No. Emissions are one thing, but MPG is another. I dont have as mucha problem with the emissions as I do with the mpg stuff.
333386,
They are one and the same... inextricably intertwined. When you reduce the emissions, the result is more mpg.
Emissions are nothing more than unburned hydrocarbons. By increasing the efficiency of the engine, and altering the in-cylinder rate and shape of the burn, eg: causing more of the fuel to be burned inside the combustion chamber, during the first 30 degrees of the downward stroke of the pistons, you not only prevent the formation of NO
x emissions, but provide more power to the engine, by completely burning every drop of fuel, and you're burning it in the most effective place... inside the upper part of the combustion chamber rather than out the exhaust.
This results in both reduced emissions, reduced fuel consumption, and more miles per gallon (mpg). A $1400 weekly fuel cost savings on a dedicated run is all the proof some people need to know that they are getting more mpg... that or a fllabberghasted California Air Board inspector unable to figure out why a 1991 FLD 120 freightliner with a 3406 mechanical B400 caterpillar motor with 2.6 million miles was blowing cleaner than brand new 2008 emission standards truck with less than 60K miles, and was infact meeting year 2012 emission target standards in 2007.
When a truck with 23 yrs experience behind the wheel finds himself with the ability to idle his truck for a weekend after being pulled over by the DOT in Kansas for a broken truck arm on his trailer, and not being able to leave until it's fixed... while he has a load of Alaska King Crab that has to be kept at a constant -10 degrees, and he only has enough fuel in his reefer unit to last til 8am, ...and he finds himself being held up and only released at 4pm, ...and despite the fact that he SHOULD HAVE run out of fuel 8 hours ago, yet he found he still had a quarter tank of fuel left... you know consumption has been reduced. That fuel savings could turn into an even greater savings when you factor the $5,000
.oo insurance deductible he otherwise would have had to pay for a lost freight claim had he run out of fuel in the reefer and his load of Alaskan King Crabs spoiled.
When you only have enough fuel to last til you get to Dalton Georgia... but you manage to make it to Greenville SC, you know you're reducing consumption.
When you used to haul beef from Amarillo TX to Calif, then return to Amarillo with frozen vegetables... and you used to have to refill either just before, or just after leaving Cali in order to make the return trip to Amarillo, ...and suddenly find yourself able to go from Amarillo TX to Cali and back again ON THE SAME TANK OF FUEL... you know you are reducing your fuel consumption.
The bottom line is:
Reduced fuel consumption = more mpg reduced emissions = more mpg More mpg = Reduced fuel costs.Which reminds me...not sure if it was George Whorewell or not, but one of you was gonna keep your eyes peeled for a Caterpillar 2010 class 8 motor. I've been looking, but I haven't seemed to be able to find one. Have you?
