New Walmart Tow Vehicle - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  New Walmart Tow Vehicle

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   New Walmart Tow Vehicle

Jefecinco posted 03-05-2014 09:17 AM ET (US)
Walmart has been involved in the development of a new over the road tow truck and trailer called the WAVE in an attempt to improve fuel economy. Perhaps the technology will trickle down to a more useful size for us in a few years.
The efficiency gains seem to be achieved primarily by reducing trailer weight, streamlining, and a using a turbine powered hybrid power train.
I believe the concept holds a lot of promise.
Butch
jharrell posted 03-05-2014 05:13 PM ET (US)
Cummins has been working on some of these systems for a while, the turbine is a form of turbocompounding after the turbocharger. Here is a presentation from 2008 on the details:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2008/session5/ deer08_nelson.pdf
Here is some history on the technology, although the cummins one uses the Rankine cycle (Steam):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine
These efforts are related to the stricter fuel economy standards coming for large trucks in 2019:
http:/ / www. greencarreports. com/ news/ 1090639_is-walmarts-wave-conce pt-truck-the-fuel-efficient-future-of-semis
jimh posted 03-05-2014 08:21 PM ET (US)
Even without regulatory pressure, any company operating as many trucks as WALMART would be interested in reducing fuel consumption. My observation is the owners of any sort of engine that runs many hours per day--jet planes, big ships, long-haul trucks--will be very interested in maximizing fuel efficiency.
Is there potential for these methods to be applied to gasoline outboard engines?
Jerry Townsend posted 03-05-2014 08:52 PM ET (US)
Agreed Jim - maximizing fuel efficiency is important.
Boeing, in the '50 and '60s was testing gas turbines in large trucks as I remember. I was working for Boeing at the time in their development and testing lab. There were about 6 +/- medium and long haul trucks that were used. The turbine engines were putting out at least 300 HP and weighed a lot less than the Cummins or Cat diesel engines, but their fuel consumption was not very good. That effort was dropped - for what-ever reason. And with today's regulatory restrictions, the exhaust emissions of a gas turbine would not get off the ground. --- Jerry/Idaho
OMCrobert posted 03-05-2014 09:51 PM ET (US)
Being a rail fan, the first thing that I thought about was the Union Pacific turbine locomotives called the "The big blow". They burned bunker oil.
jharrell posted 03-06-2014 05:53 PM ET (US)
Just realized they are claiming the whole thing is run from a 30kw diesel turbine or about 40hp through an electric drivetrain. The Cummins system uses a heat recovery turbine driven from the standard ISX diesel piston engine waste heat.
I am skeptical you could run a big rig down the highway on 40hp, something doesn't add up.
The cummins prototype completed a 300 mile run at 65,000 pounds fetching 9.9 mpg, not bad considering a standard rig gets 5-6 mpg.
Jefecinco posted 03-06-2014 06:05 PM ET (US)
You could burn bunker in the EMD diesels powering most locomotives if it was legal. A fuel heater and robust filtering system would be required but the EMDs would run well. Diesel fuel is just better.
The last time I saw bunker fuel burned was in a steam power plant in Saipan in the late seventies and early eighties. Even in Saipan a fuel heater was required. The plant later went to Kingston, Jamaica and then to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. I've lost track of it since Santo Domingo.
Butch
Don SSDD posted 03-09-2014 08:52 AM ET (US)
Jherrell, new aerodynamic trucks running at 60MPH are regularly getting 8-9 MPG (Imperial). What Walmart are doing with weight and aero would improve that, with current diesels.
One would think diesel electric hybrid would be a good way to go.
Running heavy trucks is a science, the good companies measure everything, and have multiple units to compare. They can measure everything very precisely per truck, so they can measure costs and benefits quickly and accurately when they add a technology.
An outboard is not so easy to measure, lots of variables like wind speed, direction, currents, tides, various hulls, load, you name it.
Why has a diesel outboard not been successful to the masses? Modern car diesels are faster, lighter, and fuel consumption is better than most gas hybrids. Why not outboards? Just no mainstream outboard builder has bothered?
Don
jharrell posted 03-09-2014 09:24 AM ET (US)
Don, I am still skeptical of a 40HP diesel turbine being able to push a rig down the highway, I think they mis-reported the power output.
Cummins getting 9 mpg (US) is a real world achievement of ~30% better fuel economy with the addition of the heat recovery system.
I am a big fan of diesel electric drive-trains however. This allows the engine to run at it optimum rpm regardless of conditions. This also allows interesting configurations like multiple smaller engines where some shutdown when demand is lower. Weight and efficiency is always a factor here, generators and motors currently end up being heavier and have higher losses than well designed transmission until you get into trains and ships.
I always thought it would be great if an outboard boat used an electric power head with a generator located up front for weight distribution. You could also have a lithium buffer battery system and run the motor off them for a period, say for trolling. The generator could be designed for efficient output in a very narrow rpm range, unlike outboard which much generate power over a broad rpm range due to no transmission. In the end though it will be difficult to beat the weight and efficiency of direct drive from combustion power-head to prop.
I believe a diesel outboard has been tried, I saw a 3.0L prototype that was 200HP I believe, but it weighed around 800 lbs. Diesels being such high compression and running so lean and hot are required to be more robust in all aspects and a large lubrication system.
jimh posted 03-09-2014 09:29 AM ET (US)
I don't see a path to markedly improve fuel economy in smaller outboard powered boats by using methods of streamlining the portion of the hull above the water. I think the wind resistance of a boat moving at 25-MPH is not as significant as the wind resistance of the traditional truck moving at 65-MPH. Reducing the wind resistance of large trucks appears to have yielded good improvement in fuel economy, but I don't think that method will have a similar outcome for my 22-foot Boston Whaler. Buying a new boat with a sleeker shape above the waterline might yield an improvement in fuel economy, but it would not be economically sound.
Don SSDD posted 03-09-2014 06:42 PM ET (US)
A fully dressed with AC 1.9L VW TDI weighed 361 lbs on a scale, as pulled from a car with alternator, etc attached. They are rated at 120HP and 240ish torque, so you could use a low number ratio drive on an outboard to overcome a relatively low redline of about 5000.
I think a 2L diesel would compete with a 3L gas on power, on the torque end of the scale.
My 98 TDI manual tranny Beetle got about 50MPG (Imperial) being driven fast most of the time, 70-80MPH.It weighed about 2800 lbs, top speed was close to 120MPH. Lots of torque from 1000 to about 4200. My new 2013 Passat 2.0L is just as good on fuel, and much larger.
From a website, an Isuzu 1.8L diesel weighs 367lbs, the 1.8L gas 311lbs, so likely an indication of a weight ratio gas VS diesel. same site says a 1.5L VW diesel weighs 246lbs.
You may not be the quickest to 35-40mph, but you save some weight with a smaller fuel tank, or have a much longer range.
Quickness in a boat is not as essential as in a car.
But with the way the Europeans and 3rd world love diesels, you'd think they would have been developed if they were viable.
Don
Chuck Tribolet posted 03-09-2014 07:24 PM ET (US)
I believe the Cosco Busan was running on bunker fuel. That
surprised me.
Chuck
Jefecinco posted 03-10-2014 08:42 AM ET (US)
I believe the love of diesels in other countries is primarily due to low cost compared to gasoline. Are we the only ones using ultra low sulfur diesel fuel?
Butch
martyn1075 posted 03-10-2014 09:59 AM ET (US)
The comment about meeting emmisions is a great point because there have been Diesel engines in North Ameraica that had achieved excellent mpg but with restrictions in place the engines becomes not so great in that department.
Hybrid diesel is interesting concept and I heard that Honda is experimenting with this a bit. A new honda Ridgine is 100% confirmed will be released by 2015. It will not be based on any other of their lineup much like their last truck. To some degree it is different from a Pilot. However this new model is larger and I wouldn't put it by them to bring something that is cutting edge in regards to technology. Sneak peak.
http://honda.ca/future-vehicles#ridge
Honda is always feeding off their technology to transform their products to be used in other markets such as "marine" divison. If indeed they introduce a hybrid diesel or something cutting edge it will be interesting to keep an eye out for new technology in the future in their outboards.
They are always a step ahead those guys.
Martyn
Jerry Townsend posted 03-10-2014 11:18 AM ET (US)
Diesels are a mixed bag - heavier (because of the larger combustion loading), but gives a better efficiency, et al. But one of the bigger problems for diesels for a boat is the much lower operating speed range. That is the reason that on the 18 wheelers, there are 13 +/- gears to go through.
And the current emission regulations are also impacting. For example, on current US diesel pickups, one can replace a few components related to emission regulations and significantly improve mileage and power. Those conversion kits are commercially available.
A hybrid - diesel/electric - would work, with the diesel operating at a fixed speed. That is the mode of operation on the diesel/electric trains. But that is even more weight - the heavier diesel engine and a large generator.
Some talk of the imperial gallon - but 1 Imperial gallon is equivalent to about 1.2 U.S. Gallons. Then, the reported 9 mpg(imperial) becomes something like 7.5 mpg(US). --------- Jerry/Idaho
jharrell posted 03-10-2014 12:39 PM ET (US)
With diesels going to SCR using DEF(Urea) the mileage has gone back up. The diesel engine manufacturers where trying real hard for a while to avoid urea instead choosing to go heavy on the EGR to get NOx levels down which lead to worse mileage and power.
DEF allows them to lean back out and go hotter again while still keep NOx within limits.
EPA doesn't care how the NOx reduction is done, DEF has been shown the most viable. Navistar tried real hard with an EGR only solution and gave up.
AZdave posted 03-10-2014 04:34 PM ET (US)
Europeans seem to have a completely different take on oil and fuels. Most of the countries have to import all their fuels. To reduce the currency outflow they try to reduce consumption. They do this by taxing the daylights out of motor fuels, and taxing diesel at a somewhat lower rate. They also have somewhat less stringent emissions rules for diesels. All the major auto producers that sell in Europe have mature technology diesels available for all the sizes of cars. The common rail versions we leased were a complete kick to drive with a manuel transmission, lots of torque and happy to rev. What keeps them out of the US? Probably emissions is a big part of it. They also need their diesel engine production to help them sell cars in Europe. We happily buy Mercedes, BMW and VW with gas engines. We also have a 10-20% price premium for diesel here, which tends to negate the advantage of better mileage.
Don SSDD posted 03-10-2014 05:31 PM ET (US)
There is no 10-20% price differential for a diesel automobile, maybe 5%, spec for spec.
They have never been able to sell diesels in the US, since they brought in some GM models in the 70's- they fell on their face because they were junk. Since then, they gave up.
NA car co's do not invest in diesels, there is no GM, Chrysler, or Ford diesel to speak of in cars. They are all shared tech, a lot of Italian, Asian. Just like there never was a very strong NA small displacement engine. No demand they say.
Check out real world fuel consumption for a 2013 Passat, see what size vehicle gets comparable fuel economy, like a Fiat 500 gas burns more fuel.
NA always had very dirty diesel fuel, high sulphur, until it was mandated for low sulphur. I don't believe our sulphur is lower now than Europe.
If you build it, they will come. You will see a lot more diesel vehicles here in the next 5-10 years, due to mandated CAFE I suspect. No way to meet CAFE without diesel or hybrid and diesel is proven.
