Twitter headlines« TMO Renewables signs MOU with Province of Heilongjiang for biomass feedstock for biofuel production | Main | Nikkei: Japan government to broaden disclosure of CHAdeMo quick-charging standards »
J.D. Power and Associates study finds EPA emission-compliant heavy-duty engines yielding increase in engine problems, decline in satisfaction
23 August 2012
Technology changes related to revised emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks are causing an increase in heavy-duty truck engine problems and a decrease in overall satisfaction with the powertrain, according to the JD Power and Associates 2012 US Heavy-Duty Truck Engine and Transmission Study.
Now in its 16th year, the study measures satisfaction with engines and transmissions among primary maintainers of heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks that are one model-year old. Satisfaction is measured based on eight key factors: engine reliability and dependability; engine warranty; acceleration when fully loaded; electronic control module; accessibility to components for service or maintenance; vibration at idle; maintaining speeds on grades; and average fuel economy.
| Overall Scores (Based on scale of 1,000) | |
|---|---|
| Detroit | 753 |
| Cummins | 729 |
| Caterpillar | 721 |
| Volvo | 719 |
| Industry Average | 719 |
| PACCAR | 714 |
| Mack | 713 |
| Navistar | 655 |
Technology designed to reduce emissions and make heavy-duty truck engines compliant with the 2010 EPA regulations apparently is resulting in more heavy-duty truck owners experiencing problems with the engine, according to the study. The study finds that 46% of owners of heavy-duty trucks that are one model-year old report experiencing some type of engine-related problem, up from 42% in 2011.
The most commonly reported engine problems are issues with the electronic control module calibration (cited by 23% of owners who experienced an engine problem), exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve (20%), and electronic engine sensors (16%).
In addition, the average number of engine- and fuel-related problems has increased to 81 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) from 71 PP100 in 2011. The rise in problems has impacted overall engine satisfaction, which declines to 719 index points on a 1,000-point scale in 2012, compared with 739 in 2011.
At the industry level, the new, more complex engines designed to meet epa regulations are resulting in additional problems and downtime, which also has a financial impact on owners because they’re not making money when their truck is down for service.
—Brent Gruber, director of the commercial vehicle practice at JD Power and Associates
However, Gruber adds that once manufacturers resolve quality issues related to the new technology, customers may expect to see some added benefits from the new engines. In the on-highway segment, the average reported engine service interval has increased to 22,703 miles in 2012, up from 20,303 in 2011. Additionally, maintainers of heavy-duty on-highway trucks report a 4% increase in fuel efficiency this year, averaging 6.3 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2012, compared with 6.0 mpg in 2011.
The new engines are proving to be more fuel efficient and allowing greater up-time between service, so despite initial quality issues, the new technology may offer a greater return on investment in the long run.
—Brent Gruber
Detroit engines (formerly Detroit Diesel) rank highest in customer satisfaction with a score of 753—a 20-point improvement from 2011—and performs particularly well in the engine reliability and dependability factor. Cummins ranks second at 729 and Caterpillar third at 721.
Overall satisfaction with heavy-duty truck transmissions averages 812 in 2012, down eight points from 2011. The decline is largely attributed to lower satisfaction with the reliability and dependability of the transmission and drivetrain. This decline in satisfaction comes despite transmission-related quality actually improving to 7 PP100 in 2012, down from 10 PP100 in 2011.
The 2012 U.S. Heavy-Duty Truck Engine and Transmission Study is based on the responses of 1,725 primary maintainers of Class 8 heavy-duty trucks that are one model-year-old. The study was fielded between February and May 2012.
August 23, 2012 in Emissions, Engines, Heavy-duty, Surveys | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef0177444d43ec970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference J.D. Power and Associates study finds EPA emission-compliant heavy-duty engines yielding increase in engine problems, decline in satisfaction:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
So they complain.. tough luck, its the law.
Posted by: Herm | August 23, 2012 at 04:20 PM
Many of them probably voted democrat .. tough luck.
Posted by: ToppaTom | August 23, 2012 at 07:34 PM
A person's loss is another person's gain! Good business for mechanics and repair shops and workers and unions ...and good for job creation (and many of them probably voted democrat)
Posted by: Roger Pham | August 23, 2012 at 10:32 PM
The government upgraded the environmental standards.
The companies modified their engines to comply. This was probably more complex than they anticipated.
There were lots of bugs which are not being discovered and collated.
The companies will fix the bugs over the newt few years.
Environmental standards and fuel consumption will improve.
Reliability will come back to expected levels.
Seems OK to me - the people who bought the first few year's models will have higher repair bills (once the warranties expire) which is bad, but the rest will benefit in the medium term.
Why such a fuss?
Posted by: mahonj | August 24, 2012 at 12:08 AM
sorry
now being discovered and collated.
