Any one have knowledge of the effect of the emission control devises on today's new equipment compared to old pre-emission engines. Question is does the emission control devises consume HP from engine to perform work so the manufactures have increased HP of the engine in the machine to compensate for emission control engine HP loss? Years ago a D3 dozer or now D1 was at 70 HP now its 80 HP a CAT 120 excavator was 84 HP now its CAT 313 108 HP yes the weigh have gone up a few thousand pounds also. I am thinking these emission control devises rob engine HP so the manuf. have had to increase engine HP to make up the difference of the lost power.
Horsepower is measured at the shaft of the engine or somewhere further back. If any inefficiencies occur because of emissions garbage, they are internal to the engine and HP is HP at the shaft, the ability to do work in a set amount of time. The engines may burn a bit more fuel to achieve the same HP, but in general, horsepower just creeps upward in any model year over year as a marketing technique, until they have to re-number everything a la Cat.
Thank you Birken Vogt for the information
Higher exhaust back pressure from exhaust less hp
Lake Side Bob, From a maintenance standpoint, we see an increase in upper cylinder liner wear and piston ring wear on post-emission engines, caused by EGR. The soot in the exhaust gas is very abrasive. EGR increases the soot loading of the lube oil. Cummins Engine Co. states. “Soot can cause wear in highly loaded components in an engine, such as fuel injector adjuster screws, push-rod ball ends, valve-train, tappets, etc.“ Dealing with soot, engine oil service intervals have decreased. Another phenomena has appeared in fuel systems. Cylinder head temps are jacked-up, creating a condition where the return fuel to the tank is hot enough to scorch the diesel and create asphaltenes which plug your fuel filters. People mistake it for bio-contamination or bad fuel. Of course, there is massive amounts of money spent trying to keep the exhaust after- treatment system working. Tracking costs, my post-2011 trucks (outside of warranty) average $25,000 a year for after-treatment repair. But, Warranty is sketchy because my fleet idles excessively, which voids the warranty. Pre-2011 trucks average about $400 per year for exhaust system repair.
In my opinion only, on the off road side Tier 2 and Tier 3 both made the engines more efficient, burning less fuel and rejecting less heat per horsepower hour. They should have quit right there. Tier 4(i) was such a huge disaster that should never have happened, and including the equivalent on road bankrupted a lot of small companies. Tier 4 final and whatever comes next (God help us!) is a huge money maker for the manufacturers in replacement parts and engine overhauls/replacements. Dodge I think has what, a 36,000 mile warranty on emissions? Why are we buying them? Just nuts.
I think 2002-2004 was the pinnacle of Diesel engine design. We could still build 2.5 gram engines. Plus, the manufacturers had developed some very efficient high pressure fuel systems. Most of the design bugs had been worked out. How many of you distinguished gentlemen remember the infamous Consent Decree between the EPA and the domestic truck engine manufacturers? That was a pivotal point to the industry. Just a few years earlier, Caterpillar had achieved a TE of 46% with the 3176. That was incredible. Today, Diesel engine thermal efficiency is back down to the low 3o% numbers. Marketers boast about how clean Diesel engines are today, but fail to mention how inefficient modern engines are. It takes much more fuel to make them “clean”.
Does anyone remember when we could take a 3406E, change a couple water pumps, roll some bearings in at 500,000 miles, replace injectors and go 1 million miles? We can’t go 250k miles with a X-15 between majors. And, probably have to scrap the block anyways.
I have seen 3406 e with 1.5 mil with no inframe
AzIron, A good driver and good maintenance could make those go a long time. I remember the Truck Engine publication when Cat announced the 500,000 mile bearing roll-in was not required anymore. That was incredible. A million miles on bearings.
Blokes on another forum have found by removing all the Teir 4 crap of the 3.9 litre Cummins engine they are getting over a gallon an hour in fuel savings, engine running cooler even they boosted the hp from 120 to 140. Stan Goodman on the scraper forum here runs Wabco 353's and new Cat 657's. He stated that the 50 year old Wabcos do the same number of loads, burn the same amount of fuel as the Cats but correct me if I'm wrong carry 16 cu yds more. So if somebody were to calculate emissions on material moved!!!
