Full Steam Ahead

Nearly five months into the year, you might be excused for expecting that a significant number of regular-production 2007 engines would be in fleet hands. And that we could thus report on initial impressions. In any normal year that would be a safe assumption, but such is not the case. We left “normal” behind a while ago.

It took so long for the OEM factories to finish assembling trucks with 2006 engines that production of the newer ones — they’re all designated 2008 models — has really only just begun. Both Caterpillar and Cummins tell me they have several hundred heavy-duty engines in real-world Canadian use, with more on dealer lots, and at least one western fleet has put 50,000 km or so on a few Cummins motors. On the other hand some engine makers have very few production engines working in ordinary service so far, I understand, though all have many test miles under their belts.

Regardless of who’s got what, there aren’t enough of them out there with enough miles on the clock to canvas fleet operators and drivers about their views. We’ll have to leave that for later in the year. Snippets of information gathered here and there suggest that all is well in terms of driveability and performance, though there’s no proof of anything on the fuel economy or maintenance fronts.

In fact, my colleague and highwaySTAR magazine editor Jim Park probably has as much experience as anyone at the wheel of ’07-equipped trucks. He’s driven nearly all of them at various pre-production stages and reports no difference in terms of pulling power or fan-on time. If there’s a difference, he says, it’s likely going to be felt in faster throttle response — sometimes too fast, he says — because almost all of them now have variable-geometry turbochargers. He’s been through a couple of diesel-particulate-filter (DPF) regeneration events and says he wouldn’t have known they were happening if it hadn’t been for a dashboard message.

Fuel economy seems bound to suffer at least a little in ’07 engines, like one or two percent, though Cat’s man in Canada, Peter Issett, says it doesn’t have to be that way.

“If spec’d correctly and driven correctly, for both C13 and C15 engines, we’re seeing no loss in fuel economy,” he says.

The new ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) that all engines are now using is partly responsible for whatever losses do occur, because of its inherently lower energy content. But the main reason for any losses that might occur — aside from those spec’ing issues — is the particulate filter that’s new for 2007 on most engines.

A DPF captures particulates in the exhaust, and to burn them off it raises the temperature of the exhaust — in most cases by injecting a small amount of fuel into the hot exhaust stream. As well, if the engine’s lube oil isn’t up to snuff it can leave ash build-up behind that will clog the DPF and raise back pressure, in turn raising fuel consumption.

(Look for a more complete examination of particulate filter issues in our upcoming June print issue.)

Lubricant Issues:

It’s important to understand the new lubricant demanded by ’07 engines. Called CJ-4, it replaces the CI-4 and CI-4 Plus engine oils that were developed for 2002/04 diesels. And we needed it because the new engines operate at even higher temperatures than before and don’t burn off soot and other particles as well.

Engines with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) devices, and that’s now all heavy-duty diesels, have more soot to deal with. Most importantly, the new DPF devices are easily damaged by that soot and particulate matter, and the older oils just don’t offer the necessary protection — even though they were primarily designed for soot control.

The DPF on this twin-steer Pete had to be moved
a few feet back: An issue on vocational trucks.

Soot is bad news, not incidentally, because it causes abrasive wear and increases the oil’s viscosity. The new engines also run hotter, another lube challenge, because heat can speed up oxidation which degrades the oil, creates acids, and pumps up viscosity.

CJ-4 is significantly different from earlier oils, and unfortunately more expensive. Thankfully it’s backward-compatible, meaning you can use it on any earlier engine, and it offers superior soot-handling and oxidation control for any diesel motor.

The main message here is this: do not use anything but CJ-4 lubricant in ’07 engines.

Here’s how additive-maker Lubrizol states that case:

“It’s important to resist any temptation to use anything but CJ-4 oil in an EPA 2007-compliant engine, because the higher levels of sulfur, ash and phosphorus in CI-4 Plus oils may cause problems with the exhaust aftertreatment devices.”

“Using a CI-4 Plus oil in 2007 vehicles could cause increased plugging of aftertreatment devices, which could lead to reduced fuel efficiency and higher maintenance. All currently licensable categories, including API CF-4, CG-4, CH-4, CI-4, and CI-4 Plus are not forward-compatible to API CJ-4 due to the chemical limits for ash, phosphorous and sulfur defined by API CJ-4.

“It is essential to follow the manufacturer’s recommendations and select an oil designed to meet your engines’ requirements, delivering protection and proven performance. Otherwise, warranties could be affected. Truck owner/operators will need to check with their OEMs for specifics.”

The question for truck operators with mixed fleets including both ’07 and earlier engines is a difficult one: do I standardize on the new, but more expensive oil for all engines, or do I stock two lubes? There’s no easy answer, but you’ll probably still be able to get CI-4 and CI-4 Plus products until at least 2010 or so.

Lubrizol, by the way, forecasts a slow transition to CJ-4, predicting that only three percent of the North American heavy-duty fleet will need CJ-4 oils by the end of this year.

New Diesels Coming:

There’s lots of action on the engine manufacturing front, with Paccar saying it’s about to start building its own engine plant in the southern U.S., Freightliner set to launch an all new Detroit Diesel engine in August, and International bringing on its big-bore MaxxForce engines created from a MAN block with an International top end and fuel system.

The coming Paccar plant, to be ready in 2009, will be building a new-to-North-America 12.9-liter diesel based on one designed by its Dutch truck-making subsidiary, DAF. It will be called the MX. The inline six is equipped with an SCR exhaustgas aftertreatment system in Europe, meeting both the new Euro 4 and coming-in-2009 Euro 5 emission standards.

The Paccar-branded medium-duty PX-6 and PX-8 engines are in fact Cummins products which will, presumably, continue to be built by the Indiana outfit.

The new Detroit Diesel motor, code-named “HDE” and set for introduction in August, will in fact be a world engine aimed at all DaimlerChrysler markets globally. Available first in North America, it’s slated to be Freightliner’s only heavy-duty offering in 2010. It will be called a Mercedes-Benz motor in other markets.

It means that only one aftertreatment system will have to be conceived, engineered, and manufactured, which represents a huge cost saving. It will be built in Detroit, Japan, and Germany, with parts sourced from literally all over the world. The engine will be sold alongside the Series 60 and MB 400 until 2010.

We’ve dealt with the latest iterations of the new International MaxxForce engine lineup in our Product Watch section. They’re the MaxxForce 11 and MaxxForce 13, the new “big-bore” diesel engines for class 8 trucks based on a European MAN block. They sport technological advances such as a strong compacted-graphite iron cylinder block. The MaxxForce 11 will be offered in the TranStar, while the MaxxForce 13 will be available in the ProStar. Their production launch is set for the fall of this year.

Clearly, these three new engine lines — alongside the existing Mack/Volvo in-house offerings — mean even greater vertical integration amongst truck makers. It does not, however, mean that you won’t be able to get a Cat or a Cummins engine in the future. For one thing, they have the 15/16-liter market to themselves, aside from Volvo’s D16. And it’s a good bet that the market simply won’t let them disappear.

Nonetheless, there remain many questions on the engine front, the biggest of them being, what will we see in 2010? We’ll explore that one soon.