Oil & Fuel New EPA regulations for small diesel engines

[jagyzf]

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).

Deere was not one of the ones who commited fraud, and it was more than just Navistar and Cat. Was Fraud ever proven or was it a case of it was better to just admit guilt? I remember what you are talking about, I just find it funny that every on road engine builder was fined for the same thing.

Also the EPA can mandate what is used. The actual fact is they would only test EGR to certify an engine due to "it was the only proven tech that could not be tampered with". That was the subject of a law suit by Navistar this year that they had gone forward with what they had mandated and now the rules have changed.

As far as what is going on world wide, both EGR and SCR are Ok in Europe, so why develop 2 different techs when in the case of Navistar most sales are here? The overseas engine builders were over there, not very many trucks here with Sisu, Scandia, Volvo, or Mercedes engine. They now have years of R & D that the American ones don't have.

Had the EPA allowed the industry find there own solutions the SCR could have been in in 2003. I agree with some of the ones here the EPA is too powerful and narrow minded. Not that we don't need some standards, but to punish america to the point we can compete. Not that anyone is for dirty air and pollution but what good is it if we drive all of the jobs overseas and we can't afford to eat? Overseas, do you think China has emission standards?

I am very familar with the way the EPA operates. I work in and indusrty where we have an emissions cap and have to file reports on our air quality. The EPA continues to change rules and play with our cap to the point they have driven most of our competition overseas. We our selves worked and changed processes to get our own emissions below our cap. Now with that and the fact most of our industry moved to China, do you think we could expand? No, the EPA lowered our cap to what our current emissions were. These caps are not based on air quality in the area, in some cases they won't even tell us what they are based on, just what our cap is.

 

[MMH]

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.

800 ft-lb of Torque??? Better MPG than a pre-DPF Cummins??? BS on both. You forgot the part that it is also cheaper, more reliable and requires less maintenance.:laughing:

Tell you what, lets take your 35+ MPG 2011 F350 & hook up a 10,000 trailer & I'll do the same w/ my 2004.5 Ram. We'll fuel them both up with exactly the same amount of fuel & see who runs out first.

 

[jagyzf]

800 ft-lb of Torque??? Better MPG than a pre-DPF Cummins??? BS on both. You forgot the part that it is also cheaper, more reliable and requires less maintenance.:laughing:

Tell you what, lets take your 35+ MPG 2011 F350 & hook up a 10,000 trailer & I'll do the same w/ my 2004.5 Ram. We'll fuel them both up with exactly the same amount of fuel & see who runs out first.

I was laughing myself at the comment. $8000.00+ option is cheap? Pre-emission dodges would be pre-04 not 07. I don't remember what they did, but I know there were changes that affected the MPG, I don't think they used EGR. I had a few freinds that saw drops in MPG vs pre 03. Also these Ford engines are just coming out and I hope it is everything Ford claims, but is it way way too soon to tell.

 

[gmatt58]

That's only if the EPA does not follow CALOFORNIA EPA... where the choice is retrofit or stop using.

I posted last year the CA regs effect just about everything 50hp and up... Wood Chippers, Trenchers, Pumps, Dozers etc.

Hello ultrarunner,
I'm a newby and I'm trying to find info on CA EPA and grandfathering my 2008 woodchipper. It has a cat 3054c dieasel, 80hp engine.
Thanks Matt

 

[ultrarunner]

Hello ultrarunner,
I'm a newby and I'm trying to find info on CA EPA and grandfathering my 2008 woodchipper. It has a cat 3054c dieasel, 80hp engine.
Thanks Matt

Here's a link with info...

CARB Compliance - Diesel Engines

You might also check with CAT and the Chipper Manufacturer...

Good Luck...

 

[MMH]

I was laughing myself at the comment. $8000.00+ option is cheap? Pre-emission dodges would be pre-04 not 07. I don't remember what they did, but I know there were changes that affected the MPG, I don't think they used EGR. I had a few friends that saw drops in MPG vs pre 03. Also these Ford engines are just coming out and I hope it is everything Ford claims, but is it way way too soon to tell.

Dodge had a slight difference between the 2004 & 2005 model years, but it was the same basic motor. Neither had a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) or Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR). The Ford has had a EGR on their diesels since 2003 (when the (6.0 6.oh-oh) PowerStroke came out). In 2007 EPA tightened up regulations and all diesel truck needed DPF and EGR to comply. Ford came out w/ the 6.4 PowerStroke & Cummins came out with the 6.7 to comply. The 6.4 was an entirely new, ground up motor. Already proven to be as unreliable as the 6.0. The Cummins was a slight evolution to 5.9 motor accommodate the DPF & EGR. Cummins is reliable, but the best DPF & EGR system is still a maintenance nightmare and results in a huge efficiency hit.

If it were me & I was in the market for a diesel truck, I would look for a pre-2007 emission truck. The new emissions kicked in on Jan.1, 2007, so about half model year was produced w/o the 'upgraded' emission package. The 2007 Dodge w/ 5.9 Cummins is very sought after for that reason. If I HAD to have a NEW truck, then I just would not get a diesel. Although the diesel performance is marginally better than a 'big block' gasoline engine, the $8,000 premium, 25% more expensive fuel, and 50% worst milage just makes it an economically losing proposition.

 

[Haywire]

Here's a good question... how easy will it be to remove 30 lbs of junk from the engine and get around all that stuff. Will it be as simple as straight piping a cat and plugging a few lines or will there be sensors connected to a computer emissions module that would have to be reprogrammed?

Ian

 

[Putter]

I heard from someone that the Urea injection is quite expensive to recharge also. Anyone have experience with this?

 

[leonz]

Ian its not as simple as adding a catalytic converter to an indirect injection diesel where you unbolt the muffler and add muffler purifier because the
"train was derailed and no one was paying attention"


They use direct injections becuae they can control the volume of fuel directly instead of the other indirect method as no fuel to returns to tank which is a poor way to do this anyway as it only complicates things.


And of course the problems persist because the sensors have to be installed with the direct injection diesels to operate the computer which controls the engine operation as they are all electric throttle systems versus air throttles for older diesels like the air cooled Duetz engines which were used in freightliner trucks for a time and were well recieved by many until the new rules came out for emmisions.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

Here's a good question... how easy will it be to remove 30 lbs of junk from the engine and get around all that stuff. Will it be as simple as straight piping a cat and plugging a few lines or will there be sensors connected to a computer emissions module that would have to be reprogrammed?

Ian

There are electronics on board the later systems that shut the engine down if its running outside what the EPA wants. That will includes on road vehicles being speed limited if someone does somthing tricky like putting water in the DEF tanks.