Talking about the effect of post-emission engines, Its incredible what has happened to engine oil. Just the money that has been spent engineering all new additive packages. It’s more about trying to get the oil additives to work with the after-treatment and not so much about wear. Except, the new additive packages do address the soot loading. But, I’m still skeptical about CK-4 and FA-4 oils. Long term results will be interesting.
I have a newer 310 slhl backhoe 110hp I have an old 416c backhoe at about 68hp the 416 burns half the fuel a day and gets a little less production but it is also 2500 lbs lighter as well witch is were a big portion of the demand for power comes into play The 416 is a much simpler design than the 310 and in most applications the 310 does not out class the 416 mainly at loading trucks or in rock on the side of a hill hanging on a slope otherwise the 416 is a much cheaper machine to operate
Engine displacement had to go up to compensate for the lower RPM limit for emissions. Many hydrostat driven machines had to go to larger pumps to get the same flow as the older machines with higher RPM limits.
Good point about increased displacements. The 2007 jump to 1.2 gram was a struggle for the manufacturers. Those “bridge” engines were a disaster. What a dark time. Not a fan boi of Navistar, But I enjoyed and was entertained by their no EGR stance and advertising of that era. Oh’ and Cat. Cat said, “ We ain’t using EGR!. We have CGI!”. Cold Gas Induction. Lol. Then Cat be like, “Screw it!” “We ain’t playing the truck engine game no more.”
But terex herder I have watched excavator engines getting smaller yet putting out more hp. For instance 40 years ago Hitachi EX200 ran a 6.2 litre engine rated at 93 hp. Today their 12 ton machines run at 135hp on a lot smaller engine than was used back in the day. What I don't see is the productivity gains or longevity.
You guys brought up a sore subject. My experience is that displacement was increased to offset intake and exhaust load as well as parasitic drains such as high pressure pumps. Tier II was about as good as it gets. We had compression still, electronic fuel injection HPCR had just been introduced. The big 3 had their big bores putting millions of miles on American roads. DD series60 , the Cat 3406E and my favorite Cummins N14 Celect. I-H had the HEUIs for mid range. At the time ICP was maybe 2200-2500 psi. The manufacturers had reduced PM very low, but the goal post was moved. Now it had to be reduced further , oh and reduce NOx too. So now we're into EGRs and some DOCs for on highway. ( garbage trucks burning to the ground, remember that? ) That was short term. Particle traps are the next step, oh, while you're at it, reduce the noise from the inlet as well. Introduce panel filters and all those strange air cleaner designs. Now we have EGR and reduced flow capacity coming and going. Just to reduce NOx they knocked the compression ratios way down and introduced "cooled EGR" This reduced ignition efficiency so now the DPF is working hard trapping all that soot. Soot is being suspended in the oil and zinc is gone. Now we need to regenerate the DPF, some have burners to achieve heat, others use a 7th injector and others run in cylinder post injection. It doesn't matter which boondoggle it is, it's wasted fuel. Fuel used for something other than work. Now they realize that emissions require heat to work properly. You can't reduce soot to ash at idle. Now we get our compression back, fuel pressure goes sky high, fuel filtration becomes the biggest challenge. 5 micron final pass filters are now common, injector longevity is out the door. Higher heat , higher compression shows that current metallurgy is insufficient. Blocks show erosion, heads dance on the deck. EGR coolers are failing regularly. Coolant additives packages are pushed to their limits. Exhaust temps in manifold are nearing 650°F under load without dosing fuel for after treatment. Thermostat opening temps are climbing higher. 195° t-stat are common. So now combustion efficiency is up, we've got compression, temperature and metallurgy is creeping up. NOx is still too high, now we gotta add DEF to the exhaust steam to make sunshine and rainbows. Here's the plus of DEF injection. Some machines can forego EGR, not have it and address NOx strictly in the tailpipe. The horsepower draw was really evident to anyone who performed a delete or perfmed a conversion in 3rd world countries. An A40D haul truck had a 13 liter engine, in the subsequent generations of emissions F & G they had to up displacement to 16. To be clear, a D13C is no slouch. Last I heard, they're running D16H engines. Through Ritchie bros, 3rd world countries could buy American used equipment, get a voucher so that once received at the dock, the dealer would remove all emissions equipment and reflash the computers. They get all the power and efficiency of a modern diesel without the emissions hassle. I have watched over the last 20 years as this BS has crushed Mom n Pop outfits who didn't have the resources to survive the first breakdown post warranty. A machine that's otherwise fully functioning, derating, creeping at idle because a thousand dollar sensor decides it wants to be out of range. All dictated by foreign treaty and enforced by the EPA. Phooey
Well, the EPA doesn’t have to take into consideration costs and jobs losses for the laws they implement. It’s do what they say or get out of the business.
