| Author |
 Topic  |
|
78fordwayne
Top Member
USA
2868 Posts |
 Posted - 09/18/2008 : 09:36:22 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by oscar
International will have a totally new block with the Cat technology. It will not be the same ol' DT that we know today.
Another new engine!?
They hardly get the bugs out of these things before having to build something new.
Oh well , it keeps life interesting |
Robert B.
|
 |
|
|
Nick
Advanced Member
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 12:30:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by oscar
Orig Charger - the Maxxforce 7 will not be the same in 2010 as it is today. They are incorporating EGR (purchased from Caterpillar) into their block and utilizing that as an effort to meet 2010 EPA emissions. The addition of EGR will dramatically reduce their fuel economy and it is still yet to be determined if EGR alone will meet the new EPA standards. Other engine manufucaturers implemented EGR in 2007 and have chosen Urea as an exhaust additive to improve fuel economy and limit the additional cost to the end user. International will have a totally new block with the Cat technology. It will not be the same ol' DT that we know today.
Umm, the MaxxForce 7 already has EGR. So does the DT. International engines have had EGR since the VT365 was introduced.
quote:
Another new engine!?
They hardly get the bugs out of these things before having to build something new.
Oh well , it keeps life interesting
You realize that they are planning MORE emissions regs for 2014? I thought with EPA 2010 diesel was actually cleaner than gas! |
IC the future, and it is bright. |
Edited by - Nick on 09/18/2008 12:42:37 PM |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 7:01:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by oscar
Orig Charger - the Maxxforce 7 will not be the same in 2010 as it is today. They are incorporating EGR (purchased from Caterpillar) into their block and utilizing that as an effort to meet 2010 EPA emissions. The addition of EGR will dramatically reduce their fuel economy and it is still yet to be determined if EGR alone will meet the new EPA standards. Other engine manufucaturers implemented EGR in 2007 and have chosen Urea as an exhaust additive to improve fuel economy and limit the additional cost to the end user. International will have a totally new block with the Cat technology. It will not be the same ol' DT that we know today.
International as well as most other engine manufacturers incorporated EGR in 2004.
The MaxxForce 7 is a V8 with a far more advanced fuel system than anything Cat has ever used.
Cat is the one withdrawing from the 2010 on highway engine business and reportedly has yet to get some of its engines to even meet the 2007 standards.
|
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 - 09/19/2008 : 06:45:40 AM
|
| Time will tell. I have a good amount of faith in my sources on engine technology. Fleet operators will have to make the call if the greater EGR and lesser fuel economy is cost efficient versus the addition of SCR as an exhuast treatment. And it will not be the same old DT that the industry knows today. |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2008 : 2:27:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by oscar
Time will tell. I have a good amount of faith in my sources on engine technology. Fleet operators will have to make the call if the greater EGR and lesser fuel economy is cost efficient versus the addition of SCR as an exhuast treatment. And it will not be the same old DT that the industry knows today.
Of course todays DT has undergone many transformations in the last 20 years, even the bore and stroke dimensions are differant than they once were. About the only constant has been its a wet sleeve inline six displacing 466 cubic inches and called a DT. |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
|
|
|
BusBoy
Top Member
USA
2042 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 5:46:43 PM
|
I heard today that Cat is not going to make a medium engine (C7) after the first of the year!
I wish they would reconsider! I guess they¡¦ll focus on their larger engines! ƒ¼
|
Your Child's Safety is Our Business |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 5:59:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BusBoy
I heard today that Cat is not going to make a medium engine (C7) after the first of the year!
I wish they would reconsider! I guess they¡¦ll focus on their larger engines! ƒ¼
Cat has announced that they wont offer a North American on highway engine after the 2010 emission standards take effect. I hadn't heard that the C7 was going away sooner.
|
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
|
|
|
BusBoy
Top Member
USA
2042 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 7:06:37 PM
|
| I heard that the medium engine was being phased out! |
Your Child's Safety is Our Business |
|
|
|
Rich
Top Member
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 8:06:52 PM
|
| Cat is offering no on-highway engines once 2010 emissions hit. They sold some technology to International in return for getting a Cat-branded severe service truck with an International engine/chassis. |
|
|
|
|
BusBoy
Top Member
USA
2042 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 5:29:21 PM
|
This is exactly why I feel International is playing the game monopoly and wants to own the board!
They’ve been trying for years to take over the whole School Bus market with the body company they bought (Amtrash) and now they have pushed another player (Cat) off the board!! Every time I see a big change in our market, somehow I find that International is behind it!
|
Your Child's Safety is Our Business |
Edited by - BusBoy on 10/02/2008 5:30:08 PM |
|
|
|
Nick
Advanced Member
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 6:00:28 PM
|
How so? What about Freightliner and Thomas? They were hooked up even before IH bought AmTran! (1998 vs. 2000)
You don't think that there can be any other reason Cat is pulling out of the on highway market? I would blame Freightliner for that more than IH - they're the ones that stopped offering Cat engines in their buses. Hell, even IC has a Cat powered bus (FE Forward Advantage)! |
IC the future, and it is bright. |
|
|
|
BusBoy
Top Member
USA
2042 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 7:16:26 PM
|
If my memory is correct, I remember International telling the market, that they would stop offering their chasses to other body companies like Bird and Thomas, which made Thomas follow the same direction.
I just see them trying to push everyone out of the way to make them the excusive bus and engine company! I know that’s business, but the way I see it, it’s just dirty the way they do it!!
|
Your Child's Safety is Our Business |
Edited by - BusBoy on 10/02/2008 7:17:16 PM |
|
|
|
Nick
Advanced Member
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 7:56:24 PM
|
But how could Thomas have followed when they were bought before AmTran was?
Thomas made IH conventionals until 2002 (well after the AmTran purchase) and Bird offered IH conventionals as late as 2006. IH continued to offer the chassis to its competitors even as they competed with IC. It was BB and Thomas' decisions to not offer IH chassis anymore, not the other way around.
The other body companies are as guilty as IH is here. They have either aligned themselves with truck manufacturers or (in BB's case) developed their own chassis. And as with many things they would rather use their own chassis instead of paying a competitor for theirs. It may be "dirty" but you can't single out IH here, they all do it. No, that doesn't make it "right" but neither is blaming one company for it all and ignoring the role of the others in this situation.
IH could NEVER have a monopoly in buses, not as long as they only offer IC bodies on their chassis. There are too many that have loyalty to Thomas or Bird bodies and who would never buy anything else even if it came on an inferior chassis. Neither could Bird or Thomas have a monopoly, for the same reason. And that is the problem with this situation. No one has any motivation to improve their chassis because they know that customers are loyal enough that they will tolerate their "not-preferred" chassis just to get their preferred body. |
IC the future, and it is bright. |
|
|
|
BusBoy
Top Member
USA
2042 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 8:00:32 PM
|
Nick, I'm not going to argue with you on who went first, my point is that one company is trying to call all the shots and will do whatever they can do to win the market!
IH did offer their chasses to Bird and Thomas at one point, but pushed the cost way up, to make the customer only have one option!
|
Your Child's Safety is Our Business |
Edited by - BusBoy on 10/02/2008 8:03:32 PM |
|
|
|
Rich
Top Member
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 8:01:32 PM
|
International bought shares of AmTran in the 1980s, and the majority share I believe in 1992. Thomas was purchased in 1997/8. They were not purchased before AmTran.
International artificially raised the price of the 3300 chassis to Blue Bird to get them out of the market. Delivery dates were also longer than the IC CE bus, and there were situations in my home state where the IC dealer deliberately had orders held up for Bird 3300s resulting in the purchase of IC CEs.
Truck companies (IH and Freightliner) both changed the industry drastically, and the only people taking it in the shorts are the fleet operators who are paying more for less. I personally feel that IC has done the most to drive out the competition though, and I am ecstatic to see them losing market share in my home state! |
|
Edited by - Rich on 10/02/2008 8:03:44 PM |
|
|
|
Nick
Advanced Member
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 8:13:56 PM
|
Fine, I can admit I was wrong there. I assumed that the point where IH bought AmTran was when they changed the name on top of the door. And while the story about the 3300/SBCV is true, I don't recall it being the case with the Thomas body and the 3800. They could have done that when IH bought the "majority share" in AmTran back in '92. So why didn't they? Who was the one that said "no" to the other?
But anyway, it doesn't matter, NONE of the three companies can have a monopoly or drive out the other two, simply because customers have their preferences. A Thomas loyalist would buy a Thomas even if it didn't come on an IH chassis, because it is a Thomas body. An International customer would ONLY buy an IC even if he didn't want the IC body. A Bird customer would only buy a Vision even if he wanted an IH or Freightliner chassis. Oh, and why did Bird stop making FL conventionals? They made them from 1998 to 2002. Is it that customers didn't want it, or Thomas/FL didn't want to sell the chassis to BB anymore (after the Thomas buyout), or BB didn't want to offer it anymore (since they knew they would be making the Vision chassis)?
I will agree with Rich, the people who are getting shafted are the customers who can't get exactly the bus they want anymore. But it is not exclusively IH's fault.
Oh, and you said IH wants to "win the market"? Don't ALL bus companies want to do that? Isn't that what has brought us to where we are now? Again I am not saying it's "right", I am just saying that to blame IH absolutely for what has happened is not correct. |
IC the future, and it is bright. |
Edited by - Nick on 10/02/2008 8:23:52 PM |
|
|
|
BusBoy
Top Member
USA
2042 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 8:23:07 PM
|
| FL stopped selling their chasses to BB not BB tell their customer you can’t have a BB/FL combo and it was IH that made what we have to choose from today!! I just think it’s funny to see IH going to CAT to make an engine for their new FE! |
Your Child's Safety is Our Business |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 8:23:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BusBoy
This is exactly why I feel International is playing the game monopoly and wants to own the board!
They’ve been trying for years to take over the whole School Bus market with the body company they bought (Amtrash) and now they have pushed another player (Cat) off the board!! Every time I see a big change in our market, somehow I find that International is behind it!
How did truck and engine manufacturer International push Cat off the board? It was Cat who had difficulty passing the 2007 emission standards. It was Cat who threw in the towel and decided not to battle the 2010 standards for their ever shrinking market share. It was Cat who twisted Internationals arm and got them to buy engines when Caterpillars other markets were shrinking.
If anyone pushed Cat off the board it was Peterbilt/Kenworth parent Paccar who used to be one of Cats biggest customers who was coming out with their own engine in 2010. |
Operating; Seven T444Es, One MaxxForce 7, One VT365, Four DT466s, One E-450 6.0 and one Mercedes in a C2. |
|
|
|
Nick
Advanced Member
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 8:26:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BusBoy
FL stopped selling their chasses to BB not BB tell their customer you can’t have a BB/FL combo and it was IH that made what we have to choose from today!! I just think it’s funny to see IH going to CAT to make an engine for their new FE!
Yes, FL did that. FL stopped selling their chassis to Bird, right, because a FL/BB would compete with their (fully-in-house) FL/Thomas offering? So FL is guilty of exactly the same thing as IH did with the 3300/SBCV. And FL never even offered their chassis to AmTran! And Thomas is guilty of exactly the same thing by not building on the 3800 after 2002 even as IH continued to offer it (and BB continued to build on it) They are ALL complicit in what we have now.
And getting back to the Cat engine issue, again FL is the one no longer offering Cat engines, not IH. And as origcharger said, Cat is the one having trouble meeting EPA 2010, not IH or FL. So who is at fault for Cat leaving the market? IH, or the combination of Cat not being able to meet the requirements and FL not offering the Cat engine anymore, as well as PACCAR's new offering (making them not buy Cat engines anymore)? |
IC the future, and it is bright. |
Edited by - Nick on 10/02/2008 8:42:22 PM |
|
|
|
BusBoy
Top Member
USA
2042 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 8:44:41 PM
|
| You are 100% correct on both companies doing the same thing, but I also see IH/IC going after BB’s strong dealers networks like Mid West, or Leonard in NY because they pulled their chasses line out from underneath these dealers that had sold the BB/IH combo. And somehow manipulated them to jumping ship! I know it’s called business, but what comes around…. |
Your Child's Safety is Our Business |
|
|
|
BusBoy
Top Member
USA
2042 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 8:49:26 PM
|
Sorry... I hit the wrong button,
I think CAT was the one that led the way with the C7 and I think saw that their company had to spend billions on making all this 2010 emissions happen, but again IH was the one that took over where CAT left off. And from what I heard the other day bought the plans from CAT to move forward with the 2010 emission engine.
|
Your Child's Safety is Our Business |
Edited by - BusBoy on 10/02/2008 8:53:38 PM |
|
|
|
Nick
Advanced Member
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 9:07:47 PM
|
I don't know about the dealer issue but I am sure Thomas has been taking up some of BB's former dealer space as well. I know in our area all three dealers (Wolfington, Rohrer, and Brightbill) have all been affiliated with their respective companies (IC, Thomas, and BB respectively) for a long time.
I don't think IH really needs Cat's technology to meet EPA '10, most of their products will only require minor mods to meet them and at least one meets them with no mods at all! If you are referring to the post above about EGR, that is wrong, IH engines had EGR well before Cat decided to stop making on highway engines. So that is not the tech that IH bought from Cat. IH never strong-armed Cat into getting out of the on highway business. In fact it was Cat that strong-armed IH into buying C7s, which is how the Forward Advantage came about - because they needed someplace to put those engines!
EDIT: Actually, reading the press release about the IH-Cat deal here:
http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18634
tells me that actually the technology transfer is going the other way! Cat is having trouble meeting EPA 2010 and 2007, so IH is going to help them out! |
IC the future, and it is bright. |
Edited by - Nick on 10/02/2008 9:16:13 PM |
|
|
|
BusBoy
Top Member
USA
2042 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2008 : 6:47:02 PM
|
Propane Grants as Much as $1.3 Million in Incentives This Year, District Says
DENTON, Texas (Oct. 8, 2008) — The Denton Independent School District’s efforts to replace their diesel-powered fleet with propane-powered school buses received a boost last week when Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Michael Williams delivered a check for over $390,000.
Gene Holloway, the transportation director for the community north of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, said the check combines a $82,926.83 grant from the Commission’s Propane OEM School Bus Rebate Program with $308,000 from Blue Bird distributor Rush Enterprises, based on the federal alternative fuel tax credits for 44 school bus he purchased earlier this year.
Holloway said with a 50 cent per gallon equivalent rebate for propane, the alternative fuel has provided even greater returns. Since the beginning of the year, the district has received some $187,000 in rebates from the state railroad commission, he noted.
Holloway estimates the combined incentive programs have supplemented his $3.8 million transportation budget with as much as $1.3 million this year. If programs continue through 2013, as the railroad commission has suggested they will, the department could bring $2.3 million to the district since the program’s inception in 2006.
"That’s good for our tax payers, that’s good for our budget, that’s good for our classrooms and the needs of our district," he added.
Holloway discussed Denton's propane and biodiesel programs during a special general session on green school bus fleets during the 2008 STN EXPO Conference this past summer in Reno, Nev.
|
Your Child's Safety is Our Business |
|
|
|
oscar
Active Member
USA
47 Posts |
|
|
Rich
Top Member
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2008 : 6:16:44 PM
|
SCR definitely seems like it will be the way to go. Less EGR and electronic components to deal with, and more fuel economy. The big issues that will need to be figured out for the school bus business is where the tanks will be mounted, and how they will deal with the harsh climates, as urea has issues with very low temperatures, and very high temperatures.
Should be interesting to see what the fuel economy of Internationals engines will be compared to Cummins in the school buses. Cummins already has the edge, so I'd imagine the gap will get even larger. |
|
|
|
|
oscar
Active Member
USA
47 Posts |
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2008 : 7:02:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rich
SCR definitely seems like it will be the way to go. Less EGR and electronic components to deal with,
Less electronic components? How so?
The urea has to be temperature regulated and properly metered. There must be some sort of urea tank level gauge. The engines must derate if the urea tank runs dry........ |
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 - 10/21/2008 : 7:34:22 PM
|
quote:
The engines must derate if the urea tank runs dry........
....just like the engines shut down if they run out of diesel fuel. 
Not sure how refilling urea is any different than refilling fuel. |
|
|
|
Rich
Top Member
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 02:55:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by origcharger
quote:
Originally posted by Rich
SCR definitely seems like it will be the way to go. Less EGR and electronic components to deal with,
Less electronic components? How so?
The urea has to be temperature regulated and properly metered. There must be some sort of urea tank level gauge. The engines must derate if the urea tank runs dry........
I've been told by an engine salesman that even though SCR has the urea system, the electronics portion will be less complex. EGR will be much more complex than the current system, resulting in more electronics to monitor certain processes, and more mechanical pieces as well.
He hinted that with SCR, EGR may end up being slightly less complex than the current 07 engines, along with getting better fuel mileage. |
|
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 05:31:18 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sbfreader
quote:
The engines must derate if the urea tank runs dry........
....just like the engines shut down if they run out of diesel fuel.
Not sure how refilling urea is any different than refilling fuel.
Well no, its not just like the engines shut down if they run out of fuel, that occurs without any extra electronic controls. |
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 - 10/22/2008 : 05:39:04 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rich
quote:
Originally posted by origcharger
quote:
Originally posted by Rich
SCR definitely seems like it will be the way to go. Less EGR and electronic components to deal with,
Less electronic components? How so?
The urea has to be temperature regulated and properly metered. There must be some sort of urea tank level gauge. The engines must derate if the urea tank runs dry........
I've been told by an engine salesman that even though SCR has the urea system, the electronics portion will be less complex. EGR will be much more complex than the current system, resulting in more electronics to monitor certain processes, and more mechanical pieces as well.
He hinted that with SCR, EGR may end up being slightly less complex than the current 07 engines, along with getting better fuel mileage.
I've been told that the MaxxForce 7 can meet the 2010 emission standards with programming changes.
Time will tell, right now each engine company is promoting their emission strategy of choice.
|
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 - 10/22/2008 : 06:07:57 AM
|
| Just curious, if the MaxxForce can already meet the 2010 standards without any changes, then why isn't it being promoted as already being 2010 compliant? Go ahead and get it EPA and CARB certified. My understanding is that the standards will be achieved with a more agressive EGR. |
|
|
|
Nick
Advanced Member
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 07:34:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by oscar
Just curious, if the MaxxForce can already meet the 2010 standards without any changes, then why isn't it being promoted as already being 2010 compliant? Go ahead and get it EPA and CARB certified. My understanding is that the standards will be achieved with a more agressive EGR.
Because it's not, yet. They have to change the software to make it compliant, then test it to see if it works. I think I heard at least one MaxxForce product meets EPA 2010 without any changes at all. |
IC the future, and it is bright. |
|
|
|
origcharger
Top Member
United States
619 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 07:55:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by oscar
Just curious, if the MaxxForce can already meet the 2010 standards without any changes, then why isn't it being promoted as already being 2010 compliant? Go ahead and get it EPA and CARB certified. My understanding is that the standards will be achieved with a more agressive EGR.
The EGR is controlled by the programming, a change in programming will make the EGR "more aggressive".
This claim was made only about the V8 MaxxForce 7, not the MaxxForce DT or the V6 MaxxForce 5 which will be discontinued in 2010. |
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 - 10/22/2008 : 11:03:45 AM
|
quote:
Well no, its not just like the engines shut down if they run out of fuel, that occurs without any extra electronic controls.
I think you've over thought this a bit.
You have a urea tank. It has a gauge that tells you if it needs to be refilled. As long as you don't run out you don't have an issue.
a urea level gauge = a fuel gauge.
It would seem to me that both EGR and SCR involve electronics changes. Changing the "programming" to manage EGR is at least as difficult as adding a gauge to measure the level of urea.
Also, there must be some similar result for an EGR engine if it falls out of emission requirements. The EPA mandates that units not be permitted to perform outside of their requirements. If the EGR is not achieving the required emissions, what happens? There must be some warning at the least or derate scenario. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Pro Pane Blue Bird Vision
