HGV fuel consumption

Hagar

Hagar

Hagar

Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,614
Location
Sunny Cheshire
This is a professional enquiry. I know a few professional HGV drivers post in here.

I am compiling a spreadsheet for embedded energy and embedded CO2 which uses road, rail and sea transportation of construction material for a particular project.

I have a handle on the emissions for transport of aggregates by road (tCO2/km).

To assist me could someone provide a broad comparison for the fuel consumption between say an artic. bulk carrier with a 20T load and then running empty on a return journey? Other vehicle types could be useful.

This would give me a factor (1.0 + 0.6) for example where 1.0 is the full load.

Information on mpg or miles( or km) per litre for each case would be helpful.

Thanks for any and all responses. Andy.
 
I'm sure Scania will be able to give some more accurate figures from a drivers point of view, but I design and maintain our Transport system and have a few baseline figures that we use at work (e.g. for costings etc).

Artic - 8mpg
6 Wheel Rigid - 9mpg
4 Wheel Rigid - 10mpg
7.5T - 12mpg

Realistically these will have improved over the last few years as vehicles have improved - I know the latest Merc Actros trucks regularly hit 11mpg for example.

These are probably also on the low side as it averages out between a full vs empty vehicle.
 
Armageus said:
I'm sure Scania will be able to give some more accurate figures from a drivers point of view, but I design and maintain our Transport system and have a few baseline figures that we use at work (e.g. for costings etc).

Artic - 8mpg
6 Wheel Rigid - 9mpg
4 Wheel Rigid - 10mpg
7.5T - 12mpg

Realistically these will have improved over the last few years as vehicles have improved - I know the latest Merc Actros trucks regularly hit 11mpg for example.

These are probably also on the low side as it averages out between a full vs empty vehicle.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that :)
 
swain90 said:
nkata, do you have any figures for the rail equivalent for a train pulling ~20 trucks of coal for example?
Click to expand...

Only the DECC/Defra figures for tonne.km

17t rigid HGV at 52% weight laden 0.23644kWh/tonne.km
33t artic HGV at 61% weight laden 0.10327kWh/tonne.km
Rail 0.03654kWh/tonne.km

Therefore per tonne.km, rail is 2.8 x more efficient than an artic and 6.5 x more efficient than a rigid.

These then need factoring to turn into tCO2e

Grid electricity (rail) 0.594 tCO2/MWh and diesel 3.176 tCO2/MWh

This means that the road vehicles create much more carbon tCO2 equivalent than rail.

example 1000tonnes 100km by rail kWh =100*1000*0.03654 = 3654kWh = 3.654MWh

Carbon equivalence (rail) = 3.654*0.594 = 2.17tCO2e


Does this help?
 
Last edited:
Last time i drove a HGV (44t) i was returning around 5-6mpg. We had monthly fuel use averages shown to us to see if they could encourage us to drive better. Never worked when the sound of that V8 was rumbling underneath you :D
 
Our Scania's and Volvo's at work (13,15 and 16 plate all using ad blue) will return ~8-9mpg running at full weight (44t) during a predominantly motorway run from Stoke on Trent to Thurrock in Essex and back, I work nights and the fuel usage tends to be better as there's less traffic.

If I'm pulling a light ish load (52 pallets of tissue paper for example) I can easily get 11-12mpg.

Once your into heavy urban stop start traffic mind you, 5-6mpg is pretty good going.

Trailer height makes a big difference, our 13'1" trailers are most efficient as they match the cab air deflectors perfectly, the 14'6" and 15'3" ones will take .5mpg at least off your figure.
 
Last edited:
Armageus said:
I'm sure Scania will be able to give some more accurate figures from a drivers point of view, but I design and maintain our Transport system and have a few baseline figures that we use at work (e.g. for costings etc).

Artic - 8mpg
6 Wheel Rigid - 9mpg
4 Wheel Rigid - 10mpg
7.5T - 12mpg

Realistically these will have improved over the last few years as vehicles have improved - I know the latest Merc Actros trucks regularly hit 11mpg for example.

These are probably also on the low side as it averages out between a full vs empty vehicle.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that all four of those figures are low and I'd suggest they need to be +15-20%.
 
Just checked my 63 plate Volvo FH 12, over a fuel useage period of 898.5 Gallons it's averaged between 8.9 and 9.2mpg, predominantly motorway use at mixed weights.

Current mileage 369681miles, they get better with miles under their wheels!



 
Last edited:
All trucks will be different depending on their make, model and build year.
When I did fuel economy figures (a few years back) there were quite large differences between the older 2006 DAFs and the newer 2011 Renaults. Scania came in around the middle.

All my figures were based on hauling 26t of steel around the UK with a full backload (usually bricks). I think 10mpg was the average.
 
Scania said:
Trailer height makes a big difference, our 13'1" trailers are most efficient as they match the cab air deflectors perfectly, the 14'6" and 15'3" ones will take .5mpg at least off your figure.
Click to expand...

Our Trucks have the active air deflectors, that adjust to different trailer heights.

http://www.hatchercomp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hatcher-Tesco-Report-Flyer-PDF.pdf

Dooksy said:
Out of interest, is there much of a change when using different tyre brands?
Click to expand...

I think there is a move towards it, as commercial tyres also now have the same efficiency/grip/noise ratings. Longevity/Cost is still largely the main driving force for truck tyres, as e.g. Retreading tyres is a common practice with commercial tyres (e.g. continental link below):

http://www.goodyear.eu/uk_en/truck/eu-tire-label/
http://www.continental-tyres.co.uk/truck/fleetsolutions/contilifecycle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom