JD plan for Tier4b

[watglen]

I'm not sure if it was discussed elsewhere on hef, but i read yesterday that JD has decided to go with SCR(def fluid, adblue) to meet 2014 emission requirements. The article mentioned that other manufacturers were unsure how JD was going to be able to meet the requirements without using DEF, but JD had, to this point, insisted they were focused on a "one tank" solution.

They plan on keeping the EGR and DPF(exhaust filters) and add the urea to the mix.

I think what this means is that eventually all heavy diesels will end up using the DEF.

Ken

[equip guy]

Also equipment 75 hp and less from what I hear from another forum. Nothing will be exempt

[funkinalive]

Tier 4 is absolute nonsense if you ask me, even modern Tier 3 diesels are wasting as much deisel "reducing" their emmisions that it makes the whole system irrelevant in terms of economy. now we need an additive too! as if diesel wasnt expensive enough in our area - 1.55euro/litre! how much is this addblue gonna cost?

[jdm]

Don't get your panties in a wad DEF is about the cost of diesel and not a big deal.
And your engine oil will stay as clean as a LP engine.

[funkinalive]

Don't get your panties in a wad DEF is about the cost of diesel and not a big deal.
And your engine oil will stay as clean as a LP engine.

you must not get the concept of "cost" or your panties have a "wad" of cash stuck in them. even if DEF reduces consumption (by allowing the manufacturer to tune the engines for more max potential "like they were before tier regulations") you have to refill the DEF at the "projected" cost of diesel (it currently costs much more per gallon then this "projection") so even if you gain the claimed 5% in fuel economy, your paying the difference back when purchasing DEF refils which are consumed at roughly the same rate. so its not at all about cost of diesel. this of course is assuming its a perfect world out there and it performs the way everyone expects it to, i know better to completely trust OEM claims. the only thing this system does (or claims to do) is reduce emissions, to what level and at what cost is yet to be seen. dont get me wrong, im all for innovation. but adding more complexity to the system usually results in down time that doesn't keep overall emission levels down due to all the running around (energy wasted) keeping the system running.

[jdm]

I hate to bust your bubble but it is not a big deal. You just have your hate hat pulled down to far.
I don't like having it added to my work load any more than anyone else but it is what it is.
I use it and it does not create any huge labor or financial hardships. Sorry but that is the way it is have a nice day.

[funkinalive]

I hate to bust your bubble but it is not a big deal. You just have your hate hat pulled down to far.
I don't like having it added to my work load any more than anyone else but it is what it is.
I use it and it does not create any huge labor or financial hardships. Sorry but that is the way it is have a nice day.

i sort of understand, but you said it yourself "i dont like having it added to my work load any more than anyone else..." and this is one of my points, the other is at what cost is this extra componentry and additive? and whether their really is any gain in efficiency with the "reduced" emissions? and since you seem to have experience with this i wouldn't mind hearing what you have to say about it? Finally its not about hating, its about finding the best compromise that most benefits the operator as well as the environment...