Does anyone have any knowledge of problems with any newer engines that are forced to meet EPA emissions standards? I would like to know of any engines to avoid. Emissions standards have crippled our trucks but not sure of any trickle down effect into construction equipment.
-
Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!
Tier II Emissions
- Thread starter jcg
- Start date
544D10
Well-Known Member
I went to a job today to cover for another operator.
The machine there had a big grandiose sticker on it saying it has been re powered by a clean burning, quiet, efficient blah blah blah.
All I know is it is now a gutless piece of garbage and they better add a few days to the schedule to account for machines that cant climb hills anymore at a reasonable pace.
It was a Perkins BTW. I'll try to get more details about it.
The machine there had a big grandiose sticker on it saying it has been re powered by a clean burning, quiet, efficient blah blah blah.
All I know is it is now a gutless piece of garbage and they better add a few days to the schedule to account for machines that cant climb hills anymore at a reasonable pace.
It was a Perkins BTW. I'll try to get more details about it.
durallymax
Senior Member
Tier IV would be the standard you are referring to. For most skid steers (50hp-100hp) Tier I was 1998, Tier II was 2004, Tier III was 2008 and Tier IV machines are hitting the lots now. For Tier IV though the hp brackets changed. 25-50hp,50-75hp,75-175hp. The latter has the strictest emissions of those three and thus those machines have the most emissions equipment on them. 175hp-750hp is the next range which has the same standards aside from CO which is stricter. 750hp and up are clear until 2015 when Tier IV final takes over, as all engines are currently in "interim" Tier IV.
Tier II is correct though for the on-road passenger standards. While Tier II does represent a newer generation of standards, it is the "Bins" within it that matter for on-road. We are currently at Tier II Bin 5 for on-road diesels.
Heavy-Duty highway trucks and buses have their own category as well. They do not really have "Tiers" technically. Their standards are different from the others as well. In the media and public they are generally referred to as EPA04,EPA07 and EPA10. Their were standards before that, but none that really affected them much worth noting. EPA04 engines are often referred to as "EGR engines", EPA07 engines are often referred to as "DPF engines" and EPA10 engines are often referred to as "DEF,Urea,AdBlue,SCR engines". Now each subsequent engine does contain the previous engines component, but the new addition is used to identify them often in the public eye as all OEMs followed the same strategies aside from Navistar who is running out of time to meet the standards.
As for small equipment. They stand to have the same issues as any emissions equipment does, increased wear, more stuff to go wrong, more cost, more fuel etc etc. As a whole though, technology is getting very good and issues are declining rapidly. If you look at Semi trucks the amount of Issues from EPA07 to the new EPA10 trucks has dropped significantly. Many people credit the SCR system for this and currently nobody has found a solution to meet final Tier IV for 175hp-750hp, Tier 2 Bin 5 or EPA10 standards without the use of SCR. Some have said they would try (John Deere), but admitted defeat stating they would use an SCR system, and then there is Navistar who is bashing the system left and right, but has not submitted an engine yet that meets the standards. If they don't soon they will have to revert to SCR or pay some steep fines from the EPA.
As time goes on these systems will get better and cheaper. The upside to emissions regs is that it has pushed the development of many engine improvements that can help efficiency, noise and power. The issue was that every time an OEM would make an advancement in those areas a new emissions reg would take effect and rob the benefits. Now that the final standards are settling in the OEMs now can work on improving reliability and efficiency.
Tier II is correct though for the on-road passenger standards. While Tier II does represent a newer generation of standards, it is the "Bins" within it that matter for on-road. We are currently at Tier II Bin 5 for on-road diesels.
Heavy-Duty highway trucks and buses have their own category as well. They do not really have "Tiers" technically. Their standards are different from the others as well. In the media and public they are generally referred to as EPA04,EPA07 and EPA10. Their were standards before that, but none that really affected them much worth noting. EPA04 engines are often referred to as "EGR engines", EPA07 engines are often referred to as "DPF engines" and EPA10 engines are often referred to as "DEF,Urea,AdBlue,SCR engines". Now each subsequent engine does contain the previous engines component, but the new addition is used to identify them often in the public eye as all OEMs followed the same strategies aside from Navistar who is running out of time to meet the standards.
As for small equipment. They stand to have the same issues as any emissions equipment does, increased wear, more stuff to go wrong, more cost, more fuel etc etc. As a whole though, technology is getting very good and issues are declining rapidly. If you look at Semi trucks the amount of Issues from EPA07 to the new EPA10 trucks has dropped significantly. Many people credit the SCR system for this and currently nobody has found a solution to meet final Tier IV for 175hp-750hp, Tier 2 Bin 5 or EPA10 standards without the use of SCR. Some have said they would try (John Deere), but admitted defeat stating they would use an SCR system, and then there is Navistar who is bashing the system left and right, but has not submitted an engine yet that meets the standards. If they don't soon they will have to revert to SCR or pay some steep fines from the EPA.
As time goes on these systems will get better and cheaper. The upside to emissions regs is that it has pushed the development of many engine improvements that can help efficiency, noise and power. The issue was that every time an OEM would make an advancement in those areas a new emissions reg would take effect and rob the benefits. Now that the final standards are settling in the OEMs now can work on improving reliability and efficiency.
544D10
Well-Known Member
I talked with one of our mechanics today.
He said all our machines powered by the John Deer Powertech 4.5L do not have to be changed.
All the Cummins 4BT's do have to be changed.
I asked him what they do with the old motors even though most are still low hours (less than 4,000) and he told me they have to take a torch and cut a hole in the block that can not be repaired. They then call a State Emissions Inspector to come out and sign off on the destruction of the old motor.
I dont get why they can not be sold.
I have a few older trucks (chevy 1 ton and a 86 4Runner) that a 4BT would triple their economy and be cleaner too.
He said all our machines powered by the John Deer Powertech 4.5L do not have to be changed.
All the Cummins 4BT's do have to be changed.
I asked him what they do with the old motors even though most are still low hours (less than 4,000) and he told me they have to take a torch and cut a hole in the block that can not be repaired. They then call a State Emissions Inspector to come out and sign off on the destruction of the old motor.
I dont get why they can not be sold.
I have a few older trucks (chevy 1 ton and a 86 4Runner) that a 4BT would triple their economy and be cleaner too.
dave esterns
Senior Member
neighbor bought a new holland l175 just before the new machines were released. says clean diesel or whatever on the side. engine just went out for the second time in 1200 hours. im a little concerned our jcb will be perkins powered rather than jcb powered. 3000 rpm at that.
Last edited: