Navistar v the World battle continues

[moisheh]

I thought some might find this interesting:

EPA asks for stay in Navistar suit; OEM says no way
11/10/2009 CHICAGO -- Navistar International is opposing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's request to postpone court proceedings on Navistar's lawsuit against the agency.
Navistar -- which, as it's well known by now -- is the only major truck OEM not using selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology in upcoming 2010 engines. It is suing the EPA for what it claims is the agency's betrayal of the agency's own stance in a official guidance issued 2001 that SCR would not be a feasible technology.
In particular, Navistar contends EPA is improperly allowing SCR systems to incorporate a 'ramped shutdown' feature in case the diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) required for SCR engines runs dry. Navistar likens this allowance to a "licence to pollute" and "pollution for convenience."
In late October, the EPA asked a federal appeals court to grant a 60-day stay (which, incidentally, would expire just as the Jan. 1, 2010 emissions regulations take effect). The delay would give the agency time to revise the original guidance in order to address Navistar's concerns, EPA says.
In court filings, EPA also mentioned that the 2001 guidance is not binding and was only meant to advise truck OEMs of potentially acceptable solutions that could meet the agency's 2010 emissions regulations.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Navistar responded to the EPA's request by calling it "a pointless strategic maneuver."
"EPA has known that tinkering with the guidances will not address the issues Navistar has raised in this litigation."
Navistar's opposition to SCR as an approved 2010 engine solution has led to some heated exchanges between the Chicago-based company and its competitors in the heavy-duty truck market.
This past summer, Navistar attempted to block rival truckmakers from intervening in the suit against EPA.
In response, officials from pro-SCR manufacturers privately questioned Navistar's staunch opposition to SCR when the company is using that technology in international markets.
The appeals court has yet to rule on the EPA's request for a stay.

[DriVer]

If someone is making SCR (Urea) then that business is in the business to make money. Navistar has contended all along that it meets the newer emissions standards without the use of a urea or SCR on MaxxForce Engines built here in the US.

Now if you were in the SCR business you better believe that you'll do whatever it takes to make sure that everyone using diesel "HAS TO" buy urea.

The last time stuff like this was forced on us was Ethanol I believe and you can see where that went. I hope the court rules in favor of an engine that is EPA compliant without the use of a SCR. Not buying urea is putting money in our pockets. I believe that a diesel engine will burn 10% by volume of urea and the stuff isn't cheap. You have to buy this stuff by the 5 gallon container for any typical RV run and fill a smaller urea tank. Urea reportedly costs $35.00 a gallon. Factor that into the price of fuel and then how much are we spending? Not to mention all the support equipment and weight.

The W20D Workhorse front diesel engine, eg. the Seranno, the Tiffin Breeze etc. do not use urea.

See International's 2010 Emissions paper on their website.
.

[moisheh]

Driver:

I think that Navistar has injected you with their venom!! I also think that this whole EPA thing is NUTS. However you have posted some misinformation. The fluid will be available in the truck lanes from a pump. It will also be available in less than 5 gallon containers. Cost is expected to be less than the price of diesel( under $3.00 a gallon). Fluid usage is about 33 to 1. Fuel mileage s expected to increase by 3 to 5%. There is a tremendous amount of misinformation out there. This is being spewed by both sides in the AGR v SCR debate. What is known is that SCR has been used succesfully in Europe. Navistar uses this technology in other parts of world. Time will tell us who will be the winner in this battle. I hate to see 300 lbs. of liquid and electronics added to a MH but reduced emmisions are here to stay. To compare this to gasahol is off base andt does not deserve an answer! I can tell you this: I doubt we will see very many DP manufacturers using Navistar engines. This is going to have a negative effect on Monaco sales. Of course all of this is moot as the DP market is so small right now that it is next to non existant. Navistar has a lot of problems: Rejuvinating the Monaco line, pushing EGR and new engines to the RV market amd now a massive brake recall that has been mishandled. I wonder if this will turn off buyers for Navistar products??

[DriVer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moisheh I think that Navistar has injected you with their venom!!

moisheh, In the past you have provided excellent technical information in our conversations however at the moment what we are seeing from you is an editorial which doesn't support the press release you offered in your OP.

I am very open to discussing the facts in the case. I have not been venomized. The copy that I have posted here is easily viewed by anyone from Navistar resources. If you have supportive documentation that will augment the 7 words you initially offered in your OP I would certainly be open to a discussion in this matter. You left little input as to what you were looking for as a response with the posting of the News article other than an opinion which I offered. For that opinion I am tasked as "venomized."

