RAM 1500 Diesel option still alive

[crbr]

I want a truck, not a car, like the rear Ram 1500 coil springs:thumbdown:

There lies the answer.


Mark, small world... I did 7 years at CPS. Lived in Clinton and then Heyworth... I do not miss the winters there. Not one bit...

 

[westcliffe01]

Inflation Calculator- from InflationData.com

according to this web site, US inflation from Jan 2005 to Oct 2010 (last month that data is available) was 14.69%. Taking your $105k and converting that from 2005 to late 2010 money makes it equal to $120.42k.

I don't believe that vehicle prices increased at the average inflation rate, since they contain a lot of steel, copper and other exotic materials and the cost of the soot filter and platinum on the catalyst is probably close to $1500 by itself. The 2011 models will have dramatically enlarged EGR systems (Navistars dead end path) which have knock on effects of needing larger radiators to reject all the extra heat. And the development cost of trying to make the "super egr" engine reliable will be weighing heavily into the cost also. There may be a "buffer" baked into the price to cover future recalls if things don't work out.

Navistar doesn't make too many trucks to begin with and they are made in many different configurations, so the manufacturing complexity results in relatively high amortization of a lot of different pieces of tooling, compared to for example the Ford superduty trucks.

 

[slowzuki]

There isn't just 40,000$ of emissions equipment on the new truck. Manufacturers have increased costs all over. Low sulfur fuel doesn't equal lower btu from the testing I've seen, and living in the drop out path of PA, acid rain sucks.

I sympathize with your costs for sure, trucking is a race to the poor house at times it seems when times are lean but common sense has nothing to do with it either way. It comes down to hard decisions. Like I said, the non-egr units don't have the same mpg hit. I also won't feel too bad yet for the trucking industry and fuel mileage. Locally the old non-aero classic styled models and screw/bolt as much non-aero junk the can on is popular, giving up about 5% mileage right there. We've got 110 kmh speed limits (like 67 mph) so aero plays a big part.

The UREA(has a freeze point of 12f and a problem over 85ishf?) has not been on the commercial market until now. testing? Yes limited use. generally speaking, the UREA plus the DPF is standard on all diesel motors(2011 yr). DPF's have been out in the market since 2007. EGR's earlier. Low sulfer diesel since, what 2005? ULSD...since 2007? lower sulfer= lower BTU's,= lower fuel mileage.

Been an owner operator for 20 yrs. I am very picky about keeping my costs down. These gov emissions are costing me more money in direct costs for the equipment. Plus making me burn more fossil fuel. I agree that we need to keep the Nox down, but common sense has gone out the window.

i own a 2005 international truck. Cost in 2005? $105,000
the exact same spec's truck, 2011 model? $145,000

but hey,what do i know?

 

[RobertN]

As all of this is discussed, I really wonder if our method in the US is that great for testing and speccing smog, as compared to Europe ect. Maybe the EPA could learn a little from their counterparts in Europe?

 

[Lt CHEG]

Like I said, the non-egr units don't have the same mpg hit.

That's not really fully accurate. The 2011 Ford Powerstroke and 2011 GM Duramax diesel engines utilize urea injection. They also incorporate diesel particulate filters like the previous generation of trucks did. They do get better fuel economy and they don't regenerate as much, but the new trucks didn't remove any emissions equipment, they've just added to it.

I really think a lot of it comes down to compromise on both sides of the argument. I don't think it would be wise to have diesel emissions levels at 1980's levels, but I also think that they've gone too far. Along with the lower emissions in general, as well as per unit of fuel consumed, fuel economy has decreased in the process of improving these emissions. The reality is that the newer urea injected engines would likely be getting even better fuel economy if they could keep all the rest of their new technology but scale back their emissions controls, such as the diesel particulate filters. The other point is that as mileage has gone down it has resulted in the consumption of more diesel fuel. Further consumption of a scarce resource isn't good for the economy, or good for the environment considering what goes into diesel fuel production. Also total emissions might not have been reduced as much as one would think because the amount of fuel consumed has increased even though the amount of emissions generated per unit of fuel consumed has decreased. So on one side of the equation the numbers have decreased, while the other side has increased numbers for an overall lower change than the environmental lobby would lead one to believe.

Personally I think a good compromise would be to continue the use of ultra low sulfur diesel, which has probably had the biggest environmental impact. Also keep the catalytic converters and continue to phase in urea injection technology. However dump the diesel particulate filters and set lower NOx reduction goals in an effort to bring fuel economy much higher. Heck, even allow emissions restrictions to be governed at the local or state level instead of federally. So if LA, San Fran, NYC, etc. have smog problems, then they can mandate that trucks in their jurisdictions be equipped with NOx reducing DPF's, while in most of the rest of the country where smog is a non issue, DPF's would not be mandated.

