| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ModMech
Top Member
USA
948 Posts |
 Posted - 03/28/2009 : 6:41:48 PM
|
Let's stop the pro-DEF propoganda and deal with some FACTS.
1) MAN has stated, and currently states, that EGR is the solution "of Chioce". See their websites.
2) Euro 6 limits are SIGNIFICANTLY more stringant than EPA 2010 (2007 full implimentation). Read the chart notes! 0.01g/hr for PM is not per HP-hr in the EU but for Kw-hr which is only 0.7456 of a Hp-hr!
3) Euro 6 REQUIRES emssions warranty for "700,000km/7 years" or about 425,000 miles or 7 years. EPA requires a measley 5 year / 100,000 mile HDD emission warranty.
Lets look at the EPA 2010 and Euro 6 standrads in the SAME UNITS!
Pollutant: NOx ----- PM ------ NMHC
EPA 2010: 0.20 --- 0.01 ----- 0.16 g/HP-hr
Euro 6....: 0.40 --- 0.01 ----- 0.14 g/Kw-hr
Euro 6....: 0.5360 - 0.0134 -- 0.1876 g/Hp-hr
This means that NOx for Euro 6 (2013 est) is 137% (1.37 times) more than EPA 2010, PM 34% more and NMHC about 17% more. Since PM production increases with in-cylinder reductions in NOx you are continually fighting to achieve the perfect balance. Not easy to do.
Now tell us that the significantly longer warranty for Euro 6 doesn't factor into their decisions. It's far simpler to install systems to filter and treat than it is to engineer it not to produce, especially considering time and mileage reqirements.
You can't blindly compare Euro to EPA standards because it's apples to oranges no matter how you slice it.
<< edited to correct EU NOx - decimal was in the wrong place)
|
If you want customer service, you NEED an International! |
Edited by - ModMech on 03/29/2009 06:07:39 AM |
 |
|
|
sbfreader
Senior Member
153 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2009 : 9:19:48 PM
|
This has nothing to do with pro-DEF propaganda. Euro VI standards on NOx are slightly below US EPA2010 standards. EPA2010 is the MOST stringent standard.
You're chart is wrong in relation to Heavy and Medium duty diesel engines. You're confusing cars and light truck standards of E'VI with medium and heavy diesel.
By the way Euro VI has been pulled forward of 2013 to 2012. Done Dec., 2008.
You simply do not know what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
ModMech
Top Member
USA
948 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2009 : 9:47:12 PM
|
I think you better check your sources.
You do undertand that g/Hp-hr and g/Kw-hr aren't the same measurement don't you?
BTW, HDD vs HDD, unless the Euro 6 limits are now calling cars Heavy Duty Diesels, again, you'd better check your cources because you bought someone's spin on it. |
If you want customer service, you NEED an International! |
|
|
|
sbfreader
Senior Member
153 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2009 : 05:23:58 AM
|
Absolutely understand that. Do you understand how to do the conversion?
Euro VI is .4 not .04. Conversion factor is 1.34
g/bhp-hr = g/kW-hr ÷ 1.341
So, simple math makes Euro VI .29 g/bhp-hr
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/hd.php
Table 1
Sources checked.
|
|
|
|
ModMech
Top Member
USA
948 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2009 : 06:09:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sbfreader
Absolutely understand that.
Euro VI is .4 not .04. Conversion factor is 1.34
g/bhp-hr = g/kW-hr ÷ 1.341
So, simple math makes Euro VI .29 g/bhp-hr
Sorry to correct you but 0.40 x 1.34 = 0.5360 g/hp-hr. |
If you want customer service, you NEED an International! |
|
|
|
second.flood
Top Member
USA
640 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2009 : 10:43:57 AM
|
| Is the .4 measurement you guys are referencing g/bhp-hr or g/kW-hr? |
|
|
|
second.flood
Top Member
USA
640 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2009 : 10:51:41 AM
|
My research finds...
In 2013, the Euro Tier VI standard restricts
NOx to 0.4 g/kWh (~ 0.3 g/bhphr)...
and PM to 0.01 g/kWh (~ 0.008 g/bhphr). |
|
|
|
sbfreader
Senior Member
153 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2009 : 11:43:31 AM
|
Correct. Because you divide by 1.34 not multiply.
In any case, a .5 number would only serve to invalidate the argument being made in favor of EGR. A .5 standard would be much less stringent than EPA10.
So let's recap:
We've gone from-
quote:
Actually, even the EU manufacturers are giving up on SCR in favor of EGR.
What we really have are 2 manufacturers (MAN & Scania) who have introduced EGR engines for Euro 5 and a vaguely worded statement from MAN that EGR is their "solution of choice". Note that this statement does not preclude them from using a combination of EGR and SCR to achieve Euro VI. EGR at any level is just now being introduced over there.
Who is using propaganda
The facts are this:
1) EPA2010 is the most stringent standard worldwide.
2) The standard of 2010 is that you have to hit .5 beginning 1/1/2010 to use credits and then you can use them until 2012 when you must get to .2. It's not a matter of running out. They either get there with EGR only, add urea-based SCR and hope everyone has a short memory, or some SCR system using something other than a urea-based solution becomes viable.
3) Euro VI brings the EU into rough parity with the US
4) Navistar and possibly MAN are the only 2 manufactuers of on-road diesel engines in Europe or N. America that are either pursuing or considering to pursue EGR-only to achieve .2 g/bhp-hr or .29 g/bhp-hr. There is risk involved with that. Ask Cat about being the "lone wolf" in the engine market.
6) SCR is new to N. America. It's unfamiliar and the support infrastructure is in its infant stages. You have to refill a fluid in order to keep the system running properly. There is risk involved with that. All the manufacturers who have adopted the SCR route know that.
Time will tell. |
Edited by - sbfreader on 03/29/2009 1:40:05 PM |
|
|
|
second.flood
Top Member
USA
640 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2009 : 4:51:52 PM
|
I hope EGR will prove to be the best solution.
http://www.internationaltrucks.com/calculator/?ref=6
EGR will save our fleet $627.45 annually/unit according to the calculator above with urea calculated @$12/gal and diesel @$2/gal.
ModMech may have miscalculated, but I feel he is on the right bandwagon in regards to EGR vs. SCR. |
Edited by - second.flood on 03/29/2009 5:01:34 PM |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2009 : 5:08:02 PM
|
Interesting exchange fellas.
You all know me well enough by now to know that I am some what of a cynic when it comes to this EPA/ Euro V- VI stuff. I would like to know (and I know none of us can answer this) if we are all in reallity just pushing each other out of the way just to be the first one to run over the cliff?
I mean please, both Europe and the US economies are in shambles and we are both trying to make vehicles and equipment so expensive (by adding these restrictions) that no one will be able to afford to buy one. Then when the companies can no longer stay in business our and their governments will say "WEEEELLL.... here is proof that private business does not work. The government must take it over." I for one am not ready to give up what our fore fathers worked so hard to bring to life. I will vote out any polotician that votes to bring govenment in where it doesn't belong.
I know this is not a political forum so I will stop there.
I hope and pray for all of us that we can keep up with the changes if this continues. I will continue to come here for opinions and options on repairs and the like.
Thanks guys. |
Bryan |
|
|
|
bluebirdvision
Top Member
USA
1081 Posts |
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2009 : 7:38:24 PM
|
| As Cummins seeked to also collect emission credits the Dodge diesel pickups have been sold for some time meeting the 2010 emission standards without using urea and will continue to be sold after January 2010 and still no urea needed. Is that system not suitable for medium truck/bus use? |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
|
|
|
oscar
Active Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2009 : 07:58:42 AM
|
Second Flood - if you're willing to buy Urea at $12/gallon, I've got some other stuff I'd like to sell you.
Urea (DEF) can be currently purchased for less than $3/gallon. |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2009 : 09:35:26 AM
|
Before I would think its an OK deal they would need to pay me $3.00 a gallon minimum to take, store, and refill the urea tank.
43 gallons to go 12,000 miles @ 7mpg as per Thomas Bus 
Or a dozen buses on routes for a 36 week school year = 3 gallons per day.
