Fleets to Face Engine Dilemma as Some Makers Avoid SCR
By Frederick Kiel, Staff Reporter
This story appears in the Nov. 5 print edition of Transport Topics.
The decision by two major engine manufacturers, Cummins Inc. and Navistar International, to build 2010 heavy-duty diesel engines without selective catalytic reduction technology has upset truck sales forecasts for the 2009 and 2010 truck markets, according to industry analysts.
“I’m shocked,” said Eric Starks, president of FTR Associates, a freight transportation forecasting firm. “What these two guys have done changes the landscape a little, and puts a lot more question marks in place for people.”
“My position is that this is good news since it indicates a lower-cost solution than I have heard is feasible,” Gary Meteer, director of R.L. Polk & Co.’s Commercial Vehicle Group, told Transport Topics. “Most have advocated a completely new approach and have used numbers like $10,000 as the incremental cost come 2010.”
Manufacturers and suppliers have predicted heavy advanced purchases of trucks ahead of the 2010 onset of tighter emission standards from the Environmental Protection Agency, because fleets tend to avoid the unknown factors and higher cost of new technology. SCR involves injecting urea into a truck’s exhaust to facilitate a catalytic converter.
“My feeling is that if I were a trucker, I would rather go with evolution than to go with another new technology to meet emission standards,” Chris Brady, president of Commercial Motor Vehicle Consulting, told TT. “That’s just asking for more problems.”
The analysts all said their opinions were based on statements by Cummins and Navistar, because too little technical information has been disclosed.
“I don’t think the ’09 pre-buy would have been anywhere nearly as strong as 2006, but this decision will give truckers another factor,” Starks said. “It’s too early to say now what they’ll do.”
Cummins said in September it would use an improved version of exhaust-gas-recirculation technology to cut emissions of nitrogen oxides by more than 80% to meet 2010 mandates.
Navistar, which provides engines to its subsidiary International Truck and Engine Corp., said Oct. 31 that it would avoid SCR in all of its 2010 engines, including International’s new MaxxForce heavy-duty engine.
Mack Trucks and Volvo Trucks North America — both part of Volvo AB — and Detroit Diesel Corp. and Mercedes-Benz — both owned by Daimler AG — previously announced they would adopt SCR, which is being widely used in Europe to meet new emission rules.
“Volvo has chosen to use SCR with its Volvo engines to meet the U.S. ’10 regulations because of the advantages this proven technology brings to our customers,” said Scott Kress, VTNA senior vice president of sales and marketing. “Volvo expects SCR to have better fuel economy than EGR-only systems, as our experience in Europe has shown.”
“Mack will use the existing U.S. ’07 Mack MP Series base engine, with no changes to the base engine components,” David Mc-Kenna, Mack’s Powertrain sales and marketing manager, told TT. “We are not converting a European engine. Instead, we are adding an exhaust aftertreatment system to an existing engine platform that has been optimized for North American operations.”
“With SCR technology, there will be no changes to the engines as they are designed for EPA ’07,” Larry Dutko, Freightliner’s EPA-2010 program manager, told TT.
Dutko said changing EGR eng-ines to meet 2010 mandates would involve untested technology.
“The higher heat rejection levels in the engine will require new designs for the EGR valves, larger EGR coolers and several other engine components, as well as requiring more efficient cooling systems,” Dutko said. “These engine-related stresses will not be incurred by the engines that use the SCR technology to reduce NOx levels.”
Caterpillar Inc. and Paccar Inc. both said they are testing prototype 2010 engines on U.S. highways, but haven’t made final decisions.
“I think the companies who chose SCR could have bet on the wrong horse,” said Bruce Plaxton, president of BGP Marketing Solutions, which advises fleets.
“Time and time again, fleets say they don’t want any more add-ons to engines. ‘Whatever you do,’ they say, ‘don’t make me put another tank on there to haul around and worry how we have to keep it full, as well as monitoring it for the government,’ ” Plaxton said.
SCR systems use a tank containing urea, which must be refilled periodically.
Both Cummins and Navistar said they will market their 2010 engines as having three years of reliable history behind them, with lower costs than SCR systems.
“Besides a new fuel injection system, the 2010 engine will absolutely look and feel the same as a ’07, especially from a service interface viewpoint,” Stephen Charlton, executive director of Cummins’ heavy-duty engineering division, told TT.
Daniel Ustian, Navistar chief executive officer, said in a statement, “I have publicly been an advocate of customer-friendly emissions control solutions which do not add additional costs to our truck and bus customers. While SCR is a means to achieve the NOx reduction . . . it comes with a steep cost to our customers.”
This story appears in the Nov. 5 print edition of Transport Topics.
The decision by two major engine manufacturers, Cummins Inc. and Navistar International, to build 2010 heavy-duty diesel engines without selective catalytic reduction technology has upset truck sales forecasts for the 2009 and 2010 truck markets, according to industry analysts.
“I’m shocked,” said Eric Starks, president of FTR Associates, a freight transportation forecasting firm. “What these two guys have done changes the landscape a little, and puts a lot more question marks in place for people.”
“My position is that this is good news since it indicates a lower-cost solution than I have heard is feasible,” Gary Meteer, director of R.L. Polk & Co.’s Commercial Vehicle Group, told Transport Topics. “Most have advocated a completely new approach and have used numbers like $10,000 as the incremental cost come 2010.”
Manufacturers and suppliers have predicted heavy advanced purchases of trucks ahead of the 2010 onset of tighter emission standards from the Environmental Protection Agency, because fleets tend to avoid the unknown factors and higher cost of new technology. SCR involves injecting urea into a truck’s exhaust to facilitate a catalytic converter.
“My feeling is that if I were a trucker, I would rather go with evolution than to go with another new technology to meet emission standards,” Chris Brady, president of Commercial Motor Vehicle Consulting, told TT. “That’s just asking for more problems.”
The analysts all said their opinions were based on statements by Cummins and Navistar, because too little technical information has been disclosed.
“I don’t think the ’09 pre-buy would have been anywhere nearly as strong as 2006, but this decision will give truckers another factor,” Starks said. “It’s too early to say now what they’ll do.”
Cummins said in September it would use an improved version of exhaust-gas-recirculation technology to cut emissions of nitrogen oxides by more than 80% to meet 2010 mandates.
Navistar, which provides engines to its subsidiary International Truck and Engine Corp., said Oct. 31 that it would avoid SCR in all of its 2010 engines, including International’s new MaxxForce heavy-duty engine.
Mack Trucks and Volvo Trucks North America — both part of Volvo AB — and Detroit Diesel Corp. and Mercedes-Benz — both owned by Daimler AG — previously announced they would adopt SCR, which is being widely used in Europe to meet new emission rules.
“Volvo has chosen to use SCR with its Volvo engines to meet the U.S. ’10 regulations because of the advantages this proven technology brings to our customers,” said Scott Kress, VTNA senior vice president of sales and marketing. “Volvo expects SCR to have better fuel economy than EGR-only systems, as our experience in Europe has shown.”
“Mack will use the existing U.S. ’07 Mack MP Series base engine, with no changes to the base engine components,” David Mc-Kenna, Mack’s Powertrain sales and marketing manager, told TT. “We are not converting a European engine. Instead, we are adding an exhaust aftertreatment system to an existing engine platform that has been optimized for North American operations.”
“With SCR technology, there will be no changes to the engines as they are designed for EPA ’07,” Larry Dutko, Freightliner’s EPA-2010 program manager, told TT.
Dutko said changing EGR eng-ines to meet 2010 mandates would involve untested technology.
“The higher heat rejection levels in the engine will require new designs for the EGR valves, larger EGR coolers and several other engine components, as well as requiring more efficient cooling systems,” Dutko said. “These engine-related stresses will not be incurred by the engines that use the SCR technology to reduce NOx levels.”
Caterpillar Inc. and Paccar Inc. both said they are testing prototype 2010 engines on U.S. highways, but haven’t made final decisions.
“I think the companies who chose SCR could have bet on the wrong horse,” said Bruce Plaxton, president of BGP Marketing Solutions, which advises fleets.
“Time and time again, fleets say they don’t want any more add-ons to engines. ‘Whatever you do,’ they say, ‘don’t make me put another tank on there to haul around and worry how we have to keep it full, as well as monitoring it for the government,’ ” Plaxton said.
SCR systems use a tank containing urea, which must be refilled periodically.
Both Cummins and Navistar said they will market their 2010 engines as having three years of reliable history behind them, with lower costs than SCR systems.
“Besides a new fuel injection system, the 2010 engine will absolutely look and feel the same as a ’07, especially from a service interface viewpoint,” Stephen Charlton, executive director of Cummins’ heavy-duty engineering division, told TT.
Daniel Ustian, Navistar chief executive officer, said in a statement, “I have publicly been an advocate of customer-friendly emissions control solutions which do not add additional costs to our truck and bus customers. While SCR is a means to achieve the NOx reduction . . . it comes with a steep cost to our customers.”