 

[Markcuda]

Mark, small world... I did 7 years at CPS.

I did 5 there, from 85-90, security guard.

 

[slowzuki]

Sorry yes you're quite right, I'm talking from a Tier 4 tractor/offroad equipment perspective. The urea motors are basically back to a tier 2 design (non egr) with urea.

That's not really fully accurate. The 2011 Ford Powerstroke and 2011 GM Duramax diesel engines utilize urea injection. They also incorporate diesel particulate filters like the previous generation of trucks did. They do get better fuel economy and they don't regenerate as much, but the new trucks didn't remove any emissions equipment, they've just added to it.

 

[Lt CHEG]

The manufacturers would love you for that. Design, build and certify 20 or 30 different levels of emissions standards. We're having enough of a problem with various states starting their own gasoline emissions standards now. Remember, not for sale in California? On another note, I heard that 17 states want to go totally metric and also go back to the olden days of railroad time zones. :laughing:

I think what would happen is that some companies would just decline to sell trucks to those states whose emissions standards are overly repressive. In actuality, we are likely talking about 3 or 4 states at most who would not be willing to compromise on lowering emissions standards. CA for sure, probably IL and NY, and possibly NJ or WA. I could see the manufacturers making a rest of US model engine with lets say 2005 emissions standards and a 2010 model for states like NY who are more restrictive but not as much as CA, and then just decline to make engines for CA. What would hopefully happen is that the environmentally repressive states would realize that their oppressive environmental regulations would not be enforceable and they would also be forced to roll them back. In reality though, even if none of that happened this is still a Constitutional Republic based on the system of federalism. The idea is that people should be able to move to different states which have slightly different regulations and what not so they can live the lifestyle that they most want to. In other words if CA is anti smoking and makes strong anti smoking rules, but you like to smoke you should be able to move to a different state and enjoy your cigarettes. The same with trucks. I prioritize fuel economy over smog prevention, so if I wanted to I should be able to move to a state which has more lax environmental standards instead of having them be completely uniform across the board. I understand the upside to uniformity, but by the same token, there is a reason why we are a country of United States, all with their own individual system of government, and not just one federal government which reigns over every aspect of life.

 

[westcliffe01]

The manufacturers will soon tire of all the add on cr#p (aftertreatment) and will do the inevitable which is to produce cleaner engines. Maybe they will add a second injector in the combustion chamber to inject water or ethanol to cool combustion to reduce NOx. In Europe when the emission regulations changed at the end of 2003, everyone but Mercedes was able to tweak their engines to meet the reduced NOx emissions. Mercedes understood that the Bluetec technology they were working on was not just for European requirements but for the tighter US requirements.

The reality was that the approach taken by the other manufacturers failed when it had to be applied to the more drastic US standards, mainly because of the time line. There was 3 years between the european standards change and the 2007 US emissions requirement. Then another 3 years from there to the 2010 US NOx reduction requirement. Anyone who has done automotive development knows how short 3 years is when you are launching a new technology (for a given market and engine size) in addition to a re-styled vehicle.

The off road market has been watching since 2003 through 2007 and only then seriously considering their options. They have from 2007 to 2012 (5 years) to apply basically the same technology as had been used for the on road 2007 level diesel trucks, but plan the systems for what they know will be needed by 2015 when they too have to reduce NOX. For a market which previously only fitted a muffler, this was a kick in the n*ts to say the least...

Better engines are going to be the answer with consequent downsizing of all the aftertreatment systems. The stuff that matters is typically going to be really small, micro manufacturing and of course sophisticated electronics to figure out what is going on inside the combustion chamber.

They do get better fuel economy and they don't regenerate as much, but the new trucks didn't remove any emissions equipment, they've just added to it.

 

[slowzuki]

I know when I took IC engines in school, hmm, over 10 years ago, we did some calcs, at the time, a turbo, direct injection gasoline motor could get near 100% of the maximum thermodynamic efficiency possible, and was limited by some material properties to that. The potential gains were getting slim. You see that in the new Ford V-6, its getting close to the most we are going to get out of a gas motor for thermal efficiency.

Diesels at the time were were only getting to like half of the max possible thermal efficiency. Common rail, multiple pulsed injection etc was just getting going, variable geometry turbos being researched etc. Very little development since the first diesel had taken place. Professor was a firm believer in working to get the diesel efficiency up to at least 60-70%, which would improve mileage dramatically. Not sure where that number is at today in a commercial diesel.