The Source for Trucking News, Opinions and Trucking Jobs | EPA 2007

I thought I’d respond to this comment here, since it was left in a really old post and I haven’t bitched about the EPA for awhile.

I was wondering if anyone out there had opinions, good or bad on the
new EPA friendly trucks being sold - specifically Peterbilt.

First, Peterbilt doesn’t make engines. And second I really don’t have any references on this one. This is my opinion from what I’ve read during the last couple of years.

The 2002 rules, were the first big change, but the bugs seem to be worked out, mostly. It seemed like Cummins and Volvo (engines) had the best luck with their technology out of the gate. Caterpillar sounded like they had problems during their first development. And the others I don’t really remember.

For 2007, it’s newer technology, but the same basic concept. That’s why there was a big pre-buy because no one wanted to be the guinea pigs for new technology. The same thing happened in 2001 and will happen again in 2009 to avoid the new rules in 2010. I was at a truck stop watching a brand new Volvo 880 being hooked up to a wrecker, I had to ask the guy what was up. It’s his second engine, it’s a lemon, etc… he was not a happy camper. The 880 first came out in 2007. I’m sure Volvo and every engine manufacturer tested and re-tested their motors, but with deadlines involved…

The new rules have made the engines bigger, heavier, hotter and more inefficient. Because everything is so much hotter, radiators and cooling systems have to be bigger. Which means more weight, more fuel IN-efficient, more expensive. The 2007 rules added $10,000 just to the motors.

With fuel hitting $3.00 a gallon or more this year, it would have been better to spend all that R&D on fuel efficiency instead of unrealistic emission numbers and deadlines setup by the government.

I don’t think you could find anyone in the industry with anything good to say about the new EPA friendly trucks being sold.