Monaco RV LLC continues to use Cummins power and so do the larger ProStar Class 8 tractors. There was nothing in my discussions with Monaco at the RVIA Show that will compel them to begin using Navistar engines and for much the same reason, Monaco continues to build product on Fords.

I expect that the engines currently in Monaco RV LLC RDP products will use SCR technology. If Navistar wants to pursue alternative technology in the MaxxForce Series of engines, meet EPA guidelines for 2010 emissions without the use of urea and its supporting complexity and equipment, personally I have to applaud that effort.

If the cost for the urea was $1.00 a gallon which it isn't, it still adds cost to freight or operation which raises the cost to the consumer or driver.

Navistar has not announced that they will be building an engine in the 600HP range and they have been committed to using the Cummins NSX ever since the LOA was released between CAT and Navistar.

I know you are very well connected in the commercial area and I respect your opinion.

Comparing a fluid such as urea to ethanol is valid since they are both additives to undiluted fuel. The thought behind the statement is will the use of a supplemental additive be justified long term. In the RV world people are not going to be very receptive to having to pump in fuel and urea. I don't see this as being a good thing.

Tiffin Motorcoach, 4 Winds, Winnebago Industries and others will be using the MaxxForce7 engine which RV'ers will welcome in the Class 6 or less weight range because 2010 emissions are achieved without added expense. Ford Powerstroke engines which are quite prevalent, are currently 2010 compliant without the use of urea. I hope that Isuzu will follow suit in regard to SCR in the Duramax however I expect that it will be a factor in the buying process where RV'ers have a choice to buy into SCR or to buy into Advanced EGR.

People will always choose to spend less money after the sale and to reduce complexity that they have to deal with long term "IF" the solution they choose can meet EPA regulations without extra complexity and follow on cost.

I have not spoken to anyone that has told me that urea will improve fuel mileage.

I must apologize for the ratio I submitted in regard to consumption of urea vs a gallon of fuel however that said, who is going to want to stand there and pour in urea a gallon at a time when tank capacities are expected to be 30 to 50 gallons. It is obvious that fueling stations are going to have to install an infrastructure to deliver urea at the pumps. An RV'er is going to be obliged to add urea on a daily basis and to carry that supplement with them in their RV because some where some time some one isn't going to have the urea. Running without the urea as I understand it will damage the emission controls.

Quote:

To compare this to gasohol is off base and does not deserve an answer!

Quite honestly your assertion about mishandling the brake recall does not deserve an answer and I am surprised you would continue to offer the ink you did about what Navistar is doing with their products and customer perceptions. None of that has any bearing about this discussion other than taking up space in your post.

I am very open to discussing the facts of one technology vs the other and I would hope that is where you would want to focus your attention.

This is the way I see it and per your invitation, I have rendered my best opinion based on the information I currently have.

[moisheh]

Driver:

I did not intend to upset you when I used the word venom and I apologise. What I really meant is that you have bought into their publicity. There is a ton of info on the SCR process from the trucking orgs., engine builders and urea fluid suppliers. I could post some links but even I dont believe everything that they put onto these websites. However the 3 to % 5 fuel mileage increase is mentioned by every org or mfr.. Supposedly the increase will make up fo the cost of the fluid. I have been following the "battle" between Cummins et al and Navistar. IMHO Navistar has carried this too far. It is almost childish. Earlier on Navisatr was claiming that the urea was a hazardopus material. I wish there was a process that worked without using any fluid and the on board electronic junk. Navistar claims they do. Again, time will tell. I mentioned the brake issue as I am beginning to wonder about Navistar as a corp. I sense ( wrongly or rightly) that they are not customer oriented. But you are right. That is a whole other issue. Let me know if you want some more info on the UREA.

[ernieh]

It sounds like the "rocket scientists" at Navistar have finally realized that their MPG is going to go down while all their competition is going to get better MPG with urea.

Just a thought.

[DriVer]

I just read a PDF about SCR from Cummins resources. I certainly do not have a closed mind in this matter and I am open for any and all discussions about 2010 Emissions.

It's like Blue Ray vs HD DVD or VHS vs Beta all over again.

May the best technology win .... because in the end we all win.

They've got some pretty intense technology at Navistar so before I go throwing out the baby with the bathwater I want to know absolutely everything there is to know about the SCR vs the Advanced EGR technologies. Is it "Rocket Science", possibly however I think it's more important than that. The air we breathe depends on it.

Diesel particulate emissions and gasses are nasty. I remember living in a fire station for many years without a exhaust scavenging system.

If I had a diesel my preference would be to NOT be buying more products to add to my fuel. I'm sure the MPG increase has to have a caveat some where because the people that make the urea have a BIG stake in all of this.

