TABLE 2-7 Truck Sales, by Manufacturer, 2004-2008

 

Calendar Year

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Class 3

 

 

 

 

 

Chrysler

29,859

35,038

36,057

46,553

29,638

Ford

68,615

122,903

105,955

81,155

60,139

Freightlinera

270

14

0

0

0

General Motors

2,471

2,788

2,578

33,507

41,559

International

0

0

0

0

609

Isuzu

4,992

5,167

4,929

4,350

2568

Mitsubishi-Fuso

720

670

93

52

202

Nissan Diesel

352

276

232

279

112

Sterling

0

0

0

0

12

Total

107,279

166,856

149,844

165,896

134,839

Classes 4-7

 

 

 

 

 

Chrysler

0

0

0

588

5,386

Ford

60,538

61,358

69,070

70,836

46,454

Freightlinera

51,814

51,639

51,357

42,061

30,809

General Motors

34,351

45,144

41,340

34,164

24,828

Hino

2,387

4,290

6,203

5,448

4,917

Navistar/International

52,278

54,895

61,814

40,268

35,022

Isuzu

10,715

10,620

10,822

9,639

6,157

Kenworth

5,020

3,874

5040

4,239

3,710

Mack

21

0

0

0

0

Mitsubishi-Fuso

4,384

4,842

5,967

5,218

2,136

Nissan

0

0

0

0

0

Nissan Diesel

2,453

2,382

2,551

2,080

1,273

Peterbilt

4,495

4,739

6,307

5009

3,792

Sterling

0

0

102

578

467

Total

228,456

243,783

260,573

220,128

164,951

Class 8

 

 

 

 

 

Freightlinera

73,731

94,900

98,603

51,706

42,639

Navistar/International

38,242

46,093

53,373

29,675

32,399

Kenworth

23,294

27,153

33,091

19,299

15,855

Mack

20,670

27,303

29,524

13,438

11,794

Peterbilt

26,145

30,274

37,322

19,948

17,613

Volvo Truck

20,323

26,446

30,716

16,064

13,061

Other

792

623

1,379

835

112

Total

203,197

252,792

284,008

150,965

133,473

Grand Total

538,932

663,431

694,425

536,989

433,263

aFreightliner/Western Star/Sterling(domestic).

SOURCE: DOE/EERE (2009), pp. 21-22, based on Ward’s Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures, available at http://www.wardsauto.com/about/factsfigures.

The CAFE for light-duty vehicles is calculated from fuel consumption data using a “harmonic average.”2 The harmonic average in the CAFE standards is determined as the sales weighted average of the fuel consumption for the Urban and Highway schedules, converted into fuel economy. The average is calculated using the fuel consumption of individual vehicles times the number of vehicles sold of each model, summed over the whole fleet and divided by the total fleet.

TABLE 2-8 Engines Manufactured for Class 2b Through Class 8 Trucks, 2004-2008

 

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Engines Manufactured for Heavy-Duty Trucks

Cummins

64,630

79,100

91,317

65,228

75,307

Detroit Diesel

48,060

61,074

63,809

29,506

35,174

Caterpillar

74,224

86,806

97,544

33,232

20,099

Mack

25,158

36,211

36,198

18,544

16,794

Mercedes Benz

17,178

24,414

24,584

17,048

10,925

Volvo

12,567

19,298

23,455

9,850

8,822

Navistar

0

0

0

4

927

PACCAR

0

0

0

52

20

Total

241,817

306,913

336,907

173,464

168,068

Engines Manufactured for Medium-Duty Trucks

Navistar

373,842

382,143

357,470

335,046

264,317

GM

74,328

77,056

83,355

87,749

72,729

Cummins

14,900

15,162

16,400

20,615

27,664

Mercedes Benz

16,075

20,038

27,155

19,330

9,066

Caterpillar

42,535

42,350

45,069

14,693

6,269

PACCAR

0

0

0

9,020

5,694

Hino

671

5,001

7,489

6,230

3,062

Detroit Diesel

0

958

8

0

0

Total

522,351

542,708

536,946

492,683

388,801

Engines Manufactured for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks

Navistar

373,842

382,143

357,470

335,050

265,244

Cummins

79,530

94,262

107,717

85,843

102,971

GM

74,328

77,056

83,355

87,749

72,729

Detroit Diesel

48,060

62,032

63,817

29,506

35,174

Caterpillar

116,759

129,156

142,613

47,295

26,368

Mercedes Benz

33,253

44,452

51,739

36,378

19,991

Mack

25,158

36,221

36,198

18,544

16,794

Volvo

12,567

19,298

23,455

9,850

8,822

PACCAR

0

0

0

9,072

5,714

Hino

671

5,001

7,489

6,230

3,062

Total

764,168

849,621

873,853

666,147

556,869

Because fuel economy and fuel consumption are reciprocal, each of the two metrics can be computed in a straightforward manner if the other is known. In mathematical terms, if fuel economy is X and fuel consumption is Y, their relationship is expressed by XY = 1. This relationship is not linear, as illustrated by Figure 2-2. In this figure, fuel consumption is shown in units of gallons/100 miles, and fuel economy is shown in units of miles/gallon. The figure also shows that a given percentage improvement in fuel economy saves less and less fuel as the baseline fuel economy increases. Each bar represents an increase in fuel economy by 100 percent, which corresponds to a decrease in fuel consumption by 50 percent. The data on the graph show the resulting decrease in fuel consumption per 100 miles and the total fuel saved in driving 10,000 miles. The dramatic decrease in the impact of increasing fuel economy by 100 percent for a high fuel economy vehicle is most visible in the case of increasing the fuel economy from 40 to 80 mpg, where the total fuel saved in driving 10,000 miles is only 125 gallons, compared to

2

Harmonic average weighted where Nn = number of vehicles in class n, FEn = fuel economy of class n vehicles and n = number of separate classes of vehicles.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement