HINO Technical White Paper

SAE III Fuel Economy Comparison -- Test Results

Hino 268 versus International 4300

Test Completed October 26, 2004

Independent Observer DWS Fleet Management Services
dws@darrystuart.com, 508 384 9021 or www.darrystuart.com

Actual test results and comments with added observations by

Hino Trucks as noted.

Contents
Page
Abstract . 3
Test Summary 4
Vehicle Description 5
Test Criteria .. 6
Test Notes . 7-8
Test Drivers Comments 9
Test Results Spreadsheet 10
Report Summary Letter 11

The Hino Trucks team has added comments to this report and has clearly
indicated them by the use of a box and a HinoNote logo as shown here.

Abstract
The TMC/SAE In-Service Fuel Comparison Test Procedure Type III (TMC RP1103)
subjects commercial vehicles to a mixture of urban and highway travel and applies
specific fuel usage measurement techniques to determine overall fuel economy of a
vehicle. This test was run as a comparison of two different truck models. The vehicles
were rented for a two-day period and were selected to assure that power train
specifications were very similar. Care was also taken to find trucks that had engines with
enough mileage to be properly broken in and to negate the effects of wind through the
use of a third pace truck that traveled in front of both test vehicles. The trucks were
loaded equally.
The SAE III test presents real world conditions on both city streets and highways. The
trucks run together to experience the same traffic conditions. Drivers are rotated to
eliminate the impact of driving style on the manual transmissions.

We appreciate the work done by DWS Fleet Management Services during this test. The
use of qualified drivers brought a level of professionalism to the driving style and
accuracy of the data. The setup of the measurement devices and use of a pace truck
added extra care to assure a fair comparison.

Test Summary
Hino 268 vs. International 4300 Fuel Comparison

Subject:

Fuel Economy Test/Comparison

Conducted Terms:

TMC/SAE In-Service Fuel Consumption Test ProcedureType III (TMC RP1103).

Date:

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Weather:

Cool Cloudy day, no precipitation, and ambient temp.

55.5 degrees Fahrenheit, no discernable wind (dead calm)

Trucks Tested

International 4300 and Hino 268 Class 6 units.

Payload

7000 lbs (Hino required an extra 20 lbs for equalization)

Verified by:

DWS Fleet Management Services

21 Lake Street
Wrentham, MA 02093

Observed By:

Darry W. Stuart
Chuck R. Lewis

Verifying Photos:

Included in report

Drivers and
Vehicles:

At the end of each run, drivers, observers, and trucks were

exchanged to average driving styles.

Results:
1. On Highway Results -The International used 13.9% more lbs. of fuel. The Hino
268 had a net result of 12.5% improvement in MPG.
2. Intercity Results --The International used 16.1% more lbs. of fuel. The Hino 268
had a net result of 16.1% improvement in MPG.

3.

The average of the 4 test runs resulted in the International 4300 using 13.5%
more fuel. The Hinos average was a 12.5% advantage in MPG in the
combined test runs.

Vehicle Description
Unit 1 Make: International
Year: 2005
Model: 4300
VIN: 1HTMMAAL25H698529
GVW: 25500
Current Mileage: 10179 miles
Engine: DT466HT
Horsepower: 225 HP @2600
Torque: 620 lbs.
Company specifications
Road Governed Speed: 69 mph
Transmission: Fuller FS model 6 Speed direct
Rear End Ratio: 4.11
Tires: 11Rx22.5 Goodyear Lug
Tire air pressure: 105 lbs., verified
Body: Morgan 22ft. dry box with lift gate
Payload: 7000 lbs
Misc.
Equipped with standard factory fuel filters
Air suspension chassis
Single line fuel system, no return line
Preventive Maintenance: Current

Unit 2 Make: Hino

Year: 2005
Model: 268
VIN: JHBNE8JT351S10132
GVW: 25950
Current Mileage: 28254
Engine: Hino JO8E-TA
Horsepower: 220 HP @2500 rpm
Torque: 520 ft lbs.
Company Specifications
Road Governed Speed: 70 mph
Transmission: Fuller FS model 6 Speed direct
Rear End Ratio: 4.11
Tires: 11R x 22.5 Goodyear Lug
Tire air pressure: 105 lbs., verified
Body: Morgan 22 ft. dry box with liftgate
Payload: 7000 lbs plus one 20 lb. box extra for equalization
Misc.
Equipped with Davco 233 Fuel Water Separator Filter
Spring suspension chassis
Two-line fuel system, draw and return
Preventative Maintenance: Current

Test Criteria
Test Criteria:

Both test vehicles were inspected in accordance with test criteria

(tires aired, brakes, lights, etc.). Test tanks were connected and
testing began.