If you can see this as not being a hazardous material then I don't know what is.

MSDS

Synonyms: Carbamide resin; Isourea; Carbonyl diamide; Carbonyldiamine
CAS No.: 57-13-6
Molecular Weight: 60.06
Chemical Formula: (NH2)2CO

[RustyJC]

Urea is not added to the fuel. It is injected into the exhaust stream as part of the post-treatment process in the catalysts.

Rusty

[DriVer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyJC Urea is not added to the fuel. It is injected into the exhaust stream as part of the post-treatment process in the catalysts.

Roger that! That said in the context that I am concerned with it's not relevant. What it is - is having to buy a product in order to get my emission controls to work properly.

I am hoping that the urea consortium is not force feeding urea onto the market just so they can make money under the umbrella of EPA emissions obligations. After all nobody wants to pollute however if a solution exists where an objective is achieved without added cost and infrastructure why should it not be considered and or pursued until it is proven as an unworkable solution.

You're an engine man Rusty, what's your opinion on SCR vs Advanced EGR?

I noticed you did not comment in regard to the MSDS.

[RustyJC]

My comment in post #8 was in response to this statement:

Quote:

Comparing a fluid such as urea to ethanol is valid since they are both additives to undiluted fuel.

Both methodologies have advantages and disadvantages. Post-treatment (SCR) doesn't force the engine manufacturer to compromise engine performance or economy as much as EGR since emissions clean-up takes place downstream of the engine - in other words, with SCR I can tune the engine for optimum performance and let the catalysts and urea handle what goes out the exhaust pipe. On the other hand, there's the cost and convenience factor associated with the catalysts and urea.

Of course, the EGR approach, while not requiring the use of urea, has its own disadvantages. Cooled EGR (which is used to reduce peak combustion temperatures in the engine, thus lowering NOx formation), increases the loading on the engine cooling system and can have a problem with deposits in the intake system downstream of the point where the cooled exhaust gas is introduced into the intake stream.

At the end of the day, the market will decide which approach will be the winner.

Urea is not a new product - farmers should be very familiar with it as it has been used in a liquid form as a nitrogen-increasing fertilizer for many, many decades. Perhaps one of them might comment on handling precautions involved with the use of urea. Urea is produced in the same fertilizer plants that produce ammonia-based fertilizers such as ammonium nitrate.

Rusty

[DriVer]

This is probably one of the better threads in which I have participated in.

I'm wondering if we can get some follow on contributions from other folks.

One of the reasons that CAT got out of the over the road business is due to increased demand on resources to meet EPA regulations for 2010 and beyond. Their approach with the ACERT was focused downstream however they also designed emission devices within the engine in regard to fuel delivery into the cylinders. They gave up dumping money into emissions systems and took their line of engines and went off-roading! CAT isn't loosing much by not providing on-road engines since they provide a lot of off road engines and machines.

At the end of the day what we might expect would be a combination of the two however that doesn't seem likely since it's apparent that there's just 2 technologies, an SCR bunch of folks and then there's Advanced EGR.

Navistar is not new to the diesel business and they are putting a lot of money where their mouth is. Cummins and the other guys using SCR are doing the same thing I expect. I believe both sides in the issue need to be heard, understood and evaluated on its own merritt after all the data is in.

Is there anyone else out there that offers a 3rd technology strategy that meets 2010 emissions?

When Ford begins manufacturing its own Powerstroke engine off shore, are they going with SCR or Advanced EGR?

[Gary - K7GLD]

How is it possible to inject urea into the EXHAUST system, and increase MPG?

Only possibility *I* can see, is if various engine tuning improvements are then incorporated that are not possible otherwise - if not, perhaps I should start peeing in MY Cummins exhaust for better MPG!

[RustyJC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary - K7GLD How is it possible to inject urea into the EXHAUST system, and increase MPG?

From my post above:

Quote:

Post-treatment (SCR) doesn't force the engine manufacturer to compromise engine performance or economy as much as EGR since emissions clean-up takes place downstream of the engine - in other words, with SCR I can tune the engine for optimum performance (and fuel economy) and let the catalysts and urea handle what goes out the exhaust pipe.

Rusty

[W4RLR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary - K7GLD How is it possible to inject urea into the EXHAUST system, and increase MPG?

Because urea is injected into the exhaust instead of raw diesel fuel to a diesel particulate filter to burn off soot. All of the fuel goes to running the engine instead of some going to burning off particulates.

Those who have scrapped their DPF and put a chip in (not endorsing the practice, BTW) report increased fuel economy. The practice is illegal, but enforcement in states where there is no smog test is practically non-existent.