Don’t be fuelish

OK – so any of us responsible for company rolling-stock for any period of time have gotten sucked into discussions with our management about how to better control fuel consumption. Rationale varies depending on employer/workforce relationship and how much expense fuel constitutes in the budget.  But statistics from whatever source indicate that fuel is in the “Top Three” category of fleet expenses; so if the topic hasn’t been addressed, it will be.

So – what fuel issues burn in the back of senior management’s mind?  Probably topics such as theft, waste, and personal use, among others. These are the high level concerns that typically come up when the topic is discussed. But what of fleet managers?  What factors cross our minds regarding fuel consumption?

Naturally, those same topics are front and center, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) that if they burden our boss, they burden us. But let’s not stop there.

A responsible fleet manager knows that budgets are made or broken on details. While excessive fuel consumption is often caused by poor driver ethic and theft, can’t it also be indicative of other problems? Overloaded vehicles, tuning out of spec, brakes sticking, A/C compressor dragging or the vehicle being worn out -- all these can, and will, affect the fuel consumption of a vehicle.

These factors cost money to repair, but if we put off addressing the issues, they will cost more money yet. We will not only lose the fuel-related money, but likely the repairs or solutions to address the issues will become more involved and more expensive the longer we put them off. So if we are going to be proactive rather than reactive managers, we need to think ahead of immediate concerns.

Theft is a huge concern, sure. So let’s not steal money from ourselves through inattention.   

  

On equipment specifications

My career in equipment support has always been vocational; I have always dealt with mobilizing a trades-based workforce. Most recently this was managing fleet for a natural gas utility. Observations from years within this field make me draw the conclusion that, pound for pound, there are likely no industries slower to adapt new technologies than those who deal with pipe, whatever the commodity those pipes carry.  Really this should come as no surprise, as much the tooling and technique associated with working on this infrastructure hasn’t materially changed in the past 60-70 years. In a nutshell, what worked 10+ years ago still works today. Also, functioning in a regulated marketplace doesn’t really force a business to consider different solutions to remain competitive.

About 16 years ago, a determination was made by my employer to specify air conditioning in all vehicles going forward. The reason flew in the face of industry wisdom, it was simply “the right thing to do” for the employees. We joked occasionally that we had decided to jump into the 20^th century with both feet. The next century was 2 years away.

Years later this same equipment came up for replacement. My department both bought and sold the equipment, so I got to see first-hand the cost/resale ratio associated with this altruistic purchase decision. While market variables are always tweaking resale values, it was none-the-less apparent that the up-front cost of the option was more than recovered once the vehicle was sold, as I had similar equipment with and without air-conditioning selling side by side.

And really – should this be a surprise for anyone? Which of us, if we are in the market for a used car or truck, wouldn’t pass on a vehicle without air-conditioning? While there are still businesses where automotive creature comforts are not required, the lack of them on your equipment certainly narrows your potential remarketing field.

Specifications for that employer continued to evolve, eventually incorporating cruise-control and tilt-wheel. As before, it appeared that the cost was easily recovered during resale.

And there is the crux of this discussion.  As a commodity, the up-front expense associated with these bells and whistles seemed needless as the truck “worked” just fine without them. However, the resale differential had proven that sale recovery could, and should, be figured into total vehicle costing. It is on this total cost of ownership paradigm that purchase decisions should be made.  

On trends in automotive marketing

Years back, when I first hired on with a company, I was in a position of digging around through retired equipment to find a viable company scooter to facilitate my work. Deep in the ubiquitous pile of trucks gleamed my diamond, a GMC 2500 with a utility bed. The truck had around 10 years and 200K miles on it, but it was straight and ran pretty good. So I moved in.

Specifications were simple. It had 4.11 gears, positrac, heavy springs and an AM/FM radio. This particular truck was also in a group the company bought that had the now infamous 1^st generation 6.2 liter diesel.

This engine was developed after the fairly catastrophic 5.7 liter Oldsmo-diesel from the late 70’s. The Olds engine of the era was tough in auto applications, but wasn’t a good basis for a diesel engine and was plagued with durability issues.

The 6.2 on the other hand seemed to start where the 5.7 left off, and was actually a pretty good engine except for a few issues with injector pumps and glow plugs. The one in my gleaming jewel was a little tired, but it still started easily and made enough power to keep the truck at highway speed on hills. It offered something else though – economy.

How economical you ask? In spite of the lack of overdrive and the high gear ratio (engine buzzed fast on the highway), I could consistently get 20-22 MPG on open-road--and this in a truck that weighed about 7000 lbs. with tooling on it.

Jump now to the diesel horsepower wars of the 2000’s. We developed and still have diesel engines in pickup trucks that produce more power and torque than the average over-the-road tractor from the early 1970’s.

I have little interest in trying to pull a 25,000 lb. trailer with a pickup truck for many reasons, though I understand the livestock or equine hobbyist or small business may have need. But really, how many times have we all rolled up to a stoplight only to be joined by an 8’ tall  4X4 pickup with 430 clattering horsepower and maybe a bag of groceries in back. Is this prudent use of technology?

There is no free ride. An engine can’t make power without burning fuel; the more power you make, the more fuel you burn. The little 6.2 diesel in that old GMC was rated at maybe 150 HP, but it pulled the old truck around fine.

So what need drives the monster power figures that today’s engines are producing? Even in gasoline powered equipment it is now pretty easy to go buy a ½ ton pickup that would blow the doors off an old Camaro. So is it purely ego that makes us want this power, or are we being told we need it and so we’ve swallowed it hook, line and sinker?