHH FirstFleet that identified the top five tips to increase fuel efficiency. A “team of engineers” arrived at this conclusion: “By slightly over-spec’ing engines in order to run more consistently in the ‘sweet spot’, choosing a gear ratio low enough to suit a fleet’s application and location, and enabling the correct fuel-efficient, engine-specific parameters, fuel economy will improve by 0.3 mpg (or around 5%).”

Granted, I haven’t yet seen the full report, just the 4-page executive summary published this week, but I don’t
think I need to see any more to reach my own conclusion: namely, why didn’t they just ask me?

Like most of you, I hope, I’ve had all these answers in my back pocket for the better part of 20 years. Maybe more.

Surely this didn’t require any study at all. As in none. Zero. What have engine makers and some truck makers been saying for years? What have I been writing for years? What have most fleets and sensible owner-operators already been doing for years?

For the record, here are the PHH top five fuel-saving strategies…

1. Increase engine torque ratings… “to decrease time spent in the high-output torque ranges” and to avoid “over-revving”.

2. Decrease gear ratio… meaning choose a numerically lower ratio.

3. Engine-specific parameter controls… like limit road speed to below 70 mph because “a tractor’s engine works to overcome aerodynamic drag. In fact, it demands over 60% of the engine’s total available horsepower, which significantly increases fuel consumption. If speed is decreased to 55 mph in the appropriate gear, the
horsepower demand is reduced to only 40% and draws less fuel.”

Indeed.

The study also concluded that idle shutdown should be considered and progressive shifting should be practised.

4. Spec auxiliary power units to limit idling.

5. Chassis improvements… like use “innovations” in aerodynamics such as roof fairings, side fairings, and
bumper and side skirts to limit wind resistance. Like use lightweight components where possible. Like use low-profile and/or wide-based tires to lower rolling resistance.

With the exception of #4 on that list, which is a relatively recent option, all those ideas were current in the 1980s and 90s, some maybe earlier than that dating back to the oil embargo of 1973. Off the top of my head I can think of booklets published years ago by Bridgestone, Cummins, Kenworth, and Michelin that tread this same
ground. I’m forgetting dozens of others and of course many government efforts along the same line. I remember learning the virtues of progressive shifting not long after I got my licence in 1980.

So what are we to think when a reputable, professional outfit like PHH FirstFleet comes up with such stuff at
this stage in the industry’s evolution? Are they really so far behind? Or, as I fear, is it really that their customers are that far behind? If the latter is true, then things out there in U.S. fleetland are in a sorry state.

And hey, do all that stuff and you’ll get more than a 5% improvement.

But on to more interesting fare…

WE ALL LOVE COOL TRUCKS, RIGHT? So here’s the latest, the result of a U.S. Marine Corps contract for ‘Category II Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles’. The contract was awarded to Navistar’s military subsidiary, International Military and Government, LLC. It calls for 16 of these trucks to be delivered by the end of September.