This week, both Thomas and IC Bus offer takes on the 2010 emissions regulations coming. In a story that appears
elsewhere IC's marketing director argues its EGR solution is better because it's "less hassle"
Looking at both options, we can conclude that even if SCR improves fuel economy and if urea costs come down at some point, then the additional costs of training service techs, storing and purchasing replacement parts for the urea system, and adding a urea infrastructure to your business will add unfamiliarity and costs that are not good for your bottom line.
Thomas Built Buses counters with a
Web site about its SCR solution. The company breaks the choice down to a top ten list:
1. Best fuel efficiency
2. Proven technology in Europe
3. EPA recommended and approved
4. Higher engine power density
5. No increased heat rejection, allowing for more efficient combustion
6. Lower cost of total ownership
7. Reliable
8. Durable
9. Easy to service
10.Environmentally friendly
Take a look at both sites for yourself. Let us know what you think. What questions do you still have about SCR and EGR? Let us know and we'll see if we can get them answered for you. Are you ready to make a switch? Have you already committed?
No comments:
Post a Comment
We want this to be an open forum for everyone involved in making hundreds of thousands of school buses run safely. We want to hear what you think, what's going on at your facility and what solutions you've found. But, please, keep it civil. We'll have no tolerance for attacks or anything defamatory. But if you have something to share, this is your place.
Thanks,
STN Editors