Mitsubishi Fuso FE160Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America announced today that an independent test has shown that its Fuso FE160 cabover uses less fuel than competing trucks.
MitFuso reports that outside, third-party testing by Automotive Testing & Development Services Inc. (ATDS), compared the fuel economy of the Class 4 FUSO FE160 Series medium-duty cabover truck to the fuel economy of an equivalent Class 4 Isuzu NPR-HD and Hino 155.
Over the course of testing, the FE160 consumed 8 percent less diesel fuel on average than the Hino 155, and 5 percent less than the Isuzu NPR-HD, measured over a course of city, suburban and highway driving. When ECO mode was engaged on the FE160 (a feature not available on the Hino or Isuzu models), the FE160’s fuel consumption advantage improved to 10 percent less than the Hino 155, and 9 percent less than the Isuzu NPR-HD.
“We are very pleased that this rigorous testing has once again proved the FE160 to be more fuel-efficient than its main competitors,” said Jecka Glasman, FUSO’s president and CEO. “And I should point out that, while FUSO paid for the testing, the tests were conducted entirely by ATDS, using procedures based on ATDS standard practice.”
According to ATDS, testing procedures used were formulated to meet the requirements of the SAE J1321 and SAE J1264 fuel consumption test procedures. The test was contracted specifically for the 2017 FE160 to measure effects of new hardware, including the electrically engaged radiator fan and new emissions after-treatment equipment.
Competitive models were selected based on readiness and regional commercial availability. Per respective engine emissions certifications from the EPA and CARB (California Air Resources Board), engine power, torque and emissions levels for both the Isuzu and Hino models were equivalent to the latest available for each at the time of testing.
To eliminate fuel gauge and in-dash odometer variability, the in-dash odometers and the trucks’ standard fuel tanks and fuel gauges were not used during the testing. Identical auxiliary fuel tanks were mounted in the dry van box on each truck, and each truck was outfitted with Racelogic GPS and Rosco Video GPS data loggers. Fuel consumption was measured by weighing the full auxiliary fuel tank at the start of a run, and then weighing it again after each truck had completed the run. The difference was the amount of fuel consumed by each truck. The scale used to weigh the auxiliary fuel tanks had an accuracy of ±0.02 pounds (1/3 of an ounce).
“Our goal with this testing was to obtain an unbiased evaluation of the fuel economy of our FE160, compared to its primary competitors,” said Otto Schmid, FUSO’s Director of Product Management.
“Consequently, we instructed ATDS to do everything possible to eliminate other variables. For instance, all trucks were loaded to exactly the same weight; all auxiliary equipment was operated at exactly the same settings; all test trucks were checked and brought into compliance with the manufacturer’s specifications for operating parameters, tire pressure and front-end alignment; and four different drivers were used, in rotation, among the three test trucks.”