Group Agreement:

All agreed to perform the test in accordance with test criteria. If

any individual questioned any of the data collecting procedures
then we would communicate with each other. All data collected
was verified by each, with the observers verifying all of the data
collected. It was agreed upon that the observers would ride in
each vehicle and drivers would exchange at the end of each trip.

The drivers were a central part of this test. If they witnessed any measurement
technique that concerned them as to its accuracy they had the power to call a halt to the
test until the technique could be resolved to everyones satisfaction. They also provided
driving impressions to the observers.

Test Notes
9:03 am
Start Test 00. We begin with a warm-up run over the pre-determined course, which
consisted of a thirty-two (32) mile loop. The start point was the fuel island, which is
located less than one hundred (100) yards from the rural highway to be used. We
traveled for sixteen (16) miles, turning off, where we turned around and returned to the
starting point.
9:41 am
Upon arriving, we shut units down and immediately disconnected fuel tanks, weighing
the fuel and then measuring the fuel temperature (recording both). All parties involved
immediately noticed an obvious difference in the fuel used between test trucks. The
tanks were refilled from the same fuel pump as originally used then re-weighed
recording each tank and its fuel temperature. This was performed in less than thirty
minutes (actual time 22 mins.) so vehicles were considered warmed-up.
10:03 am
Began the first Official Test Run Test 1. Drivers and trucks were exchanged.
Weather: Cloudy, cool dry, ambient temperature, 58 degrees F., no wind. Ran the
same exact course as previously taken. Speed was 65 mph going out but 25 to 65 on
the return, due to a construction crew starting a median project, traffic was very light. All
vehicles were able to maintain position to one another as planned along the route.
10:47 am
Improving the efficiency of the procedures we were able to perform all necessary
functions and depart in less time than before.
11:02 am
Started Test 2. Drivers and trucks were exchanged. Weather: Same except ambient
went up to 60.5 degrees F., no wind. Ran same course, 65 mph out, but had to stop
completely and crawl for about five miles, due to median work. Both test vehicles shifted
in unison thereby keeping with criteria (cell phones for communication). Pace was
constant until we passed through the construction, then back up to 65 mph.
11:44 am
End of 2nd test run. Observed much less difference in fuel level between the two test
tanks. (Quickly noting 1 lb. less wt. between tanks) Again, performing required
procedures quickly and setting out for the third test run.

Started Test 3. Drivers and trucks were exchanged. Weather same except ambient
dropped to 60.2 degrees F. no wind. Operated over the same course, almost no traffic
was able to maintain 60 to 65 mph over the entire course with all vehicles performing
constant distance and speed.
12:38 pm
End of 3rd test run. Temperature dropped to 59.9 degrees F. Performed required
procedures, recording all data and verifying between Observers and operator techs. A
decision was made to perform a city run in heavy traffic for simple comparison to the
highway runs. Since vehicles were still considered warmed up, we set out on a threevehicle convoy.
1:14 pm (13:14 hrs)
Started Test 4. Drivers and trucks were exchanged. Weather has changed slightly,
ambient temperature had gone back up to 60.4 degrees F. and a slight breeze is evident
(3 to 5 mph). We departed on our City Run. The run consisted of light to heavy stop
and go traffic with all vehicles in close proximity of each other throughout the run only
losing sight of each other during turnaround (city block/approx. 1/8th mile) but in
telephone contact all the while. Run consisted of a length of twenty one (21) miles
completed.
2:07 pm (14:07 hrs)
Finalization
Surprisingly, all the Hino Truck runs visually used less fuel than the International. The
Technicians followed protocol and performed the recording of all test data under
observation. All the data was collected and began compiling for results of the days
proceedings. Both the operators and observers shared and verified the days
happenings to insure the accuracy of the test and data. We shared all of our comments
and information.
The group did this fuel consumption test under strict scrutiny.

General Comments on Hino 268 Performance

General Engine Performance: Outstanding.
Engine Torque Response: Outstanding during ramp entrance and traffic conditions.
Noise Level: Engine was quieter at all operating levels.
Engine Temperature: Both trucks were constant during the test.
Vehicle Tracking: Observed to be straight in line without dog tracking.
Fan Engagement: Little or no full engagement of the viscous type fan drive.