Don
AZdave posted 03-10-2014 06:10 PM ET (US)
Sorry Don, I meant that diesel fuel is sold at a premium. I have not looked at the price differential for cars lately. In full size trucks it's about an $8000 option

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: New Walmart Tow Vehicle
Jefecinco	posted 03-05-2014 09:17 AM ET (US) Walmart has been involved in the development of a new over the road tow truck and trailer called the WAVE in an attempt to improve fuel economy. Perhaps the technology will trickle down to a more useful size for us in a few years. The efficiency gains seem to be achieved primarily by reducing trailer weight, streamlining, and a using a turbine powered hybrid power train. I believe the concept holds a lot of promise. Butch
jharrell	posted 03-05-2014 05:13 PM ET (US) Cummins has been working on some of these systems for a while, the turbine is a form of turbocompounding after the turbocharger. Here is a presentation from 2008 on the details: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2008/session5/ deer08_nelson.pdf Here is some history on the technology, although the cummins one uses the Rankine cycle (Steam): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine These efforts are related to the stricter fuel economy standards coming for large trucks in 2019: http:/ / www. greencarreports. com/ news/ 1090639_is-walmarts-wave-conce pt-truck-the-fuel-efficient-future-of-semis
jimh	posted 03-05-2014 08:21 PM ET (US) Even without regulatory pressure, any company operating as many trucks as WALMART would be interested in reducing fuel consumption. My observation is the owners of any sort of engine that runs many hours per day--jet planes, big ships, long-haul trucks--will be very interested in maximizing fuel efficiency. Is there potential for these methods to be applied to gasoline outboard engines?
Jerry Townsend	posted 03-05-2014 08:52 PM ET (US) Agreed Jim - maximizing fuel efficiency is important. Boeing, in the '50 and '60s was testing gas turbines in large trucks as I remember. I was working for Boeing at the time in their development and testing lab. There were about 6 +/- medium and long haul trucks that were used. The turbine engines were putting out at least 300 HP and weighed a lot less than the Cummins or Cat diesel engines, but their fuel consumption was not very good. That effort was dropped - for what-ever reason. And with today's regulatory restrictions, the exhaust emissions of a gas turbine would not get off the ground. --- Jerry/Idaho
OMCrobert	posted 03-05-2014 09:51 PM ET (US) Being a rail fan, the first thing that I thought about was the Union Pacific turbine locomotives called the "The big blow". They burned bunker oil.
jharrell	posted 03-06-2014 05:53 PM ET (US) Just realized they are claiming the whole thing is run from a 30kw diesel turbine or about 40hp through an electric drivetrain. The Cummins system uses a heat recovery turbine driven from the standard ISX diesel piston engine waste heat. I am skeptical you could run a big rig down the highway on 40hp, something doesn't add up. The cummins prototype completed a 300 mile run at 65,000 pounds fetching 9.9 mpg, not bad considering a standard rig gets 5-6 mpg.
Jefecinco	posted 03-06-2014 06:05 PM ET (US) You could burn bunker in the EMD diesels powering most locomotives if it was legal. A fuel heater and robust filtering system would be required but the EMDs would run well. Diesel fuel is just better. The last time I saw bunker fuel burned was in a steam power plant in Saipan in the late seventies and early eighties. Even in Saipan a fuel heater was required. The plant later went to Kingston, Jamaica and then to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. I've lost track of it since Santo Domingo. Butch
Don SSDD	posted 03-09-2014 08:52 AM ET (US) Jherrell, new aerodynamic trucks running at 60MPH are regularly getting 8-9 MPG (Imperial). What Walmart are doing with weight and aero would improve that, with current diesels. One would think diesel electric hybrid would be a good way to go. Running heavy trucks is a science, the good companies measure everything, and have multiple units to compare. They can measure everything very precisely per truck, so they can measure costs and benefits quickly and accurately when they add a technology. An outboard is not so easy to measure, lots of variables like wind speed, direction, currents, tides, various hulls, load, you name it. Why has a diesel outboard not been successful to the masses? Modern car diesels are faster, lighter, and fuel consumption is better than most gas hybrids. Why not outboards? Just no mainstream outboard builder has bothered? Don
jharrell	posted 03-09-2014 09:24 AM ET (US) Don, I am still skeptical of a 40HP diesel turbine being able to push a rig down the highway, I think they mis-reported the power output. Cummins getting 9 mpg (US) is a real world achievement of ~30% better fuel economy with the addition of the heat recovery system. I am a big fan of diesel electric drive-trains however. This allows the engine to run at it optimum rpm regardless of conditions. This also allows interesting configurations like multiple smaller engines where some shutdown when demand is lower. Weight and efficiency is always a factor here, generators and motors currently end up being heavier and have higher losses than well designed transmission until you get into trains and ships. I always thought it would be great if an outboard boat used an electric power head with a generator located up front for weight distribution. You could also have a lithium buffer battery system and run the motor off them for a period, say for trolling. The generator could be designed for efficient output in a very narrow rpm range, unlike outboard which much generate power over a broad rpm range due to no transmission. In the end though it will be difficult to beat the weight and efficiency of direct drive from combustion power-head to prop. I believe a diesel outboard has been tried, I saw a 3.0L prototype that was 200HP I believe, but it weighed around 800 lbs. Diesels being such high compression and running so lean and hot are required to be more robust in all aspects and a large lubrication system.
jimh	posted 03-09-2014 09:29 AM ET (US) I don't see a path to markedly improve fuel economy in smaller outboard powered boats by using methods of streamlining the portion of the hull above the water. I think the wind resistance of a boat moving at 25-MPH is not as significant as the wind resistance of the traditional truck moving at 65-MPH. Reducing the wind resistance of large trucks appears to have yielded good improvement in fuel economy, but I don't think that method will have a similar outcome for my 22-foot Boston Whaler. Buying a new boat with a sleeker shape above the waterline might yield an improvement in fuel economy, but it would not be economically sound.
Don SSDD	posted 03-09-2014 06:42 PM ET (US) A fully dressed with AC 1.9L VW TDI weighed 361 lbs on a scale, as pulled from a car with alternator, etc attached. They are rated at 120HP and 240ish torque, so you could use a low number ratio drive on an outboard to overcome a relatively low redline of about 5000. I think a 2L diesel would compete with a 3L gas on power, on the torque end of the scale. My 98 TDI manual tranny Beetle got about 50MPG (Imperial) being driven fast most of the time, 70-80MPH.It weighed about 2800 lbs, top speed was close to 120MPH. Lots of torque from 1000 to about 4200. My new 2013 Passat 2.0L is just as good on fuel, and much larger. From a website, an Isuzu 1.8L diesel weighs 367lbs, the 1.8L gas 311lbs, so likely an indication of a weight ratio gas VS diesel. same site says a 1.5L VW diesel weighs 246lbs. You may not be the quickest to 35-40mph, but you save some weight with a smaller fuel tank, or have a much longer range. Quickness in a boat is not as essential as in a car. But with the way the Europeans and 3rd world love diesels, you'd think they would have been developed if they were viable. Don
Chuck Tribolet	posted 03-09-2014 07:24 PM ET (US) I believe the Cosco Busan was running on bunker fuel. That surprised me. Chuck
