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 
SCR claims and counter-claims
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AS THE WAR of words over EGR vs SCR gathers pace. we at Scania are becoming increasingly concerned by some of the literature seeking to promote SCR as the better solution. In particular, a number of the claims being made arc at best misleading and at worst untruthful.
Here arc a few very obvious examples:
Claim 1: SCR will provide savings of at least 0,500 a year on a 44tonne tractor, operating over a five-year period, compared with EGR.
• In our view this claim is misleading and unsubstantiated. It also runs contrary to the experience Scania has gained through some 4.((X) FOR-equipped vehicles running on the Continent in the hands of operators. Does such a calculation include the cost of payload sacrificed (approximately 200kg) due to the weight of SCR equipment and AdBlue carried on-board, or the cost of a replacement catalytic converter should one be required during that liveyear period? We think not: after all,who can predict future operating costs with such certainty?
Claim 2: EGR results in increased maintenance costs and shorter oilchange intervals.
• Not so. Both the price of our repair-and-maintenance contracts and our oil-change intervals remain unaffected by the introduction of Euro-4 and FOR.
Claim 3: AdBlue is not explosive, flammable or toxic.
• True — but it is corrosive to aluminium. copper and brass.Any leaks in the SCR system which allow AdBlue to escape could have serious consequences.
Claim 4: AdBlue will be widely available.
• It is already July and Euro-4 is just around the corner, but where exactly is that promised network of AdBlue suppliers? And providing hunkering or running round sourcing AdBlue represents yet another cost burden for the operator.
Claim 5: EGR is not suitable for engines above 430hp.
• An astonishing statement. Scania's 470hp engine, which is equipped with the patented Scania EGR system, has been proven to meet the challenge extremely well. What's more, we've just launched an even more powerful 480hp engine, which is once again equipped with Scania EGR. Of course, that last claim may be true in the case of the particular manufacturer that made it — perhaps it has been made out of fear by an organisation caught in its own SCR trap! By protesting so much, one can only conclude they are running scared. Or should that be, running SCRed?
Dan Hoij Managing director Scania (Great Britain)