Oil & Fuel New EPA regulations for small diesel engines

[Don87]

Personally, I'd like to see a constitutional amendment that prohibits any congressman or senator from talking to another congressman or senator except while they are in session...and the amendment would state that they can only meet 6 weeks per year. I would pay them minimum wage for a 40 hr week at 50 wks/yr though.

A lot of good amendments do, amendment 20 was supposed to keep a 'lame duck' session of congress from doing the things that they just did.

Not to mention the fact that some of the legislation that was passed, originated in the Senate...........which is a clear violation of the United States Constitution.

 

[jagyzf]

A lot of good amendments do, amendment 20 was supposed to keep a 'lame duck' session of congress from doing the things that they just did.

Not to mention the fact that some of the legislation that was passed, originated in the Senate...........which is a clear violation of the United States Constitution.

Would you explain how the 20th should stop a lame duck? I though it only changed the date of end of office from March to 1st week of Jan.

The problem is our reps don't take there oath as something that means anything any more. Who is going to enforce it? They police themselves and they are not going to do a thing. They mock anyone who brings up the Constitution any more, unless it suits there agenda.

The Media goes right along with them.

 

[westcliffe01]

Gents, attached are tables for the emissions specifications for Tier 1-3 and finally Tier 4.

The first thing that one should recognize is that in the region up to 25hp very little changes. Main change is a roughly 50% reduction in PM in tier 4. This can be accomplished by higher injection pressure, finer atomization and at most an oxidation catalyst. None of these is a big deal, shouldn't affect fuel consumption but the platinum on the catalyst may add $200 o the price.

25-75hp the big change in 2013 is the massive reduction in PM which will require a DPF. DPF's need to be regenerated, so the engine either needs a sophisticated fueling system, or a fuel fired burner.

Above 75hp there will be specific focus on NOx emissions, which either means EGR which we know what that does (2007 pickup anyone ?) or some form of SCR (urea injection and catalyst). Above 75hp one is starting to look at a sizeable machine and pretty expensive with a not inconsiderable appetite for fuel, so hopefully the OE's go SCR since despite the hassle it works great and fuel consumption is pretty much a wash with earlier vehicles (there are some benefits to those fancy injectors etc, included refined operation).

 

[Johnbro]

I can't see how it's going to be that bad. We just got a 2011 F350 with the diesel--it has the DPF and the DEF and all the rest--also produces 800 lbft of torque and gets better fuel mileage than our pre-emission 07 Ram 2500 Cummins. And it was cheap to boot.

Compare that with the levels of cancer being attributed to diesel particulates (and we have it really bad in Seattle because of the shipping into the port) and it seems like clean air is worth it.

 

[jagyzf]

I spoke with a Bobcat rep at a trade show in August about this very issue. He said Bobcat was having problems at that time getting the costs down and getting the equipment to fit in the current frames. He had no idea on price increase, but said it would be "significant" depending on the size of the machine. This was with both skidsteers using Kubota engines and the Bobcat tractor using the Dadong engines.

With the Kubota end of it he didn't know if they had fully worked out the emissions on engines that small yet. Or if Bobcat was going to stay with Kubota.

I have no idea if this person was fully up to speed or not on this topic. I use bobcat due to they use Kubota engines, and they do have some information on-line the direction they are going. I couldn't find anything for Kubota other than what is already out.

Bobcat and Tier 4 Diesel Engine Emissions Technologies - Bobcat Company

2008 EPA Engine Regulations - Bobcat Company

 

[jas67]

Gents, attached are tables for the emissions specifications for Tier 1-3 and finally Tier 4.

The first thing that one should recognize is that in the region up to 25hp very little changes. Main change is a roughly 50% reduction in PM in tier 4. This can be accomplished by higher injection pressure, finer atomization and at most an oxidation catalyst. None of these is a big deal, shouldn't affect fuel consumption but the platinum on the catalyst may add $200 o the price.

25-75hp the big change in 2013 is the massive reduction in PM which will require a DPF. DPF's need to be regenerated, so the engine either needs a sophisticated fueling system, or a fuel fired burner.

Above 75hp there will be specific focus on NOx emissions, which either means EGR which we know what that does (2007 pickup anyone ?) or some form of SCR (urea injection and catalyst). Above 75hp one is starting to look at a sizeable machine and pretty expensive with a not inconsiderable appetite for fuel, so hopefully the OE's go SCR since despite the hassle it works great and fuel consumption is pretty much a wash with earlier vehicles (there are some benefits to those fancy injectors etc, included refined operation).

Actually, 2003 was when on-road Diesels started to be afflicted with EGRs. The Dodge Cummins didn't get it, because dodge opted to pay the fine instead. My 2006 F-350 6.0L powerstroke has an EGR system, which creates a lot more maintenance and repair issues, and kills MPG by about 15% (as compared to the 7.3L that it replaced). The DPF ( and its fuel burning regen cycle) suffers even more. Tell me again how burning MORE fuel is good for the environment? Maybe the oil cartels are in cahoots with the EPA, and got them to require these MPG killing features.

 

[westcliffe01]

The Koreans and Japanese have been delaying till the last possible moment in deciding how to approach the problem from a technology point of view. Everyone keeps hoping for a "miracle" that occupies no space, costs nothing and uses nothing (fuel or catalyst fluid of any sort). Oh, and it should please work with fully mechanical injection systems too..... The problem for these guys is that the only emissions experience they have is in europe where there has been minimal pressure on NOx emissions, so they can't use that approach here except for the smallest engines and that is already done as per the Bobcat page.

 

[westcliffe01]

Jas, there is a big difference in the amount of EGR prior to 2007 and the massive amount of EGR that was applied to 2007 models. Navistar / International built their entire emissions strategy around massive amounts of EGR, as did CAT on their on road engine programs. This strategy has failed miserably with dramatically increased fuel consumption, increased maintenance and reduced engine life. CAT decided to withdraw from the on road trucking business altogether, at a time when they had the largest market share. That tells you something about their belief in whether the system was going to work.

In the meantime, everyone who swallowed the bitter Urea scr pill meanwhile has a much better engine life, fuel economy and was able to scale back on radiator sizes by reducing the heat input associated with massive EGR.

My 86 totota pickup had EGR (22RE engine) but catalyst and engine controls were not very sophisticated back in the day.

Actually, 2003 was when on-road Diesels started to be afflicted with EGRs. The Dodge Cummins didn't get it, because dodge opted to pay the fine instead. My 2006 F-350 6.0L powerstroke has an EGR system, which creates a lot more maintenance and repair issues, and kills MPG by about 15% (as compared to the 7.3L that it replaced). The DPF ( and its fuel burning regen cycle) suffers even more. Tell me again how burning MORE fuel is good for the environment? Maybe the oil cartels are in cahoots with the EPA, and got them to require these MPG killing features.

 

[jagyzf]

Jas, there is a big difference in the amount of EGR prior to 2007 and the massive amount of EGR that was applied to 2007 models. Navistar / International built their entire emissions strategy around massive amounts of EGR, as did CAT on their on road engine programs. This strategy has failed miserably with dramatically increased fuel consumption, increased maintenance and reduced engine life. CAT decided to withdraw from the on road trucking business altogether, at a time when they had the largest market share. That tells you something about their belief in whether the system was going to work.

In the meantime, everyone who swallowed the bitter Urea scr pill meanwhile has a much better engine life, fuel economy and was able to scale back on radiator sizes by reducing the heat input associated with massive EGR.

It not that simple. Cat never wanted to use EGR ever. They actually sued the EPA in the late 1990's and lost over the issue. In 2001 the EPA mandated that EGR was the only solution and had to be used for all levels of emission reduction. SCR they claimed at the time could be tampered with and was unreliable. It wasn't till a group of engine mfg from Europe sued again that SCR was proven and had been used in Europe for enough time to prove it was. Cat got out I believe because they had jumped in moving forward with one set of rules. Then the rules changed that gave others a huge advantage so Cat got out. Selling the over the road buisness to Navistar who is producing the same engines Cat was making. Now Deere, Cat and Navistar who were playing by one set of rules have a distinct disadvantage. Cummins went along with this due to they were/are tied in with Dalmer and Case/IH who already had engines with this new system in Europe. That is why no trucks between 2007 and 2010 have SCR, EGR was a mandate. Now you have 3 American based companies at a real disadvantage due to the government wouldn't listen to begin with and now the rules have changed.

 

[westcliffe01]

All of these companies have representatives at MECA, so are well aware of what is going on world wide. (Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association). Mercedes trucks went into full production in Europe in 2003 with Urea SCR. So the failed EGR based engines probably started development after urea SCR launched. Deere only started hiring emissions engineers in late 2006, prior to that it was a curiosity.

The same US manufacturers committed fraud by configuring their engines to meet emissions specifications only under the conditions that were tested. This was discovered, the EPA sued and that was the start of the "not to exceed" regulations. Frankly, the industry has done everything in its power to delay emission reductions. NOx reduction is in fact more important that particulate reduction. In Lab testing the death rate amongst the lab rats was much higher with exposure to NOx than to particulate, but at the time, particulate reduction was more mature and soot is of course visible. So the choice of which contaminant to deal with was more based on convenience that safety. Soot filters had been in mass production since 1999, so had a very long track record prior to curtain call in 2007 here in the US.

I don't believe that the EPA is able to mandate technology. They can only require that the emissions limits be met. Of course the EPA does studies on different technologies, to get an up close and personal idea of their likelihood of success. For the manufacturer, the main task is scaling these systems to suit their particular application and getting everything to fit under the hood while not compromising operation (quite a difficult task).

It not that simple. Cat never wanted to use EGR ever. They actually sued the EPA in the late 1990's and lost over the issue. In 2001 the EPA mandated that EGR was the only solution and had to be used for all levels of emission reduction. SCR they claimed at the time could be tampered with and was unreliable. It wasn't till a group of engine mfg from Europe sued again that SCR was proven and had been used in Europe for enough time to prove it was. Cat got out I believe because they had jumped in moving forward with one set of rules. Then the rules changed that gave others a huge advantage so Cat got out. Selling the over the road buisness to Navistar who is producing the same engines Cat was making. Now Deere, Cat and Navistar who were playing by one set of rules have a distinct disadvantage. Cummins went along with this due to they were/are tied in with Dalmer and Case/IH who already had engines with this new system in Europe. That is why no trucks between 2007 and 2010 have SCR, EGR was a mandate. Now you have 3 American based companies at a real disadvantage due to the government wouldn't listen to begin with and now the rules have changed.