Summary and Comment

The Hino truck performed better than anyone expected during the test. The torque and
power response on the entrance ramps; in during traffic, and in-town conditions, driving
as real drivers do in-town, was surprisingly strong. The fuel economy test results were
even more noticeable looking at the containers than at the data. The visual impact of
the two containers and the fuel pump registered gallons were more shocking than the
percentage figures.
Darry W. Stuart
The testing of the Hino in comparison to the International was notable in the distinct
operation of the Hino vehicle! The Hino unit not only performed using a lot less fuel, but
the overall performance was impressive to all that participated in this test process. The
Hino was more responsive, pulled better on grade and ran much quieter than the
International unit. All parties involved in a round table discussion after the testing agreed
that the Hino Truck performed better than they had thought.
Chuck Lewis

DWS Fleet Management or any of its associates are held harmless in any situations resulting from this report or anything
derived from this report or findings. The use of this information without the expressed written permission is not allowable.
This report will be provided to the designated individual as addressed and future purpose that could be or would be
derived, as an endorsement must have prior written permission and possible compensation for such. The laws of the
state of Massachusetts for any legal matters that may arise will prevail. This was not a test sanctioned by the trucking
company. The trucking company only provided the vehicles through their normal business practices. The information
provided was that of compiling the actual data and not more than the actual data. The opinion of the writer, operators,
and observers are just those, only opinions. The data stated was actual and factual as determined at that time and
DWSFM does verify the test results as it happened that day.
Transportation and Fleet Management Resources
Dba as DWS Fleet Management Services

Fuel Test Data

Hino 268 vs International 4300 Fuel Comparison
Test#

Vehicle

Start Mileage End Mileage

Total Miles

Fuel Used Lbs IH Lbs.+

Lbs.% Plus

Gal used

MPG

MPG Plus

2.9

10.7

1.1

3.3

9.6

11.1%

3.0

10.5

1.3

3.5

9.2

14.0%

3.0

10.2

1.0

3.5

9.2

10.4%

3.1

10.3

1.0

3.5

9.2

11.4%

2.2

9.6

1.3

2.6

8.2

16.1%

14.3

10.3

1.1

16.3

9.1

12.3%

12.1

9.6

1.1

13.8

8.5

12.5%

On Highway Warm Up Run

0
0
0

Hino
IH
GMC

28254

28285

31

20.5

10179

10211

32

23.5

70911

70943

32

1
1
1

Hino
IH
GMC

28285

28317

32

21.5

10211

10243

32

24.5

70943

70975

32

2
2
2

Hino
IH
GMC

28317

28348

31

21.5

10243

10275

32

24.5

70976

71008

32

3
3
3

Hino
IH
GMC

28348

28380

32

22

10275

10307

32

24.5

71008

71040

32

4
4
4

Hino
IH
GMC

28380

28401

21

15.5

10307

10328

21

18

71040

71061

21

Hino
IH

28254

28401

147

101

10179

10328

149

115

Hino
IH

28254

28380

116

85.5

10179

10307

117

97

3.0

14.6%

3.0

14.0%

3.0

14.0%

2.5

14.0%

2.5

16.1%

On Highway Run

On Highway Run

On Highway Run

Intercity Run

On Highway and Intercity Run Totals

Total

14.0

13.9%

11.5

13.5%

On Highway Run

Highway

Test Performed on October 26, 2004

Observed by DWS Fleet Management Services

Hino engines are known worldwide for their durability and fuel economy. This test
showed a 10.4 to 16.1% fuel economy advantage for Hino depending on the driving
application. In summing up the entire test DWS noted a net result of 12.5%
improvement in MPG for the Hino overall.

10

11/18/2004
Mike Donohue
Hino Trucks Inc.
25 Corporate Drive
Orangeburg, NY 10962
Dear Mike Donohue,
Enclosed is the information in reference to the fuel test that was performed on October
26, 2004.
This report will provide all of the information and verification as a result of the actual road
testing you requested. But in short, the two comparable trucks, the Hino truck model 268
and International 4300 as rented provided some shocking unexpected results.
The Hino Truck vs. the 4300 International on highway results; the International used
13.9% more lbs. of fuel. The Hino 268 had a net result of 12.5% improvement in MPG.
The Hino Truck vs. the 4300 International intercity results; the International used 16.1%
more lbs. of fuel. The Hino 268 had a net result of 16.1% improvement in MPG.
The average of the 4 test runs resulted in the International 4300 used 13.5% more fuel
with everything being the same. The Hinos average was a 12.5% advantage in MPG in
the combined test runs. Simple apples for apples test using the TYPE III Test TMC
guidelines.
The 3 operators and 2 observers all noticed by driving and riding that the performance of
the Hino Truck was quiet, a noticeable difference in power, throttle response and torque,
while at the same time providing the operator a quiet environment, simply put, pretty
quiet and comfortable.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this test and if there are any
questions please contact me.
If for any reason you need any personal references about the results to any future
customers please have them contact me.

Sincerely,

Darry W Stuart, President/CEO

as DWS Fleet Management Services

11