For everybody thinking about buying an International truck

[MackMann85]

EPA: Engine fines needed to keep Navistar running

The debate over using EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) vs. SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) technologies on diesel engines to meet federal emission limits is far from over and indeed has just heated up considerably in court filings.

Advertisement

</span>

Responding in a legal brief to a lawsuit filed against it by Volvo Group North America, Daimler AG and Cummins Inc. for allowingNavistar International to pay fines on its noncompliant engines, the Environmental Protection Agency said that had it not imposed the fines, Navistar "might be forced from the marketplace."

EPA said in its defense of allowing the fines that Navistar’s inability to comply with the EPA ’10 emission rules exposed both its customers and employees to “serious harm,” as was pointed out in detailed Dow Jones Newswire report on the case posted online today. Navistar has been paying about $1,900 per noncompliant heavy-duty engine.

Before the fines began to be levied, Navistar had been using “pollution credits” to meet the EPA ’10 limits. However, EPA had alerted Navistar that it would run out of those credits by February. "Substantial work was required to meet the current [nitrogen oxide] standard and Navistar was a "technological laggard," stated EPA in its brief.

What’s more, the agency contended that were the fines not allowed, Navistar "might be forced from the marketplace."

Indeed, as reported by Dow Jones, EPA “projected that production of Navistar's heavy-duty trucks and engines would be suspended for months while the company's engines were evaluated and certified by the EPA.

The agency estimated the production outage would cost the company at least $3 billion, more than 30% of its annual revenue. Meanwhile, nearly 4,000 Navistar workers engaged in building trucks and engines would be idled. Suppliers of parts and customers with trucks on order would be affected as well.”

The February suit filed by Cummins, Daimler and Volvo accused EPA of disregarding its own rules and thus benefitting Navistar. The claimants want the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, to overturn the fines and require EPA to conduct public hearings before reinstating the fines.

In a federal court filing, the Dow Jones report noted, Navistar “described its rivals' complaints as ‘a greedy play’ for market share at Navistar's expense.”

What remains unknown at this point is how close Navistar is to having any of its engines certified to the EPA ’10 nitrogen-oxide standard.

Also up in the air is what Navistar’s competitors would have done—or been able to do-- to immediately serve those customers who would have been left without an engine/truck supplier had Navistar indeed been “forced from the marketplace.”

[JumperAndSon]

I really wasn't thinking about buying a thirteen-letter crap spreader anytime soon.

Ben

[Pawel]

Volvo, Mercedes and Cummins would probably like it a lot, if international was "forced from the marketplace". Lots of new customers! Or they would probably also gladly pay similar fines instead of developing new, "ecological" engines. I wonder how "green" those new truck engines have to be in the USA, in Europe (where Mercedes and Volvo come from) they already have to sell pretty "green" engines - they all use the "AdBlue" system to reduce the nitrogen-oxides in the exhaust, because everybody agrees here in Europe, that EGR is crap, only marginally practical in cars, but sure not in trucks. Have a nice day

Paweł

[HeavyGunner]

Volvo, Mercedes and Cummins would probably like it a lot, if international was "forced from the marketplace". Lots of new customers! Or they would probably also gladly pay similar fines instead of developing new, "ecological" engines. I wonder how "green" those new truck engines have to be in the USA, in Europe (where Mercedes and Volvo come from) they already have to sell pretty "green" engines - they all use the "AdBlue" system to reduce the nitrogen-oxides in the exhaust, because everybody agrees here in Europe, that EGR is crap, only marginally practical in cars, but sure not in trucks. Have a nice day

Paweł

This whole green engine crap is just that, CRAP! Where does de-tuning an engine from its optimal performance (poor power & mpg) and burning a second fossil fuel (urea) ever come into the equation with the EPA? Hmmmm, lets burn more fuel (which probably "pollutes" the same amount since it used more fuel than the noncompliance engines) and lets burn another fossil fuel in it to pretend it doesnt pollute as much. This stupid politician crap has got to stop before it completely cripples our country beyond repair.

[220cummins]

This whole green engine crap is just that, CRAP! Where does de-tuning an engine from its optimal performance (poor power & mpg) and burning a second fossil fuel (urea) ever come into the equation with the EPA? Hmmmm, lets burn more fuel (which probably "pollutes" the same amount since it used more fuel than the noncompliance engines) and lets burn another fossil fuel in it to pretend it doesnt pollute as much. This stupid politician crap has got to stop before it completely cripples our country beyond repair.

Urea is pig urine and is considered renewable. Its not a fossil fuel.I had a brochure from five years ago from Mack when the first MP's started coming online claiming with the use of a DPF and an after-treatment (Urea) the MP's would make the air/water vapor being exhuasted from the truck cleaner than what is being sucked into the intake before the air filter. How true this is, I really don't know. I do know that it took a long time GM for example (73-98) to make engines (LS1, LS2, etc) have as much performance of the cars of the Muscle Car era. A LS-type motor is actually way more efficient,powerful, and reliable than a comparable sized engine of the mucsle car era. Not to mention its way easier to pickup horsepower compared to then. It took a long time but when the bugs were worked out....Look out. Hopefully the engine and truck manufacturers get the bugs worked out so the complaints of lack of power and efficiency fade. Tough luck for the cheap workers to our south if International has to cut back production....WRONG you'll see the cut backs at the remaining US plants. Just a little fact I read this a couple months ago "Navistar International spent $6.31 million on politcal lobbying and did not paying any taxes during 2008-2010, instead got $18 million in tax rebates, despite making a profit of $896 million and increasing executive pay by 81%" maybe they should have better invested money into EGR research and not moving manfacturing plants to cheaper labor markets as a way compete with the other manufacturers.

[HeavyGunner]

Anybody's piss has urea in it and I doubt that is how they are powering the dpf crap. One of the main ingredients in urea is natural gas, that is why the urea market used to follow natural gas prices before it started following trends. As for new vehicles and better mpg out of them although I havent driven them all I have not seen this great increase. My 04 6.0L gets 13-14mpg and every great once in awhile with a 30mph tail wind I can get 15. Hell my 92 Chevy 350ci gets closer to 16 all the time, I realize they are not the exactly apples to apples but 20 years difference and basically no mpg increase. I dont hear people talking about how good of mileage their pickup gets (cars may be another story) but I do hear lots complaining about how pickups have either lost or stayed the same for years as far as fuel mileage goes. Just my thoughts on it.

THE AMMONIA MANUFACTURING PROCESS

Ammonia is produced in a process known as the Haber process, in which nitrogen and

hydrogen react in the presence of an iron catalyst to form ammonia. The hydrogen is formed

by reacting natural gas and steam at high temperatures and the nitrogen is supplied from the

air1. Other gases (such as water and carbon dioxide) are removed from the gas stream and

the nitrogen and hydrogen passed over an iron catalyst at high temperature and pressure to

form the ammonia. The process is shown schematically in Figure 1.

[GearheadGrrrl]

If Navistar hadn't dumped Cummins, they'd have an option to keep them in business...

[Gmerrill0516]

I guess the first issue is that the fed fails to enforce its own laws equally accross the board. Turning a blind eye to the obvious failure to conform to the law is simply not fair to the competition. As to the whole tree hugging legislation, I too am perplexed as to how burning 2X the fuel to do the same job really "improves" much. I think it is too soon for such restrictions and they should have taken a more practical approach to the whole thing. Its one more way we are legislating ourselves into a third world country. When we fail to compete and truckers can't afford to drive, people are going to get real hungry.

I know I said practical in reference to the govenment...must be the beer kicking in.

[jaysm35a2]

I got a 1970 , I wouldnt call it new though.

[RowdyRebel]

The EPA required this BS technology, thereby increasing the purchase cost of a new truck.

The required equipment adds weight to the truck, thereby decreasing it's payload and thereby cutting the earning potential you'll have with the new truck.

Then, to top it all off, it costs more per mile to operate. I discovered that little tidbit clicking around on Mack's website when I found this:

http://macktrucks.com/assets/mack/calculator/index.htm

Since I don't know what numbers to plug in, I just went with the ones they had pre-filled into the fields...

Turns out the more expensive truck that you can't haul as much paying freight is also going to cost you $1190.77/year more to keep fueled & SCR'd up.

...so where is the alleged "benefit" to buying a new truck? And they wonder why sales are down and the average age of trucks on the road is increasing.