Playing a numbers
Page 42
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
game.. •
With Euro-6 looming on the agenda of truck-makers, and a recession in full swing, operators will, have to think hard about replacing their vehicles.
Words: Oliver Dixon Euro-6 is three years away, but already there are mutterings afoot. Word has reached CM about a sustained and joint effort on the part of European truck-makers to delay the implementation of the 0.4g/kWh emissions limit by at least a couple of years.
But why is this happening? After all, four of the European players will have a Euro-6-compliant engine as of 1 January 2010. Volvo. Renault. Mercedes-Benz and DAF need only reach across the. Atlantic and pocket a few EPA 10-compliant engines from their respective US cousins. EPA 10 has a 0.272 g/hp-hr NOx, 0.01 g/hp-hr PM output — a requirement more stringent than that demanded by the EU, so by the time Euro-6 comes into force, these engines will be old news in the 'New World: There is universal agreement in Europe that Euro-6 — for heavy-duty applications — will be met with a combination of moderate EGR and possibly a slightly reduced dose of SCR, which minors the approach adopted by all but one of the US suppliers, That supplier — Navistar — is playing a numbers game with EPA credits and is getting itself into a muddle by arguing for EGR alone, while hoping for a magic bullet to arrive by the time its credit hank is depleted.
The devil here exists not in the engineering detail; that is a done deal and Euro-6 exists. It's more a question of legislation. EPA 10 vehicles are now being delivered as production models in the US albeit in small numbers — and the engineering work has been done. For Europeans, it should be a case of strapping the developed, tested and certified-compliant engine between the chassis rails and banking the money Cue cheers from the haulage masses and the search will be on for another problem to confront.
However, it's not going to be that simple. CM's readership is well used to the idea of legislative demands bumping heads with operational requirements, and this will no doubt continue with the implementation of Euro-h. First, though, the truck manufacturers have to get over the problem of legislative demands clashing with other legislative demands.
When talking about Euro-6. the problem is simple — EU regulations arc not applied universally, but we can propose a more-or-less standard compliant articulated truck specification as being no more than 4m high, no more than 16.5m long, and with a GVW somewhere between 40 and 44 tonnes.
Size matters Al this point in time, it's worth considering the likely physical size of a Euro-6 compliant engine. While the jury is currently out in terms of the physical dimensions of the 2013-compliant units, one thing that does seem a racing certainty is that, if you add EGR, you add heat, and if you add heat, you need to add cooling.Thus, 2013-compliant engines will need more space and will probably boast a net weight gain over Euro-5-compliant models.
In the US, there is some room to manoeuvre, but, given the height and length constraints mandated by the EU. European designers do not have this luxury.
Today's expectation is for a flat floor within the 4m height limit, and given that we hear talk of an 800mm rise in some US truck model floor heights as a result of EPA 10, this will prove to be a challenge. If you can't go upwards, you have to go backwards, and this impacts directly upon the 16.5m length limit.
Not our problem. Until, that is, we have to pay for it. The development costs incurred as a result of — we think — designing a new cab from the rails upwards, the possible introduction of independent front suspension, and the use of composite materials to mitigate the weight gain, will have to be written off over a smaller production volume.
Daimler has just confirmed that the shift from EPA 07 to EPA 10 in the US will cost add around US$9,000 (£5,500) to the price of the average truck, and we reckon the cost of the move to Euro-6 will be far greater. There is a lot of work to be done, and, at present, precious little in the R&D fund for it. This means that the end user is the one that will end up having to pay for it.
As of now, we are in a downturn. The replacement cycle has a certain amount of latitude, but it is not endless, and we can expect the truck market to begin to liven up probably during the first two quarters of next year That puts the next round of replacements at some time during 2013— the year Euro-6 is supposed to appear.
Matter of timing Operators need to think this through extremely carefully. Possessing a late-model Euro-5-compliant truck in September 2013 would seem a pretty good idea. However. trying to ride out this somewhat interrupted cycle is going to be a challenge.
In an ideal world, it would be a case of buy now, replacc Q4 2012 at Euro-5 and hope the next replacement will be priced to reflect the paid-off R&D cost of Euro-6... but buying now is not an appealing option.
This has the makings of a European-wide problem for supplier and customer.Truck demand has to soar during 2012, but will probably plummet during 2013.
Cycles will have to be managed meticulously, and, for the first time, it seems that this isn't just a manufacturing problem, it is also one that will have a noticeable impact upon all operators, big or small. •