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 
When clean air and reality collide
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Exhaust gas recirculation, American engine makers' solution to meeting emissions regs, has serious implications for service life and maintenance costs. Chrs US correspondent Steve Sturgess looks at why big-name US fleets are reluctant to buy any more new trucks.
• US truck operators, already battered by recession, are faced with one of the biggest purchasing unknowns ever to come down the highway. Their confusion and subsequent caution have major implications for beleaguered American truck and component manufacturers, and their dealers.
At the heart of the problem is the Environmental Protection Agency's EPA) decision to move the deadline for the next emissions standard for heavyduty diesel engines forward by 15 months—a decision meant to punish those engine builders who, says the EPA, have "dodged" earlier emissions regs.
The original timeframe for lower levels of NOx and particulates was set for model year 2004. one seen by the engine makers as an orderly step down the road to further reducing emissions and also developing engines capable of meeting even lower emission levels slated for 2007 through to 2010.
Major divide
However, the headlong rush to meet the new lactober 2002 deadline has caused a major divide between engine makers on what technology route to take. It's also left potential buyers not only confused and wary of the solution preferred by most diesel engine manufacturers— exhaust gas recirculation—but also by the speed at which it has been developed. Many operators believe EGR is merely an interim technology that will be superseded by the time the engine makers develop new products to meet both 2007 and 2010 emissions goals.
First among the truck operators to take a public stand on the issue was Don Schneider, chief executive of the company that bears his name on the doors of its 16,000 orange trucks. Schneider shook EGR engine makers recently with an announcement that he planned to buy used trucks in order to avoid dealing with the problems he suspects will come with new trucks fitted with EGR engines.
In recent times, Schneider National has bought an average of 4,000 new trucks a year, so his comments have sent a shockwave through suppliers. He's also considered an opinion leader among his peers and competitors.
Talks with numerous trucking and supplier executives—both on and off the record—make it clear that development of EGR has created a maze of concerns. Among these are that: • Reliability and durability of EGR engines has not been adequately tested due to such a short development period.
• Fuel economy may be as much as 5% worse than existing engines.
• Maintenance costs could be higher with EGR because new oil formulations for the engines will be more costly.
• EGR engines will also be more costly to maintain because they require shorter oil drain intervals.
• Because they will require more preventive maintenance than existing engines, EGR engines could disrupt fleets' existing maintenance schedules.
• Technicians will need retraining and service tools will have to be updated.
• Engines will weigh more and adversely impact payload capacity.
• EGR engines will cost more than existing engines.
• EON engines, say many in the know, will run hotter and place more impact on other components, potentially causing them to fail prematurely.
• Having EGR engines may adversely impact the resale value of a truck.
US truck buyers say they're worried about being saddled with an unproven technology that's been introduced without adequate "real-world" tests. In addition, operators like Schneider predict that fuel economy will be worse on EGR engines, a view echoed by Max Fuller, cochairman of US Xpress, who believes that a fuel penalty has been paid with the introduction of every new lower-emission-level engine. However, the engine manufacturers say they hope to see no impact on consumption.
US lubricant formulators have deve,. oped a new oil category, CI-4, to accommodate EGR. But they also predict that the ability to extend drain intervals beyond 50,000 miles—currently the norm for many major US fleets—is unlikely under the special demands of the new engines, which will run hotter anc load soot into the oil more quickly.
Mack's FOR engine project leader Steve Heffner says E-7 FOR engines require an extra eight quarts in the oil par to stay with the current recommended 50.000-mile drain interval. (For the record Mack's non EGR E-7 straight six 12-litre unit is used by Renault in its Magnum.)
Oil capacity Mack engines dr.e the long-drain leader today and require the least amount of oil among the big-bore engines. The fact that Mack EGR engines will require a 25% increase in oil capacity speaks volumes on the service issue. Competitive engine brands will probably require more expensive drains or more frequent drains.
This causes quite a dilemma: a fleet using both older engines and new EGR units will have to decide between running their EGR trucks with different oil change intervals, causing maintenance and logistics nightmares, or bringing the whole fleet into line with EGR drains, increasing maintenance costs on older engines. Either way, it's a costly proposition.
EGR engines are also going to cost a lot more to buy. And they'll weigh more too—up to 50kg for on-engine equipment—in addition to the greater quantities of oil and coolant necessary for the requisite larger vehicle cooling systems.
Residual values are another potential headache. Many US fleets have already
been hit by depressed values of used trucks and are now reluctant to invest in new vehicles fitted with engine technology that could turn out to be obsolete before the truck is due to be traded in.
One knowledgeable fleet executive who buys Peterbilt and Kenworth tractors says the reason he is prepared to pay a premium when buying equipment is that he expects it to be more than offset by the resale value. He fears FOR engines could be worth nothing on resale—in which case buying trucks with FOR would mean taking a hit both going in and coming out of the deal.