1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198 
Pouring more fuel on debate
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1WAS INTRIGUED to read Alan Bunting's condemnation of my views with respect to EGR and low sulphur fuel (CM 21 July).
In addition, I am sure that Caterpillar will view his observations with some delight:The entire raison d'être behind its Acert system has been the reduction of damage caused by higher sulphur fuels —most notably premature pitting of piston rings — and 1 have no doubt that its development engineers will heave a sigh of relief now they have been absolved of further responsibility in this direction. The views of the same company's accountants and. ultimately, its shareholders may, however, make for interesting reading.
Of course, a diesel engine will run on diesel. It would be unfortunate if it did not.The moot question is: how well will it run?
That aside,Alan's views serve only to underscore the entire point of the article. He confuses engineering, and the here and now, with strategy and the future. For his benefit, let me restate the argument in a form I hope he finds easy to understand.
1) The CV OEMs are pushing for a single global emissions protocol. 2) Platform design and scale economics demand the use of single components across a wide range of markets.
3) As such, it is reasonable to assume that a single powertrain solution for a single global market will become a probability in the future.
4) The EPA which is responsible for the 2006 15ppm fuel standard in the US— has shown itself to be implacably opposed to SCR as a medium for emissions reduction.
5) Therefore, a global engine — ie one that serves a single global market — is liable to be based upon EGR technology.
If it is Alan's view that EGR is now world ready, then there is no need for a single global protocol,no need for SCR in Europe, and, above all else. an opportunity to level an accusation of stunning incompetence against the entire global CV business, which has, by his argument, failed to grasp a huge platform and scale opportunity. I have little doubt that they will be grateful for guidance.
Oliver Dixon Dallas Texas