From what i here Werner has almost a 1000 07 & 08 Pete's and KW's that they bought and never put into service because until they do they dont have to pay for em. Also no matter what the EPA can only make your (non comercial) truck meet emision requirement for the year it was made.

 

I didn’t know that they didn’t have to pay for them till they were put into service. It was a local company that we got them from and were all titled in there name and had 100 to 130 miles on we got. We got them under what they cost new when they were built.

 

my brother works for caterpillar and he said that they have started to use this system. mann i hate to go off topic, but how did they figure out that urea would reduce emissions? sounds like the guys testing musta had a few beers before hand

 

I wonder if you could convert the urea injection into a methanol injection cheaply.

 

I don't understand that? M.I. is before combustion and makes things cooler resulting in less fuel and more NOX. U.I. is post combustion, making things cleaner but requires heat for the DPF etc. for it to work right.

 

I would imagine it is the magic of stoichiometry and chemists. Urea probably ended up being the most appropriate catalyst.

 

Not even remotely. Its a rushed compromise because the emissions standards set by politicians are falling off a cliff and R&D engineers just can't advance internal combustion technology fast enough to keep up.

Instead of being given the necessary time to make the technology to do it right inside the combustion chamber, they are forced to use high EGR percentages and hurry to develop devices to treat the exhaust and meet the 98% reduction in NOx emissions.

Instead of buying a clean running engine, you're buying a dirty engine with add-ons rivaling the cost of the engine itself that exist only to make the exhaust look clean.

The entire EGR, DPF and SCR debacle is an outright embarrassment.

 

Well then sir, you are going to need to get with the times I guess. You see these items and this "debacle" you are referring to has had well over 1B road miles tested in 13 years in the EU and it works very well over there. This isn't something that hasn't been done, in fact the problem is not the "clean" factors it is the notion that the engine builders can continue to build resulting in "numbers" like the games the big three play with each other and the general public here.

Sorry but it remains my opinion that it is the correct and the right thing to do.

 

Its like anything new. First you hate it, after time it grows on you and you accept it. Like it or not, its here. Burning urea rather than additional fuel is a step forward. Price wise you'll never win, but atleast this was tested in Europe. I think EGR and DPF are a joke, but thats MHO.

 

No, its the politicians playing wannabe-engineer that need to catch up. They are setting goals that cannot be reasonably met in the time frame allowed.

Yes it works, but its a poor solution thats expensive, inefficient and rushed.

Fat chance. Luckily there are a lot of intelligent programmers out there willing to remove the ECM code for controlling EGR, DPF and SCR operation. That allows owners to remove the junk, restore previously choked off efficiency, stop the engine from burning itself alive to clean a DPF, stop the consumption of its own excrement and allow the engine to operate efficiently.

Ford 6.4L and Cummins 6.7L owners are seeing changes in fuel economy from 12-14mpg to 18-20mpg just by eliminating those components.
Is it really worth consuming an additional 428 gallons of fuel per year just to stop a little puff of smoke from being visible? (considering a 20,000mile average year)

Urea is not a fuel, its a reagent. Its only reason for existence is a cheap source of ammonia for the SCR catalyst. It has no more affect on fuel economy or engine operation than a non-SCR deNOx catalyst.