What really has not been addressed is the fact that specs for trucks are being mandated by people other than those who make and use them. Of the many cost-effective technologies available,by Profit making operations,all the technologies being set,are from beaurocrats,and their sponsors,complete with an infra-structure to supplement it, with additional cost/maintenance to utilize it.
Why not just allow the engine to run technically better internally,just as Navistar promotes (?/?),?? Who has contemplated this simple solution?? Many Truck Business entrepenuers,I'm sure ! ! And they have products to prove it. Try me once, never getting a sales pitch ,at the same time.
All the Best ! !

Your headline: Navistar has provided a "response". But not to you. Navistar gave it to Today's Trucking.That speaks for itself.

Nonetheless, I still would like to point out that unlike the one-sided tirades you post, the other writer gave us a well balanced report with some points con Nav and others pro Nav.

One fact he reported that interests me a lot is Jim Hebe's claim that developing EGR technology will render DEF used in SGR obsolete. If true, that means:

a) SGR with DEF trucks will lose a lot of value on resale.

b) Navistar will try to gain as much time as possible with its credits until the new EGR tech will render the need for credits unnecessary. One way to do this is for Navistar to make and stock up before year end tons of its own engines so that they can be sold for a year or more without EGR. This should not be too difficult to do given the prospects that sales of MD and HD trucks may be less than robust as this article points out:

http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=22605

Shine,

Loathe as I am to enter in to a battle of wits with an unarmed combatant, I feel it only fair to point out to you that the downside risk in terms of EPA 10 Residual Values lies almost entirely with a minority technology, the proponent of which has stated quite clearly is stop gap - namely EGR and Navistar.

If you do not like the balance and timbre of our analysis, then I apologise. But for you to describe anyone else as being one-sided is delightful.

I concede. You have the "wits". So much so that I suspect that you have taken not one, but many pilgrimages to kiss the Blaney Stone, while I have never done it. Words just pour out of you so much that it is hard to discern whether what you say is fact or mere opinion.

For instance, when you state that the downside risk of EPA 10 Residual Values lies "almost excusively" with Navistar, are your words a statement of fact or just one of the myriad opinions that pour out of you?

It is my opinion, but one grounded in some experience of this industry.

There will be no visibility in terms of RV for some time yet, but my opinion is that a minority technology supplied by a company that deems it to be a stop gap has little to feel good about in terms of second life value.

I may be wrong, but I don't read anywhere that Hebe is referring to EGR when he talks about emerging technolgies. I reckon he is referring to aftertreatment without the use of Adblue/DEF, like the system Eaton among others is working on. It may well be that Navistar is banking on availability of one of those systems before their emission credits run out. A year or 2 ago a breakthrough was announced by scientists, I believe in Washington, who had developped a new material that would make SCR work without the need for DEF. It all sounded promising and production ready solutions were only a few years away. Not heard much since. Does anyone have more info on this?

This article says that "Copper zeolite" used with SCR "has been prohibited in Japan" because of its toxic effects. I am not a technical person, so I don't know whether this has anything to do with the lawsuit Navistar has against the EPA:

http://www.ngvglobal.com/scr-equipped-diesels-%E2%80%93-an-opportunity-for-ngvs-0827

This is exactly what Hebe and Allen have referred to in the past. Nonaqueous SCR systems are in development. However, the risk for NAV is that none is commercially viable at this point and a 2 year window to go from experimental to production ready is very small. Hence the delaying tactics perhaps?

Those non-urea SCR systems use diesel fuel to produce ammonia. They may work for lower horsepower engines that are in medium duty trucks, but they come with a hefty price tag plus they consume extra diesel fuel which makes them HC inefficient. If they're banking their future on that technology then they must really be trying to stay out of the linehaul engine business.

Hebe has said SCR systems are killers...that goes for urea or HC based. So he is just all wrong about this.

I'm really interested to see how Navistar will try to save face when they revert to urea-SCR. It's going to be interesting.

Again I am not a techinal person.

The article I posted before reported that "copper zeolite...has been prohibited in Japan", because it is toxic.

The article posted below reports that Cummins' SCR engines use copper zeolite.

It seems to me that what Navistar is claiming is that the individual beaurocrats who are employed by the EPA approved the use of copper zeolite in this country when it is made illegal in Japan because of its toxity, and by doing that those individuals broke the law in this country.

http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=71549

CMI is the only SCR adherent to deploy Copper Zeolite for 2010. The rest of the SCR camp will use Iron Zeolite, per this article:

http://hdma.org/pubs/articledetail.php?articleId=14412

And it would seem reasonable to assume that Navistar is using the same for its SCR-based MWM engine as offered in Latin America:

http://www.mwm.com.br/default.asp?su=3&pa=subSeries&idSubSerie=44

CMI - as per this piece - has indicated a willingness not only to co-operate with the EPA's investigation of Copper Zeolite, but, if necessary, to alter its approach:

http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=75378

Given that all four of the indigenous Japanese HD OEMs - Hino, NDM, MTFBC and Isuzu have deployed SCR for both domestic and export product, it seems reasonable to assume that it is with Copper Zeolite, not SCR that the Japanese authorities take issue. Navistar's argument before the Courts appears to be based on the entire process, rather than the component parts. I have checked through the various 09-1113 filings, and cannot find reference to your argument. Do you have a link?

I have no link, except the one below for whatever it is worth. As I said, I don't understand much about this technical stuff. I have no interest in wasting my time and be a "combatant" against you. All I am trying to do is to get an education on this, because it affects my investment.

In Today's Trucking article that I posted the Nav spokesperson said that Navistar's only argument is with the"urea", DEF, and that when the truck drivers have to fill up the tanks with DEF they will have to cover their faces.

I was interested in what one of the posters said that what Hebe was talking about is not advancements in EGR but advancements in SCR such that DEF will no longer be needed. If that is the case, all the trucks with the EDF tanks will lose vaue and I wonder what is going to happen to all the EDF tanks and pumps at gas stations that will become obsolete.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_C/threadview?m=tm&bn=4705&tid=12199&mid=12199&tof=8&frt=2

More on EGR vs SCR:

http://fleetowner.com/management/feature/scr_egr_0701/index.html

I saw the above post that mentioned covering your face when handling DEF, and thought I would share some information I was given on the subject at a recent 2010 meeting I attended. I learned that DEF is actually less toxic that gasoline or windshield washer fluid, especially since almost 70% of it is purified water. I got a chance to see an attempt at lighting DEF on fire, which didn't work. I even got the opportunity to taste DEF after I was assured by a doctor that trace amounts are negligable when ingested. (I stuck my finger in a small container of DEF and placed it on my tongue. Just a note, obviously nobody is trying to promote drinking this stuff in any way) Zero issues aside from a funny taste, not even an upset stomach.

Anyway, hope this helps. Still not sure if I will be using SCR technology after 2010, but if I do, DEF safety will not be one of my concerns.

Thanks for sharing your experience. One question: do you know what criteria you will use to choose between SCR and EGR and when do you expect to have to make the choice?

Gosh, Shine, what criteria would be used beyond the traditional ones - initial investment, fuel consumption, repair/maintenance costs, and residual value?

What truckers are waiting for is hard data on the first three, which is firming up every day as the EPA10 engines (at least, it seems, the Cummins, Detroit Diesel, and Volvo ones) rack up the miles in customer hands. Residual value is a dependent variable - the preferred solution in 2010 will carry the higher selling price in 2014 and beyond.

The on-board "cracking" technology may ultimately come to market, but it's going to be a while before it does. Certainly, not fast enough to save NAV, should their high EGR approach not be attractive to users. And, regardless of when it comes, it is going to weigh considerably more than even the largest reservoirs and piping being contemplated by the SCR manufacturers today, including their contents.

This is the hidden burden of EPA10 - there has already been a great deal of non-productive (from the operator's standpoint) weight added to the trucks, beginning with EPA04. If this carries on much further, the tare weight will exceed the payload.

And before you chime in, Shine, with the fact that the NAV engine is expected to be lighter than the SCR competitors, that saving is in the crankcase and heads, where extra beef might be beneficial with the extra heat and pressure, not in the ancillary emissions hardware. Remember the lessons of the L10/M11, and latterly the 12L Mercedes engine that Freightliner was selling - it takes a lot of beef to stand up to 12 hour days of 70 mph running on our Interstates.

And 12.4L seems only to round to 13L in the western suburbs of Chicago!

Thanks for your input.

Many great comments here,all centered around the same subject---Technologies foisted upon them without any consideration for innovation that works easily and effeciently ,in practice.The same mind-set prevails in most of the maintenance techniques currently in place,fron the school that still sells "the 3000 mile oilchange/10-15K mile (???),oil change in HD vehicles,all coming directly from (and by)the Dinosaurs.One Company markets a CJ-4 oil that goes 50K miles (Except for Cat 13 and 15 Ltr. fuel problem engines),and has dramatic results in emissions reduction. A totally different story,eh what??And what about Tested/Proven, Combustion technologies which eliminate the need for both SCR and DPF ?? By the way,I am not an engineer,either,only on who has made their ideas work in the field. Best to All.

More on EGR:

http://www.earthmovingnews.com.au/article/john-deere-will-use-engines-with-egr-technology-as-its-it4-solution/497132.aspx