Roughly a 55 gallon drum a month for that 12 bus fleet, no wonder many of us hope International can pull it off.
If the purchase, storage and dispensing of urea isn't enough of an issue think of the increased possibilities of the wrong fluids going in the wrong tanks/reservoirs. |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
Edited by - origcharger on 03/31/2009 08:18:40 AM |
|
|
|
Rich
Top Member
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2009 : 10:13:31 AM
|
Where did you obtain the number of 55 gallons a month for 12 buses? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me, that is probably using a formula that Navistar is pushing based off of heavy duty over-the-road trucks.
I've been hearing anywhere from 15-30 gallons a year for a school bus that runs 20,000 miles a year. |
|
Edited by - Rich on 03/31/2009 10:18:38 AM |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2009 : 11:31:09 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rich
Where did you obtain the number of 55 gallons a month for 12 buses? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me, that is probably using a formula that Navistar is pushing based off of heavy duty over-the-road trucks.
I've been hearing anywhere from 15-30 gallons a year for a school bus that runs 20,000 miles a year.
According to Thomas's own website;
http://www.thomasbus.com/bus-models/2010-emissions-scr/faq.asp
in the FAQ section; "How much DEF will I need?"
"43 gallons DEF and 1700 gallons diesel fuel to go 12,000 miles @ 7mpg as per Thomas Bus"
Thus: 12 buses, each 12,000 miles per school year uses 516 gallons of urea per year or during 9 month school year = 57.33 gallons per month.
If you prefer to spread it over 12 months it would obviously be 43 gallons per month at 7 mpg using Thomas figures. |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
Edited by - origcharger on 03/31/2009 11:34:32 AM |
|
|
|
Rich
Top Member
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2009 : 11:34:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by origcharger
quote:
Originally posted by Rich
Where did you obtain the number of 55 gallons a month for 12 buses? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me, that is probably using a formula that Navistar is pushing based off of heavy duty over-the-road trucks.
I've been hearing anywhere from 15-30 gallons a year for a school bus that runs 20,000 miles a year.
According to Thomas's own website;
http://www.thomasbus.com/bus-models/2010-emissions-scr/faq.asp
in the FAQ section; "How much DEF will I need?"
"43 gallons to go 12,000 miles @ 7mpg as per Thomas Bus"
Thus: 12 buses, each 12,000 miles per school year uses 516 gallons of urea per year or during 9 month school year = 57.33 gallons per month.
If you prefer to spread it over 12 months it would obviously be 43 gallons per month at 7 mpg using Thomas figures.
Interesting, thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2009 : 11:36:12 AM
|
You guys need to read this. http://www.factsaboutscr.com/scr/default.aspx
Follow the tabs at the top they are interesting and informative. I think International is putting out a little false propaganda about SCR. It looks like everyone will be with SCR someday. The only questions seems to be: Is International going to take the long way around or just go right to it. Because I don't think that it is chiseled in stone that International is going with EGR only.
Take this at face value though. |
Bryan |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2009 : 11:58:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bwest
You guys need to read this. http://www.factsaboutscr.com/scr/default.aspx
Follow the tabs at the top they are interesting and informative. I think International is putting out a little false propaganda about SCR. It looks like everyone will be with SCR someday. The only questions seems to be: Is International going to take the long way around or just go right to it. Because I don't think that it is chiseled in stone that International is going with EGR only.
Take this at face value though.
That website has an agenda and it is to promote the acceptance of SCR and the use of DEF/urea to meet the 2010 standards. |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2009 : 12:15:56 PM
|
All due respect orig' what makes you think International doesn't have an agenda. (their bottom line, and I can't blame them) I just think some of the punches thrown around are not facts. (no fault of yours) I think the lines are blurred when it comes to how much Blue is used per mile and on the other side I would say the claim of better fuel milage increase is probable a little "blurred" too.
|
Bryan |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2009 : 12:32:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bwest
All due respect orig' what makes you think International doesn't have an agenda. (their bottom line, and I can't blame them) I just think some of the punches thrown around are not facts. (no fault of yours) I think the lines are blurred when it comes to how much Blue is used per mile and on the other side I would say the claim of better fuel milage increase is probable a little "blurred" too.
Well sure International has an agenda, as does every other engine and truck/bus manufacturer.
What International does not have is a third party, such as www.factsaboutegr.com promoting their strategy for meeting 2010 emissions.
Could it be because there is money to be made selling DEF/urea? |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2009 : 2:23:06 PM
|
| I see your point, but if all over the world there are companies going to SCR then I am wondering what IH knows that no one else does? I am just wondering because I don't have a dog in this hunt. I plan on buying as many pre '07 as I can then jumping over to propane or gasoline when they are viable. Unless I am persuaded to go toward these new diesel before that time comes. |
Bryan |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2009 : 5:36:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bwest
I see your point, but if all over the world there are companies going to SCR then I am wondering what IH knows that no one else does?
Well 2010 emission Dodge/Cummins pickups don't now and are not going to use urea.
And after using urea to meet emissions, European engine/truck suppliers Man and Scania are now promoting their urea free emission compliant engines.
Maybe what these suppliers and International believe or know is that DEF/urea/SCR is/will be a pain in the posterior and they have or believe they have engine platforms/equipment and the resources to successfully meet the standards without it. |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
Edited by - origcharger on 03/31/2009 5:36:47 PM |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 05:32:34 AM
|
| I agree with the pain part! I just wonder if it will all work out. I mean these engines are working day to day in Europe and the EGR engine is not (at least that is what is sounds like). The bottom line is these changes are coming so fast no one can keep up. My rule of thumb use to be let other people test out the new technologies. Then buy a model that has been in production a year or two. That way I won't be working out the bugs. I don't have the time or the nerves to go through that all the time. Now you can't do that, there are new unproven engines out there all the time. My stratogy now is to buy used (proven) equipment and wait and see. |
Bryan |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 05:49:41 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bwest
I agree with the pain part! I just wonder if it will all work out. I mean these engines are working day to day in Europe and the EGR engine is not (at least that is what is sounds like). The bottom line is these changes are coming so fast no one can keep up. My rule of thumb use to be let other people test out the new technologies. Then buy a model that has been in production a year or two. That way I won't be working out the bugs. I don't have the time or the nerves to go through that all the time. Now you can't do that, there are new unproven engines out there all the time. My stratogy now is to buy used (proven) equipment and wait and see.
I hear ya.
I have one 2007 and two 2008 model year buses with 2006 built engines.
We are getting our first DPF equipped MaxxForce 7 bus this July and a good portion of its purchase price is being paid by grant money we recieve if we take our 1992 DT-360 permanently off the road.
|
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 06:32:25 AM
|
| BB has a similar program going on with the propane. In your situation what does "permanently off the road" mean? |
Bryan |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 08:29:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bwest
BB has a similar program going on with the propane. In your situation what does "permanently off the road" mean?
8 Iowa School Districts Get Grants for New Buses
http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19470
We have to turn the engine into scrap metal.
The Wayne body is 75% there already courtesy of deicing chemicals. |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
Edited by - origcharger on 04/01/2009 08:35:30 AM |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 08:48:01 AM
|
| That's cool. Seams to be a waste of a good engine though. It might be able to be used at a trade scool or something like that you think? |
Bryan |
|
|
|
sbfreader
Senior Member
153 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 08:57:55 AM
|
One note regarding Dodge pick-ups with the Cummins engine. There are different requirements for EPA emissions certification for Light Duty vs. Medium and Heavy Duty. I believe there is even an option to certify at Light or Medium at the manufacturer's discretion. So what Dodge/Cummins does with the pick up may or may not coincide with what they are doing on the Medium Duty side.
I am fairly certain that the Dodge pick up does now or will in the near future utilize a NOx scrubber for emissions compliance. That indicates to me that the actual standard is (lower, as in less stringent) than Medium or they are using averaging over a variety of platforms to reach compliance which is also a provision available to them. The difference can lie within how the engine is configured for use in the automotive segment as well (higher revs, horsepower, etc.). |
Edited by - sbfreader on 04/01/2009 09:03:15 AM |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 10:46:52 AM
|
| I thought 8,500 gvw and up was the same emission standard? |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 10:51:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bwest
That's cool. Seams to be a waste of a good engine though. It might be able to be used at a trade scool or something like that you think?
