egr vs scr

[JSGibson]

This is the first time I've posted here. Sure have enjoyed all of your educating

info reguarding these trucks. Let me get right to the point. I am considering replacing my current truck. (1996 F250) with a 2010 maga cab. I've always loved the cummins engine. My concern is with engine longevitity. I plan on having this new truck for quite some time and would like it to last just like my

1996 has. Does an egr equiped truck (with soot accumalation etc) have more

long term engine consequences than a truck with scr? Does a truck with

scr still use egr for emmision controll or does it just use scr? I plan on using the truck as it was intended. Pulling a 37ft 5th wheel, but just want the engine to last without any long term issues. Oil degeneration and other things I've read about Thanks in advance

 

[JSGibson]

anyone??????

 

[dlmetzger]

Dodge, Ford and GM all have to use EGR. Dodge/Cummins in the pickup trucks uses an NAC (NOx Absorber Catalyst) to redure NOx emissions while Ford and GM will use SCR. However, the Dodge Cab & Chassis for 2011 will also use SCR for NOx emissions.

 

[therabbittree]

I believe the the scr urea injection sytems still have egr also the scr is in addition to egr. Like the new 2011 4500 and 5500's.

 

[JSGibson]

I'm a bit confused why Ford and GM claim their new trucks will get such improved

gas milage with the use of scr if they also continue to use egr. On you tube Cummins has a video about their 2010 motors and give an explaination why they have selected scr rather than egr for emission. If cummins selects scr has a company preference I wonder why dodge isn't using it in 2500 ,3500 trucks? Is it cost related? From what I have gathered, and I certainly have lost to learn about this, it appears that scr is better for the engine and more effieient on fuel usage. Is this right or am I out totally off base?

 

[therabbittree]

I think you are confused. The SCR engines don't ONLY use SCR / Urea inplace of EGR. . they use EGR in addition to SCR. . they still use EGR. just not the advanced EGR non SCR engines would required to use to meet the air nazi emissions requirements. Hers a pdf from cummins that explains some of this. .

http://www.everytime.cummins.com/assets/pdf/Customer_QA_Mar_09.pdf



Its silly in the first place and tons of $ to replace when things go wrong. . and they will have problems. Look at the big trucks. Plus its all in th ename of false science.



EGR is nasty stuff your putting dirty stuff back into your engine that isnt good and a non egr engine (pre 2008 for the dodges) in the same conditions and duty cycle will have less wear and last longer. If i was buying a big truck I'd only be looking at 2003 and older.



The Urea / SCR / DEF fluid is another cost to deal with also. if freezes easy, it goes bad / spoils from excessive heat and you will need it to run your new engine . So you need a climate controlled holding tank and what do you do when the vehicle is parked and not running ie not climate controlled when it is turned off... . Think of the price increase they fluid is gonna have... if we are already paying $3. 30 a gal for diesel and the Urea is $3 plus a gal. . that puts a extra damper on the whole diesel mpg cost factor vs a gasoline pickup etc.

Either way if you want a new 2011 with SCR/ uea you can't change it and its out of your hands. the only way to change any of it is in the voting booth. and thats likely never going to get turned back to older emissions levels any how so we are stuck.

Gotta love it comrade.

 

[rscurtis]

Mack claims that the use of SCR on their new trucks provides a fuel cost savings of several thousand $ per year despite the cost of the urea. I often wonder what the emissions level would be if you started with a clean-burning engine like my '03, and simply added SCR and the DPF. Now you'ld have very clean exhaust, clean oil, virtually no fuel economy penalty, and an engine that would be let's say 95% clean as opposed to the 98% clean we have now. I doubt mother nature would notice the 3% difference.