Posted by: mahonj | August 24, 2012 at 12:08 AM
One of the best ways to reduce emissions is to burn less fuel over the distance traveled. This is a simple fact that guides emissions standards in Europe (emissions per kilometre) but, if I understand things correctly and I can't be sure that I do, in America emission standards are emissions per gallon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnlXGvA1Wk
Posted by: ai_vin | August 24, 2012 at 08:25 AM
Maybe trains should come back.. check out the 150th anniversary of the Union Pacific railroad:
http://up150.com/timeline/
Posted by: Herm | August 25, 2012 at 06:35 AM
A few of us have been saying for years that we should expand and electrify the railroads. There's also this idea for trucks; http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/bladerunner1.htm
Posted by: ai_vin | August 25, 2012 at 08:33 AM
If your cars break down. Good business for mechanics and repair shops and workers and unions ...and good for job creation (and many of them probably voted democrat).
It all balances out?
If no imported cars were allowed in, and American cars reverted to the unreliable gas hogs of yore. Good business for mechanics and repair shops and workers and unions ...and good for job creation (and many of them probably voted democrat).
It all balances out.
How far must the stupidity be amplified before it is obvious?
Posted by: ToppaTom | August 27, 2012 at 06:34 PM
It should come as no great shock to any of you that increased complexity in an internal combustion engine will result in greater incidence of malfunction. That's the KISS principle.
What SHOULD be obvious from this statistic is that the IC engine is fast approaching it's maximum efficiency at a greater and greater cost. (Principle of diminishing gains) An engine that at peak is 40% efficient will never equal one that is 98% efficient by design (electric).
That's why Hybrids will continue to advance on the market....though they are a flawed system as well....they are plagued with fewer issues than variable intake plenums, computerized stroke length and shifting from 8 cylinders to 4 based on torque demand....all complicated and convoluted processes.
Once the combustion portion of the equation is eradicated completely, we'll have both efficiency AND reliability. Enough of these infernal combustion engines already!
Posted by: EVryman | August 28, 2012 at 09:05 AM
This "increased complexity" is supposedly NOT due to the ICE "approaching maximum efficiency"
but
to "Technology changes related to revised emissions standards".
Just saying.
Posted by: ToppaTom | August 28, 2012 at 08:01 PM
So you're saying that the mechanics of trying to keep a dirty IC engine from emitting is causing maintenance problems? Well that's certainly possible. After all, more stringent catalytic scrubbing increases back pressure...that could certainly put more strain on the engine.
I think my point still stands. Time to rid ourselves of this antiquated tech.
Posted by: EVryman | August 28, 2012 at 08:05 PM
@TT,
Relax, reliability will increase once the low-emission technology will be perfected. I was just providing a little comic relief.
Showing a little disdain for domestic American cars, eh, TT? You would be surprised to see this from Cuba, quote from Wiki:
"[Recently] While many older Soviet and European cars remain in service in Cuba, they are largely eclipsed by the island's great 1950s Cadillacs, Packards, De Sotos and similar products from one of the most ornate styling periods in U.S. auto history. Their pastel colours, tall fins and extensive chrome make them a favouriste subject for tourist photographs."
Ahem, one person's trash is another person's treasure!!!
Posted by: Roger Pham | August 28, 2012 at 09:21 PM
@EVryman,
Don't throw out the baby (ICE) with the bath water! ICE running on NG, methane, and H2 will be very clean and will need little post combustion clean up, if done correctly!
With the low prices and abundance of NG, we should convert most big-rig diesels on NG and enjoy big savings in $$$. If we would make the new NG infrastructure H2-compatible, then eventually, the trucks can also run on H2-ICE as well, or synthetic biomethane that is made from hydrogenated biomass pyrolysis. EV's would be fine but long-range and light-weight battery for long-haul trucks is a work in progress. H2-FC is another promising avenue.
Posted by: Roger Pham | August 28, 2012 at 09:31 PM
You're right, Roger. Good point. you can run an IC engine on other fuels to make low and no emissions however you MUST dispense with the gasoline/petrol/diesel NS YOU must ALSO CONCEDE THAT A Hydrogen fuel cell would make more efficient use of that same hydrocarbon fuel as an electricity source. So....I agree that in the short term, you COULD use IC engines but the ultimate fate for them is to be relegated to the dust bin of history. The engines are getting FAR too complex, trying to burn gasoline cleaner when it's simply not the right way to go.
We really are at a crossroads. We must make the painful choice to move off of the path of burning things in an explosion chamber to generate power.
Posted by: EVryman | August 29, 2012 at 07:16 PM
@EVryman,
The market will decide. FC tech is so new that not too much prediction can really be done. Meanwhile, well-proven and affordable ICE tech will soldier on until if and when FC tech will take over. FC, due to its quietness, low-maintenance and low pollution, will make great home-based CHP to take advantage of H2 made from excess renewable energy in the future.
Posted by: Roger Pham | August 31, 2012 at 09:47 PM
In homes, it may be the best option but hydrogen is still problematic for storage and transport. Can it be piped into a home via natural gas lines? I suspect not due to atomic size.
Home fuel cells make great sense though.
Posted by: EVryman | September 01, 2012 at 09:37 PM