As reported by AutomotiveWorld.com on 9 March 2012, the costs involved in meeting the 2004 and 2010 US Environmental Protection Agency emission standards for heavy trucks far exceeded original estimates. The EPA had projected an average on-cost per vehicle, for class 8 (heavy duty) diesel-engined trucks, of US$5,000. But the report just published by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and American Truck Dealers (ATD) puts the increase at typically US$21,000.
There is of course the vital concern of those vehicle price increases having to be passed on first to the truck buyers and then, inevitably, to the public at large through the effect on the price of all commodities transported by road. But for those involved in truck manufacturing there is the question of how such horrendous cost increases can be justified.
The EPA had projected an average on-cost per vehicle of US$5,000. But the report just published by NADA and ATD puts the increase at typically US$21,000.
List prices, on which the NADA/ATD survey was based, are of course very different from prices actually paid. Hard bargaining by truck buyers, especially by fleets negotiating to purchase hundreds of vehicles per year and protesting loudly at the increases, will have softened the financial pain somewhat, helped by intense price competition, especially during the 2009-2010 period when North American truck sales slumped so dramatically.
Nevertheless, even a list price increase of US$20,000-plus will have taken some explaining to a buyer who a) saw no outward difference in the supposedly-improved product and b) gained no benefit in fuel economy or performance, despite knowing of the – invisible – reduction in harmful emissions.
So what specification changes could have accounted for those steep truck price rises? For the EPA 2004 upgrades, virtually all engine manufacturers supplying the North American heavy-duty truck market adopted EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) to suppress NOx (oxides of nitrogen) emissions. EGR installation was mainly a ‘plumbing’ exercise, although a means of regulating and cooling the gas flow added complexity and cost.
It soon became apparent that although EGR cut NOx, it increased PM (particulate matter) emissions, making a DPF (diesel particulate filter) necessary, using either a catalyst or a controlled heat source, or both, to oxidise the accumulated soot. That is where the cost of legislation compliance started to mount seriously; a DPF installation could add US$3,000-4,000.
It is clear from the NADA/ATD report that there have been other hidden costs which needed to be recovered, not least R&D programmes for alternative emission reduction technologies which failed to make the grade
Then, to ensure conformity with the much tougher EPA 2010 regulations, all class 8 market contenders, with the exception of Navistar, made the decision to adopt the urea-fed SCR (selective catalytic reduction) technology which was already well proven in Europe. An SCR package comprises an auxiliary tank to hold the urea solution reductant (known as diesel exhaust fluid [DEF] in North America and AdBlue in Europe), and a dosing unit and injector to spray the atomised DEF into the exhaust manifold, ahead of a non-precious metal catalyst. It can add at least US$5,000 to the price of a vehicle.
It is clear from the NADA/ATD report, however, that there have been other hidden costs which needed to be recovered, not least R&D programmes for alternative emission reduction technologies which failed to make the grade, such as LNTs (lean NOx traps) that have proved successful only for light-duty diesels.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Automotive World Ltd.
Alan Bunting has a background in engineering, and has been writing on commercial vehicle and powertrain related topics since the 1960s. He has been an Automotive World contributor since 1996.
The AutomotiveWorld.com Expert Opinion column is open to automotive industry decision makers and influencers. If you would like to contribute an Expert Opinion piece, please contact editorial@automotiveworld.com
