1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200 
Why does anyone go the SCR route to Euro-4?
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WITH THE WTD and impending digital tachograph legislation preoccupying most operators' minds at present,as a heavy truck salesman Ifmd it strange that at this point they are showing little or no interest in Euro-4 legislation, which is now not far off.
When they finally make any decisions most operators will, as usual,choose the option that is considered the cheapest and simplest to work with. At present, the manufacturers opting for exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) would appear to have the lead.There is little or no major alteration to chassis packaging— most important on 6x2 tractors, especially if tipping hydraulics have got to be accommodated, and fuel capacity is kept to the maximum possible.
With this in mind it is strange that most of the current market leaders seem to be set on selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with all its associated difficulties, including availability of a national/ intemationalAdBlue network.
Those that are adamant SCR is the way forward haven't got long to come up with some clear advantages over EGR and tangible R&M cost benefits or they may find it increasingly difficult to retain their market positions.
Mike Davies Hants