The hottest emission upgrade triggered a sudden ch

Emission upgrading causes a sudden change in the North American heavy truck diesel engine market

emission upgrading causes a sudden change in the North American heavy truck diesel engine market

China Construction machinery information

Guide: Caterpillar, the world's leading engine manufacturer, recently announced that it will officially withdraw from the North American heavy diesel engine market in 2010 and will no longer produce a new generation of environmentally friendly diesel engines that can meet the emission standards of the federal environmental protection agency in 2010. A six-year North American heavy-duty diesel engine emission upgrading technology route

caterpillar, the world's leading engine manufacturer, recently announced that it will officially withdraw from the North American heavy-duty diesel engine market in 2010 and will no longer produce a new generation of environmentally friendly diesel engines that can meet the emission standards of the federal environmental protection agency in 2010

a six-year dispute over the technical route of emission upgrading of heavy-duty diesel engines in North America has come to an end. When caterpillar quits, Cummins wins. The latter will become the only independent supplier in the North American heavy truck diesel engine market after 2010

Carter went astray

in the 1990s, heavy truck diesel engine suppliers adopted EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) technology in order to meet the then EPA 98 emission standard in North America. With the implementation of epa2002 standard, manufacturers have different technical routes for emission upgrading. Cummins and other enterprises have adopted the upgraded cegr (cooled exhaust gas recirculation) technology based on EGR, while Carter has a unique way to launch the Acer (advanced combustion exhaust gas reduction) technical route

at that time, compared with Acer technology, cegr was a small improvement made on traditional diesel engines. Although cegr put forward higher requirements for the overall heat dissipation capacity of the engine, it was still considered by industry insiders as an expedient measure to meet emissions. Carter's Acer technology is more like an epoch-making product, which changes the engine much more

diesel engines using Acer technology need to be equipped with a powerful new electronic control module, together with a complete set of flexible fuel supply system, valve control system, air supply system, and additional after-treatment system. The core advantage of this system is that it no longer solves the emission problem on a single component, but focuses on research and system solutions, and optimizes each operating point to achieve the best combustion process and obtain satisfactory emissions. The whole system 1. The function of the classification system of spring testing machine has been comprehensively strengthened, but at the same time, it has brought high research and development and use costs. More importantly, the uncertainty of operation reliability has led to a sharp rise in warranty costs

on October 1st, 2002, the epa2002 standard was implemented, and Carter lost the opportunity to fully meet the standard one year later. For this reason, EPA imposed a penalty of $128million on Carter and automatically stored the money. This is the beginning of Carter's wrong route

in 2007, Cummins continued to optimize cegr technology and launched diesel engines that meet the emission standard of epa2007 as scheduled, with more mature and reliable performance. Carter has been unable to brake on the road of Acer technology. Users silcotech and Dow Corning began to cooperate to develop this process in July 2013. The criticism of this process for diesel engines has become increasingly obvious. The system is too complex, the reliability is reduced, and the warranty cost is high. Carter has to admit that the cost is too high to continue on this road and meet the epa2010 emission standard

six years later, the adoption of Acer technology did not bring much competitive advantage to Carter, but made Carter walk heavily, and finally chose to give up the market. On the contrary, the adoption and optimization of cegr technology proved that it was more mature, reliable and suitable for the market. In front of the market, both sides of the game are always the survival of the fittest and the survival of the fittest

at present, Cummins is already the largest manufacturer of heavy truck diesel engines in North America. According to the statistics of wardsauto, Cummins ranked first (37%) in market share in 2007, 18 percentage points ahead of Carter in 2008; Cummins' share reached 44% in the first four months of 2008, nearly 30 percentage points ahead of caterpillar, which ranked third. The market share of other manufacturers has been relatively stable over the years, and most of the increase of Cummins' share comes from the part lost by caterpillar

according to the survey of the sales of heavy trucks in North America over the years, the sales volume in 2007 was 212000 units, down 44% from 378000 units in 2006. The reason is that in 2006, the sales of heavy trucks in North America soared, and truck customers were not confident in the upcoming 2007 emission standard diesel engines. They were worried that the new generation of diesel engines might have problems such as reliability and fuel economy. Therefore, in 2006, a large number of "early purchase" of the previous generation of diesel engines, resulting in overdraft of the market demand in 2007. In such a market decline, the problems of Carter's 2007 diesel engine made caterpillar hand over a considerable part of the market share to its competitor Cummins, which soared under the situation of the decline of the total market volume

according to transportation in October 2007, analysts attributed the soaring sales of Cummins 2007 engines to the following reasons: compared with other diesel engines, the failure rate of Cummins diesel engines is less, and the two major truck manufacturers, kenwaukee and peterburt, have turned to Cummins. These two manufacturers have always been Carter's traditional big customers. Chris Brady of the commercial automobile consulting company believes that 78% of peterburt's vehicles were equipped with Carter in 2006, and the proportion fell to 55% in the first eight months of 2007. The difference between them was given to Cummins