Hino emission and consumption figures have been manipulated

HINO isn't the First to be caught out by something like This Nor will they be the last..

www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-...810230110-story.html

On the Mack truck forum a while ago the Mack Anthems in America were getting nearly 11 MPG at their very best

9.5 MPG was achievable almost all the time

The key to it was revs which I guess falls into line with what Lang was mentioning about fuel economy trials

These Macks were doing 70 MPH at 1350 revs I think it was

Big torque mptors just ideling along

I'll have a hunt and see if I can find the link, I'll ever find and find out my memory is shot or not find it and blokes will think I'm full of crap lol

Paul

Found the thread on the forum but the Facebook page is now private so you aint gunna see nothing there but it was 9 MPG heading towards 10 MPG

Still very amazing, and these are or were owner drivers, I think they may have down loaded the trucks computer data each day or something along those lines so as they couldn't fudge the figures

www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/57614-9-mpg-macks/

Paul

Sounds good Paul, But remember,;Yanky gallons are smaller than real Gallons, Their Weights are a heap lighter than Ours (Max 36.3Tonne) Plus you also need to factor In Adblue usage & cost...!!

I doubt We'd get close to those Figures here In Australia...

Everthing you saying is correct seed

9 MPG U.S. = 26.1 litres per 100 km
9 MPG imperial = 31.39 liters per 100km
10.5 MPG imperial = 26.9 litres per 100km

Also I understand 70 MPH is the normal speed limit in the U.S. for semi trailers, Brocky might be able to confirm this

Their trailers are 50 feet or longer

Even including our extra weight etc the figures they get are astounding

It shows we have a huge amount of room for improvement

Speed and the way we drive makes a big difference in Australia, I was watching a fella that has subbies work for him in the U.S. and just by reducing down time and driving better the subbies could make $2500.00 extra per month just by fuel savings alone let alone extra wear and tare

Nothing much to be gained by all of this but it is interesting to me

Sorry I have no idea about adblue costs as I have never needed any


Paul

In some 1982 truck engine tests,the most fuel efficient truck engines were Mack ,Scania,and the Silver 6V92 TTA.............and the least efficient was the GM6V53 and 4/53 which used 25% more fuel per kw/hr over the most efficient.

Interesting engine results, another reason for me not to like t he 53 series GM
Still I guess compared to a big petrol the fuel economy was good

Was doing some research on the Mack Anthems

Diff ratios of 2.16 and 2.3 are common

Super single type tyres on the drives
Lazy axle instead of bogie drive
As close coupled as possible between trailer and prime mover


Paul