Diesles for 2014

[rambler]

Taken out of text. The horserpower number is in reference to Kubota powered products, and the majority of their engines is below 75 horsepower. I am well aware of regulations up to and through 751 horserpower, which includes farmers and truckers and miners and drillers and construction wokers and etc... But, I felt it best to leave those comments out of this forum. Sorry it lost all its value for you. Philip.

Of the 6 or so Kubota's I know of in my neighborhood, 5 of them are the 100-135 hp machines. Perhaps not appropriate for this forum, but my majority is the big engines in my world. Actually Kubota has quite a stur in the ag community with their bigger tractors, they are a good value, with _simple_ controls which is appealing to a lot of farmers. Another thing is they worked to avoid these regulations as long as possible, sticking with 4 cyl engines and stuff. Us farmers know how these mandated regulations go - $3000 up front costs as mentioned, whaqt you don't hear is the very high sevice costs over the years. Def is a salt water, that ain't gonna be good for your shiny equipment over the long haul. And so on.

I see people who sell/work on this equipment happy to see the regulations, and I see state workers who son't have to use their own money to buy & maintain this equipment happy to see this equipment/ Hum. Regular folk are rightly skeptical - we've been down this path before.

While cleaner air is a good thing, and of course no one wants to go backwards - it's costing us more to transport anything, and to grow food. We do see inflation from this sort of govt regulations. Heck, I have to buy sulfur & apply it to my land now, don't get any free from acid rain any more. And now I need to compete fwith truckers for buying urea, fertilizer for my crops, or liquid to put in their trucks.

While I do not long for the days of acid rain, there are some hidden tradeoffs, how clean do we have to get? Pollution control equipment reduces efficiency, reduces mpg, increases costs, increases maintenence costs. Can sugar coat it, but over the vehicle lifetime, it costs more to run with all this stuff added.

Good for service folk, good for state workers, but the rest of us can have a few minutes to grumble I would suppose.

--->Paul

 

[kuboman]

Of the 6 or so Kubota's I know of in my neighborhood, 5 of them are the 100-135 hp machines. Perhaps not appropriate for this forum, but my majority is the big engines in my world. Actually Kubota has quite a stur in the ag community with their bigger tractors, they are a good value, with _simple_ controls which is appealing to a lot of farmers. Another thing is they worked to avoid these regulations as long as possible, sticking with 4 cyl engines and stuff. Us farmers know how these mandated regulations go - $3000 up front costs as mentioned, whaqt you don't hear is the very high sevice costs over the years. Def is a salt water, that ain't gonna be good for your shiny equipment over the long haul. And so on.

I see people who sell/work on this equipment happy to see the regulations, and I see state workers who son't have to use their own money to buy & maintain this equipment happy to see this equipment/ Hum. Regular folk are rightly skeptical - we've been down this path before.

While cleaner air is a good thing, and of course no one wants to go backwards - it's costing us more to transport anything, and to grow food. We do see inflation from this sort of govt regulations. Heck, I have to buy sulfur & apply it to my land now, don't get any free from acid rain any more. And now I need to compete fwith truckers for buying urea, fertilizer for my crops, or liquid to put in their trucks.

While I do not long for the days of acid rain, there are some hidden tradeoffs, how clean do we have to get? Pollution control equipment reduces efficiency, reduces mpg, increases costs, increases maintenence costs. Can sugar coat it, but over the vehicle lifetime, it costs more to run with all this stuff added.

Good for service folk, good for state workers, but the rest of us can have a few minutes to grumble I would suppose.

--->Paul

:thumbsup:Well said:thumbsup:

 

[IslandTractor]

I don't know what the source of this $3000 per tractor charge for Tier 4 engine compliance is but it is pretty clearly bullshot. Hysteria.

For starters, the equipment needed will vary by engine manufacturer's design so not all engines will have the same equipment. More importantly it is clearly stated in virtually all the information discussing this over the past few years that costs vary according to engine size which certainly makes sense. EPA estimated 1-2% of vehicle cost extra while other estimates go up to 7% or so. Most estimates seem to be in the 1-3% of vehicle cost range. $3000 on a $300,000 machine is bupkiss. And, 7% (unlikely but the highest figure I saw on a different website) on a $15,000 machine, is not $3000. 1% on a $15K tractor would be $150 and 3% only $450.

Check facts before repeating crap. Please.:thumbsup: Especially stuff that comes from dealers trying to sell you a tractor today. It really doesn't take that long if you have access to the internet. Maybe some of you don't have internet access.

By the way, here is a blurb from a Diesel.net news report on non road diesel equipment and tier 4. I don't know how reliable and independent diesel.net is but it isn't controlled by either the EPA or any single manufacturer and I believe it is simply a trade news journal. Here is the blurb:

""
1998 Regulation

At the time of signing the 1998 rule, the EPA estimated that by 2010 NOx emissions would be reduced by about a million tons per year, the equivalent of taking 35 million passenger cars off the road.
The costs of meeting the emission standards were expected to add under 1% to the purchase price of typical new nonroad diesel equipment, although for some equipment the standards may cause price increases on the order of 2-3%. The program was expected to cost about $600 per ton of NOx reduced.
Tier 4 Regulation

When the full inventory of older nonroad engines are replaced by Tier 4 engines, annual emission reductions are estimated at 738,000 tons of NOx and 129,000 tons of PM. By 2030, 12,000 premature deaths would be prevented annually due to the implementation of the proposed standards.
The estimated costs for added emission controls for the vast majority of equipment was estimated at 1-3% as a fraction of total equipment price. For example, for a 175 hp bulldozer that costs approximately $230,000 it would cost up to $6,900 to add the advanced emission controls and to design the bulldozer to accommodate the modified engine.

""

The whole article is here: Emission Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

I was joking when I threw out that 3k figure, however from what I've heard 2-3k is expected. Its going to cause a big shake up.

What I don't understand is why there are not places where there is a "good enough" threshold. If we got to Teir 4i with little cost increase, is it really nessesary to take this last step for things that are used 50-100 hours a year.

 

[IslandTractor]

I was joking when I threw out that 3k figure, however from what I've heard 2-3k is expected. Its going to cause a big shake up.

What I don't understand is why there are not places where there is a "good enough" threshold. If we got to Teir 4i with little cost increase, is it really nessesary to take this last step for things that are used 50-100 hours a year.

It is certainly not cost effective to put these controls on engines that will only be used 50-100 hours per year but unless someone can come up with a reasonable and enforceable strategy for preventing abuse of an exception to the rule, it would basically undercut the whole program and put others who are in compliance at a disadvantage.

From what I read I think your $2-3K estimate is way high. The controls necessary are not any worse than the ones used in the VW Golf TDI engine for example and that engine is sold for only a small premium over the gas engine. Clearly not thousands extra. No doubt the manufacturers will try to recoup development costs as quickly as possible and perhaps can raise prices while blaming it on the pollution control systems but I seriously question why it should cost any more than what it costs VW to keep their engines in compliance.

 

[Ductape]

If Volkswagen can sell emissions compliant diesels for a few hundred (???) more than gasoline engines...... then it means every engine manufacturer can accomplish the same for a few hundred per engine? I have some doubts. I'm just wondering at what point we are all regulated into living in grass huts, while the Chinese continue to spew filth into the air..... the same air we breathe. I suppose there are plenty of folks here on TBN that have so much money it wouldn't matter what the government required. :confused2:

 

[PHILIP8N]

I'm just wondering at what point we are all regulated into living in grass huts, while the Chinese continue to spew filth into the air..... the same air we breathe.

I don't think we will ever be regulated to live in grass huts, come on now, be realistic.

Good question and tough point. China is currently following T2 emission regulations, and they have committed to following T3 emission regulations in 2015. As can be expeceted, the lesser countries need more time to develop a plan, get the proper lubricating oils, and most important, get the proper ULSD fuel in place. It is tough for us as a US oem manufactuer as well. For one product, we sell it with an export engine for Ghana (Africa), one with a T3 engine for Alberta (Canada), and one with a T4i engine for US, Europe, and Japan. That is allot bill of material of maintenance. Philip.

 

[bhaskarji]

According to you what will be basic spec/genset /marine fications & requirements for a off road3/4 cylinder diesel engine usable on agricultural tractor/construction machines/BHL in developing markets such as India say 2014

 

[wildcatblue]

Great, for this 3000 added bucks to a new tractor, all of us that were complaining of black sut all over your loader arms now can put that behind us in the future. what a deal!!..
I forsee just DPF filters will prevail on the smaller HP tractors with EGR, anything more will have to be ECM controlled, which adds more cost but time will tell on this . I do like the clean air to breathe though, those days of following an old Mack dump truck billowing out black clouds of sut is over thank goodness..

 

[IslandTractor]

Great, for this 3000 added bucks to a new tractor, all of us that were complaining of black sut all over your loader arms now can put that behind us in the future. what a deal!!..
I forsee just DPF filters will prevail on the smaller HP tractors with EGR, anything more will have to be ECM controlled, which adds more cost but time will tell on this . I do like the clean air to breathe though, those days of following an old Mack dump truck billowing out black clouds of sut is over thank goodness..

It will not cost $3000 extra. Those figures are thrown around by 1) dealers trying to sell you a tractor today and 2) people who have an anti regulatory agenda. You know, the same folks who told you cars with airbags would be unaffordable.