Everyone in the Commercial Vehicle Market is well aware of the 2010 emissions regulations that will take effect January 1, 2010. Thanks to one brave company we have a battle over which technology will be the best - Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) engines versus Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) engines is as classic a conflict as Road Runner versus Wylie Coyote or Rocky versus Apollo.
Navistar, with it's MaxxForce engines will be the sole maker of EGR in America, and they have waged a full-scale marketing campaign to tout their dominance, claiming "Simplicity vs. Complexity." They are following in the footsteps of MAN and Scania - two European engine manufacturers - that were making SCR engines and have since switched to the EGR solution. Navistar will need to use carbon credits to make their MaxxForce engines compliant with the emissions standards though.
Every other engine maker (Cummins, DDC, Volvo, MB, Mack, etc.) will offer the SCR solution in 2010, claiming they actually meet the 2010 emissions regulations for Particulate Matter (PM)—0.01 g/bhp-hr, Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)—0.20 g/bhp-hr, and Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC)—0.14 g/bhp-hr. They also note that the urea solution will be seamless to maintain.
There is certainly a tough decision to be made between the two. One offers simplicity, while the other offers the most complete solution to the current emission standards. For your fleet going forward, which solution (EGR or SCR) do you think you'll go with? If so, what makes you prefer one solution over the other?
Posted by Therran Oliphant, Account Representative, Commercial Vehicle Truck Group, Polk (10.13.2009)