Savings

At the end of the day, everything usually boils down to money. How much did we invest? How quickly did we recoup our investment? How much do we continue to save? Are there any ongoing investments required?

Combining a number of fuel saving technologies with efficient driving habits will yield significant savings. A 2 mpg increase would reduce your annual fuel costs by close to $8,000

    Gallons Fuel Costs/Savings
Average Annual Miles 115,000    
Base Mileage 7.5 MPG 15,333 $37,566
Mileage with Enhancements 9.5 MPG 12,105 $29,657
Total Savings 3,228 $7,909



Component fuel savings

Approximate Contribution
to MPG Savings
Cost Annual
Cost
Savings
Estimated Stand-Alone MPG Savings
Airflow deflector (trailer underbelly) .30 $1,620 $1,272 .70
Michelin® tires, XZA3 steers, wide base on drives and trailer .30 $1,272 .50
Fleet Air Filter .20 $400 $848 .40
Quick Draw Tarpaulin System™ custom contour .20 $3,000 $848 .50
All Chevron® lubricants, including transmission, rear end and Delo® 400 XLE 10w-30 in engine .20 $848 .30
Trailer bulkhead deflector .20 $2,000 $848 .30
Pittsburgh Power high performance muffler .20 $1,200 $848 .30
Airtabs™ (on truck and trailer) .05 $400 $212 .20
TST tire monitoring system .05 $700 $212 .10
Wheel covers .05 $300 $212 .10
Aeroflap® mudflaps .05 $170 $212 .10

There’s always room for improvement. We will continue to explore and consider opportunities that will enable us to stretch whatever limitations are before us.

1. Value based on diesel fuel at $3.04 per gallon.

2. The values listed in our expected fuel savings column, are considerably lower than the numbers shown by the individual manufactures. The physics behind combining multiple fuel savings measures tells us that the fuel savings results are not “stackable”. Therefore, after the implementation of a handfull of devices or technologies, the contribution from additional elements becomes something less than their stand-alone value. In a few instances adding a component will sometimes help another, where perhaps the second component created a negative or positive pressure that benefits the previously installed feature. However, for the most part fuel savings from each aerodynamic element or friction reducing technology are not cumulative. If they were our vehicle would achieve somewhere close to 14 mpg, which it certainly will not. Where this point of diminishing return lies is yet to be determined. As for us, we can justify the smaller return per element based on the return on investment and/or potential reduction in maintenance costs. At this point, we are all in.