Just to be clear, these are not laws. They are hundreds of pages of rules and regulations published by bureaucrats on a daily basis that could be just as easily repealed the next day if they wanted to. But year after year it just keeps creeping up, nay, galloping along and nobody does anything about it.
That’s an accurate history lesson, funwithfuel.
Rules don't incur fines and penalties. Rules don't lead to forfeiture. The EPA is to us what ATF is to gun owners. A useless bureaucracy with too much power that gets off pushing people around. Those rules all begin with , "Federal law prohibits..."
Anyone removing a tag from a mattress.
how many hours in that 1.5? I use to service a 6TS 3406 in a T800 with 980,000 miles and 40,000 hours and no rebuild.
The EPA rules---Cat, Cummins and Detroit all sat on their collective asses while watching what the automotive industry went through starting in mid 70's till now. It was Cat, Cummins and Detroits choice not to start a program developing a cleaner diesel all the way back to early 80's. No-they kicked the EPA can around until they were forced-they knew it was coming. Instead of being pro-active they chose re-active. It all had to do with money and investors, and the public was the guinea pig after 2004.
When I started playing with trucks 35 years ago at a little company called Consolidated Freightways they ran 6v92 detroits, 300 big cam cummins and later my favorite 3406B,C and finally E"s, all of them may have made some soot but, almost never broke down..It wasn't uncommon to take a linehaul tractor with a million miles and run it it in the city for another 10 years...I now work at a small feed mill with about twenty trucks, most of them Pete's and we can't keep them away from the dealer, especially the MX-13's aftertreatment is killing us, with the small fleet it's not feasible to subscribe to the davey diagnostics...MIL's and derates are killing the industry, especially for the little guy....
I remember my first mechanic job ,1975 working foreign car repair. Guy's working in american auto shops would ask how can you work on that overhead cam crap? And when did american cars switch to overhead cam?
Couldn't tell you but I bet it was over 30000 cause it was an owner operator lowboy
Consolidated Freightways. Now that’s a name I have not hear in a long time. Their Anchorage terminal was a big deal in the 90’s.
If a company owns 10 tractors/trucks they should expect 1 or 2 in the shop each week. Our ratio is 63 tractors and 5 to 7 a week in the shop. But ours are under warranty. Some are long term shop stays and some 1 day. It's just the way it is and does no good to fret over it, you just deal with the issue.
Reminds me about the time, in about 1969-70 when I had a 1966 Corvair and took it to a Chevy dealer because of bent left rear swing arm. It was suppose to be fixed in a few days but when I called was told it would take a bit longer. See the first guy who they assigned the job told the boss to shove it and he was not going to work on those things! A few years latter I had another that had a bad flywheel and I managed to replace it using a chain jack swung over a beam in the barn single handed one afternoon! Some people just should not be mechanics. I mean it's not like I was asking a Detroit Diesel guy to overhaul a Cat 1693! Or the other way around! Or how about a D346?
C.F. terminals were a big deal in a lot of cities, until labor day 2002 when 25,000 employees got a robo call from the new ceo saying the doors were closed..That was after several previous ceos made very costly bad decisions and tried to bite off more than revenues could bear, then bailed with their golden parachutes...That was right around the time of that whole Enron mess and this new guy wasn't about to sign off on any bad books...It was a good gig while it lasted...
