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
201
202
203
204 
Counting the green
Page 32
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Truck manufacturers are lining up behind SCR or EGR as they clean up their acts in the run-up to Euro-4. But which will cost you more? Colin Barnett reports on Europe's first head-to-head group test.
The battle between the rival Euro-4 technologies, Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR), raises a number of issues that will concern operators.
Maintenance and convenience are among them, but the most important factor, as always, is bottom line cost, and this effectively depends on fuel economy Apart from actual diesel consumption, on trucks from manufacturers which have taken the SCR route, the cost of the AdBlue urea additive must also be accounted for.
Now however, we can reveal the results of the first comparative test of three Euro-4 trucks in Germany where government-funded incentives mean progress towards getting the new technology on the road is much further advanced.
Head to head
The test pitted 420-440hp 4x2 tractors from MAN, Mercedes-Benz and Scania over a total of more than six hours and nearly 500km driving on a variety of road types and with experienced test drivers at the wheel.
As has been well publicised, MAN and Scania (except on its eight-cylinder engines) have taken the technically simpler EGR route. while Mercedes-Benz has thrown its considerable weight behind SCR, complete with its additional need for storage tanks for AdBlue.
The figures obtained in this test have been converted to take account of UK diesel costs hut German AdBlue costs.
The UK AdBlue market is too immature to establish true retail costs, although a spokesman forYara,which has just launched the first retail outlet in the UK, predicts that the price will stabilise somewhere near the current German figure of 45p/lit.
At first glance the test results give the Actros a fuel advantage of nearly 0.2mpg over the Scania and 0.6mpg over the MAN. However, you must factor the cost of the AdBlue into the Mere's figures.
Although the amount of AdBlue injected nto the exhaust system is variable according to pperating conditions, on this mixed route test it vas consumed at the rate of 4.116% of diesel by volume; a figure we believe to be typical.
Using these figures to calculate an overall listance-related cost, it's necessary to go right 'own to hundredths of a penny to split the Vlercedes and the Scania, with the Swede finally taking the honours by just 0.06p/km.
For a typical UK operator running 120,000km annually, the difference in total 'fuel' cost between the two best results is only about £72, with £1,505 between the Mere and the MAN. The Scania also takes the honours in Germany, where fuel is nearly 20p/litre cheaper than in the UK.
Fly in the ointment
The factor that lands like a large bluebottle in the ointment is the initial cost.
Although an AdBlue-equipped truck has a theoretically higher initial cost compared with a simpler EGR system, the indications from Germany are that actual transaction prices are likely to be very similar. •