BBCP Independent Fuel Test

Over the last five years we have seen the cost of diesel fuel nearly quadruple in price. This has been compounded with the inability to receive the substantial tax refunds for off road fuel consumption that we were able to receive in the past but are now unable to realize because of changes in the IRS tax laws. Fuel economy in the past had not been of great concern to us but as the cost of fuel has gone from 2.5% of our gross revenues in 2003 to over 10% and rising it has come to the forefront of our endeavor to efficiently operate our business.

There has been much conversation over the last six months about better fuel economy of one brand of concrete pump over another. It is no secret that in a documented test published by Schwing that they claim to get as much as 63% better fuel economy than an unnamed competitor. Prior to Schwing publishing the findings of their test on fuel economy we received the test procedures and results. After reviewing the procedure of the test and their findings it caused enough concern within our organization that we determined that we should do our own independent test to determine for ourselves if there is reason to believe that one manufacturer had a concerning fuel economy advantage over the other. The results of this test would determine the direction of our quest to improve fuel economy in general.

Currently BBCP operates several hundred Schwing and several hundred Putzmeister concrete pumps so it stands to reason that we would match them against each other for our test.

Test #1

We chose a mid size pump for our first test with similar boom lengths, common pipe size and identical years and engine sizes. Our only concern with our selection was the pump kits giving Schwing a slight advantage because of the greater concrete material cylinder volume causing the Putmeisters valve to shift more frequently.

Procedure:

Both pumps were serviced in the yard the morning of the test changing all filters.
Both pumps were pressured out to bring oil temperatures up to working ranges.
Both pumps were primed and pumping for several minutes into each other in similar boom configurations and then both trucks were turned off for fueling.
Both trucks were fueled carefully ensuring that tanks were filled to capacity.
Both trucks had the Mack trip module reset.
With the precision of an orchestra maestro both trucks were started and brought up to 1600 RPMs.
Pumping began.
Every half hour each truck and pump was inspected for:

• Truck RPM
• Truck water temperature
• Truck oil pressure
• Pump hydraulic pressure
• Pump temperature

Finish Pumping (3 ½ hrs.)
With the same precision as start up turn off pump, idle down truck and shut down engine
Run report off truck computer
Fuel the trucks with a mobile fueling truck with the same care as previous fueling.

Results: The certified fuel receipts from the supplier showed 22.2 gallons of fuel used by the Schwing and 21.4 gallons of fuel used by the Putzmeister showing in this test that the Putzmeister was 3% more fuel efficient than the Schwing.

Conclusion: The result from this test indicates to us that the fuel consumption of the two main brands of concrete pumps which we use is very similar. We will conduct one more test in the future to confirm our findings and we will post the results of that test as well. We will continue our efforts to find efficiencies in our fuel consumption treating this as an industry concern not focusing on a particular brand of concrete pump.