They had a non union subsidiary that magically received most of the newer marketable assets, they plundered the old union corp, hollowed it out, then took it bankrupt and walked away smiling. My FIL was a terminal manager, was able to retire just before the balloon went up. The retirement was locked in but his and everybody else's medical benefits went up in smoke. Dealer wins and winner deals, everybody else gets screwed.
What is the impact of the emission control devises on the engine compared to pre emission engine? Answer... More fuel consumption, down time, repair, and maintenance cost with a shorter service life! I would like to ask... What is the environmental impact of the emission control devises on the engine compared to pre emission engine? The EPA likes to point to the exhaust analyzer and say "look we have got (forced engine manufactures to produce and consumers to buy) harmful emissions down to XX%" but at what true benefit to the environment? I would agree with most here that the first push (tier 1&2) with electronic engine management improved efficiency but I think the EPA has pushed to far with tier 4. First, I would say conservatively a 10% increase in fuel consumption has some negative environmental impacts in that the crude oil must be extracted, refined, and transported to meet the increase of demand. Second, do to the high rate of failure of many components they have to be manufactured and shipped to make the repairs and what happens to the failed components? Sure some get in the recycle bin but most end up in the land fill along with all the packaging. Third, The ever changing and complexity of equipment is making field service almost a joke it's more verifying to send a hook or lowboy out to haul back to shop for repair. So many times the job get done with inefficient equipment. Meanwhile the piece at the shop sits awaiting parts because it's not likely to keep everything in stock not to mention that the first attempt at getting the right parts is a 50/50 proposition do to constant changing, updates, and shear # of variations of said piece of equipment. The list could go on and on but in the end an argument could be made that tier 4 is having the opposite effect on it's intended purpose. One more thing; As I think about this there maybe a spike in the demand for alcohol!
And don't forget that B10 and B20 don't have the same energy as straight diesel, also requiring more fuel. Like R12 refrigerant, I think the end game is to tax it out of existence.
would you like to talk about E10, E85, and the inefficacy of "flex fuel" vehicles? On the bright side of things, it keeps us all busy and each time a dollar changes hand a portion goes to government bodies to keep the ball rolling and "protect" us (even from oneself)!
"The Conway companies will never affect our business" famous last words...
" Those cleaner diesels are never gonna work out" ...before that "Those diesel engines are never gonna work out" ...before that, "Those motorized wagons are never gonna work out"...before that, "Harnessing that wild animal is never gonna work out"... before that, "That round wheely thing is never gonna work out." ...and I'm over here just waiting to get my hands on Case's electric backhoe.
Things have been awful with diesels ever since 2007 and show little sign of improving. Those other things were a logical progression, this is just an unnecessary burden laid on everyone by bureaucrats with no view of the effects or the big picture. Being repeated through many segments of society.
And this is coming from a guy living in the utopian state of CA. that has dictated policy for the rest of us since the 60s. I am glad to say I can not feel your pain because here in Pa. we are a few years behind but can see it coming. I am however sorry we did not do enough to help you out back then but nobody can think past the now and now it maybe to late.
Yes, we are seeing it more than others because everybody was forced to upgrade their old junk to the latest and greatest whether the business plan supported it or not. So we have been seeing it and gaining experience on it more than others, for good or ill.
I took my class 1 driving test in one of your COE KW 3ax day cabs back in 1980. I had just turned 16. I can still remember the look on the DMV instructors face when I hit the air starter. I think he may have peed a little
Oh the 80 pound Ingersol Rand beast, brings back fond memories,,They were a great starter as long as the lube valve worked, all you needed was a full tank of air which could be charged with the emergency air line of another truck if you had no shop air or a start truck with a compressor..If the starter was dry from a defective luber it would make a very telltale noise that meant trouble..The remedy was to remove the # 12 air line from the dump valve on the starter air tank to the starter and dump about a pint of diesel into the line and stand back...when that sucker went off it left a 10 foot shiny spot on the ground Oh the memories..All those COE's and later the early "Hoods" had was one battery to power the lights, even with doubles and triples, the rest of the system ran off air, starter , fuel shutoff was an air cylinder on the pump to shut the rack down and even had air wipers, those were a real treat in the winter as well..Thanks Pete that was a nice trip down memory lane...Ahhh the good old days....