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.

2

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.

3

Test Summary Hino 268 vs. International 4300 Fuel Comparison Subject: Fuel Economy Test/Comparison Conducted Terms: TMC/SAE In-Service Fuel Consumption Test Procedure- Type 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 At the end of each run, drivers, observers, and trucks were Vehicles: 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.

4

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

5

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.

6

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.

7

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 three-vehicle 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.

8

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

9

Fuel Test Data

Test# Vehicle Start Mileage End Mileage Total Miles Fuel Used Lbs IH Lbs.+ Lbs.% Plus Gal used MPG MPG Plus

0 Hino 28254 28285 31 20.5 2.9 10.7 1.10 IH 10179 10211 32 23.5 3.0 14.6% 3.3 9.6 11.1%0 GMC 70911 70943 32

1 Hino 28285 28317 32 21.5 3.0 10.5 1.31 IH 10211 10243 32 24.5 3.0 14.0% 3.5 9.2 14.0%1 GMC 70943 70975 32

2 Hino 28317 28348 31 21.5 3.0 10.2 1.02 IH 10243 10275 32 24.5 3.0 14.0% 3.5 9.2 10.4%2 GMC 70976 71008 32

3 Hino 28348 28380 32 22 3.1 10.3 1.03 IH 10275 10307 32 24.5 2.5 14.0% 3.5 9.2 11.4%3 GMC 71008 71040 32

4 Hino 28380 28401 21 15.5 2.2 9.6 1.34 IH 10307 10328 21 18 2.5 16.1% 2.6 8.2 16.1%4 GMC 71040 71061 21

Total Hino 28254 28401 147 101 14.3 10.3 1.1IH 10179 10328 149 115 14.0 13.9% 16.3 9.1 12.3%

Highway Hino 28254 28380 116 85.5 12.1 9.6 1.1IH 10179 10307 117 97 11.5 13.5% 13.8 8.5 12.5%

Observed by DWS Fleet Management Services

Hino 268 vs International 4300 Fuel Comparison

On Highway Warm Up Run

Test Performed on October 26, 2004

On Highway and Intercity Run Totals

On Highway Run

On Highway Run

On Highway Run

On Highway Run

Intercity Run

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

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

HINO Technical White PaperSAE III Fuel Economy Comparison -- Test ResultsTest Completed October 26, 2004ContentsAbstractTest Summary

Vehicle DescriptionCompany specificationsUnit 2 Make: Hino Company Specifications

Road Governed Speed: 70 mphTest CriteriaTest Notes

Finalization General Comments on Hino 268 PerformanceSummary and CommentFuel Test Data