We have to drill a hole in engine block or some such thing and document by taking a picture.
Yes, its a waste of a good engine, I guess we can waste it for $30,000 though. |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
|
|
|
sbfreader
Senior Member
153 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 11:36:55 AM
|
They are. Depends on the model but they range from 8,650 on up. However, there are procvisions in the standard where units up to 10k can be classified as LHDD. I'm not completely clear as to what those limitations are. SUV's are part of it but there are others. EPA.gov has a link to all engine certifications but you have to dig. To my knowledge there are no Cummins rated at .2 NOx or .5 NOx which leads me to believe standards differ somewhere or the averaging thing.
I guess the point is it isn't as simple as using the Dodge set up in a medium truck/bus. If it was, they would have gone that route.
No matter who we're talking about here these decisions are not made lightly. Heck, Cummins lost their top customer when the switched from EGR to SCR on their heavy stuff. They didn't do that without putting some thought into it. They basically trashed a supply agreement with the ink still wet. To me that is one of the most compelling things of the whole debate. |
|
|
|
bcressey
Senior Member
USA
114 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 12:17:45 PM
|
I'll agree with you on that, my jaw hit the floor that afternoon.
Doesn't everyone have until this fall to actually drag their feet for actual certification on 2010?
quote:
Originally posted by sbfreader
They are. Depends on the model but they range from 8,650 on up. However, there are procvisions in the standard where units up to 10k can be classified as LHDD. I'm not completely clear as to what those limitations are. SUV's are part of it but there are others. EPA.gov has a link to all engine certifications but you have to dig. To my knowledge there are no Cummins rated at .2 NOx or .5 NOx which leads me to believe standards differ somewhere or the averaging thing.
I guess the point is it isn't as simple as using the Dodge set up in a medium truck/bus. If it was, they would have gone that route.
No matter who we're talking about here these decisions are not made lightly. Heck, Cummins lost their top customer when the switched from EGR to SCR on their heavy stuff. They didn't do that without putting some thought into it. They basically trashed a supply agreement with the ink still wet. To me that is one of the most compelling things of the whole debate.
|
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 2:27:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sbfreader
They are. Depends on the model but they range from 8,650 on up. However, there are procvisions in the standard where units up to 10k can be classified as LHDD. I'm not completely clear as to what those limitations are. SUV's are part of it but there are others. EPA.gov has a link to all engine certifications but you have to dig. To my knowledge there are no Cummins rated at .2 NOx or .5 NOx which leads me to believe standards differ somewhere or the averaging thing.
I guess the point is it isn't as simple as using the Dodge set up in a medium truck/bus. If it was, they would have gone that route.
No matter who we're talking about here these decisions are not made lightly. Heck, Cummins lost their top customer when the switched from EGR to SCR on their heavy stuff. They didn't do that without putting some thought into it. They basically trashed a supply agreement with the ink still wet. To me that is one of the most compelling things of the whole debate.
Below is a link to an article about what Dodge is doing with the Cummins diesel, note;
1.Chassis cabs using urea.
2.Pickups not using urea.
3.Also note the picture of the chassis cab with heater lines going to both the urea tank and to the DEF injector area.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/03/chrysler-diesel-exhaust-fluid-system-previews-nox-reduction-solutions-for-2010.html |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
Edited by - origcharger on 04/01/2009 2:53:30 PM |
|
|
|
sbfreader
Senior Member
153 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 4:34:19 PM
|
Well the precious metal thing helps explain the differing strategies. Obviously, emissions levels are different depending on how the engine is tuned and its application. At some point the scrubber gets too big and too costly.
I'll have to dig into the epa site and see if I can find certification levels. They still could be using averaging because, technically they "meet 2010 requirements" with a .5 at this point in time. That would also build credits because they would be certified below the most current required level of 1.2. The requirements are complex and its hard enough to follow all the ins and outs when you're familiar with them. Sometimes the press doesn't get into those details for the sake of brevity and clarity.
Good, informative article. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
MaxxForce 7