Jefecinco	posted 03-10-2014 08:42 AM ET (US) I believe the love of diesels in other countries is primarily due to low cost compared to gasoline. Are we the only ones using ultra low sulfur diesel fuel? Butch
martyn1075	posted 03-10-2014 09:59 AM ET (US) The comment about meeting emmisions is a great point because there have been Diesel engines in North Ameraica that had achieved excellent mpg but with restrictions in place the engines becomes not so great in that department. Hybrid diesel is interesting concept and I heard that Honda is experimenting with this a bit. A new honda Ridgine is 100% confirmed will be released by 2015. It will not be based on any other of their lineup much like their last truck. To some degree it is different from a Pilot. However this new model is larger and I wouldn't put it by them to bring something that is cutting edge in regards to technology. Sneak peak. http://honda.ca/future-vehicles#ridge Honda is always feeding off their technology to transform their products to be used in other markets such as "marine" divison. If indeed they introduce a hybrid diesel or something cutting edge it will be interesting to keep an eye out for new technology in the future in their outboards. They are always a step ahead those guys. Martyn
Jerry Townsend	posted 03-10-2014 11:18 AM ET (US) Diesels are a mixed bag - heavier (because of the larger combustion loading), but gives a better efficiency, et al. But one of the bigger problems for diesels for a boat is the much lower operating speed range. That is the reason that on the 18 wheelers, there are 13 +/- gears to go through. And the current emission regulations are also impacting. For example, on current US diesel pickups, one can replace a few components related to emission regulations and significantly improve mileage and power. Those conversion kits are commercially available. A hybrid - diesel/electric - would work, with the diesel operating at a fixed speed. That is the mode of operation on the diesel/electric trains. But that is even more weight - the heavier diesel engine and a large generator. Some talk of the imperial gallon - but 1 Imperial gallon is equivalent to about 1.2 U.S. Gallons. Then, the reported 9 mpg(imperial) becomes something like 7.5 mpg(US). --------- Jerry/Idaho
jharrell	posted 03-10-2014 12:39 PM ET (US) With diesels going to SCR using DEF(Urea) the mileage has gone back up. The diesel engine manufacturers where trying real hard for a while to avoid urea instead choosing to go heavy on the EGR to get NOx levels down which lead to worse mileage and power. DEF allows them to lean back out and go hotter again while still keep NOx within limits. EPA doesn't care how the NOx reduction is done, DEF has been shown the most viable. Navistar tried real hard with an EGR only solution and gave up.
AZdave	posted 03-10-2014 04:34 PM ET (US) Europeans seem to have a completely different take on oil and fuels. Most of the countries have to import all their fuels. To reduce the currency outflow they try to reduce consumption. They do this by taxing the daylights out of motor fuels, and taxing diesel at a somewhat lower rate. They also have somewhat less stringent emissions rules for diesels. All the major auto producers that sell in Europe have mature technology diesels available for all the sizes of cars. The common rail versions we leased were a complete kick to drive with a manuel transmission, lots of torque and happy to rev. What keeps them out of the US? Probably emissions is a big part of it. They also need their diesel engine production to help them sell cars in Europe. We happily buy Mercedes, BMW and VW with gas engines. We also have a 10-20% price premium for diesel here, which tends to negate the advantage of better mileage.
Don SSDD	posted 03-10-2014 05:31 PM ET (US) There is no 10-20% price differential for a diesel automobile, maybe 5%, spec for spec. They have never been able to sell diesels in the US, since they brought in some GM models in the 70's- they fell on their face because they were junk. Since then, they gave up. NA car co's do not invest in diesels, there is no GM, Chrysler, or Ford diesel to speak of in cars. They are all shared tech, a lot of Italian, Asian. Just like there never was a very strong NA small displacement engine. No demand they say. Check out real world fuel consumption for a 2013 Passat, see what size vehicle gets comparable fuel economy, like a Fiat 500 gas burns more fuel. NA always had very dirty diesel fuel, high sulphur, until it was mandated for low sulphur. I don't believe our sulphur is lower now than Europe. If you build it, they will come. You will see a lot more diesel vehicles here in the next 5-10 years, due to mandated CAFE I suspect. No way to meet CAFE without diesel or hybrid and diesel is proven. Don
AZdave	posted 03-10-2014 06:10 PM ET (US) Sorry Don, I meant that diesel fuel is sold at a premium. I have not looked at the price differential for cars lately. In full size trucks it's about an $8000 option