HOHN

2010 ISX is common rail-- so all units sold after 1 Jan will be common rail. There are actually going to be two sized ISXs-- one is 15L, the other is 11.9L. Think of the smaller one as an ISM replacement.

The XPI common rail system we are using is one of if not THE highest pressure injection system(s) on the market. We are up around the 36K psi neighborhood.

The new system is a bigger relative of the XPI common rail system used on the current ISL. This is a CUMMINS fuel system, not Bosch, so it's different than the common rail system used on "small" midrange engines like the ISB. Pressure on the XPI system are a lot higher, and IMO it's a more capable system.

All in all, the next ISX is going to be a great engine, with even better MPG (about 5%) than the current engine ISX while running even cleaner-- EPA2010 is the toughest diesel emission standard on the planet (but still not enough for the greenies! )

han solo

Is it true, that the 2010 is the last set of emission that has to met for awhile or is going to be the 02, 04, 07, 10.

HOHN

For now, 2010 is the last set. I think CO2 emissions are next. Of course, we will then have the design engines that violate the laws of physics and chemistry.

jh

soulezoo

Justin,

I think you should engineer a XPI system for my 5.9 (actually 6.0... but I can't be confused with a crappy ford now, can I?)

purduepurdy

HOHN, what the freezing point of commercial urea? We going to have to wait around for an hour for our urea to thaw in cold temperatures? Will the engine get knocked into a limp mode not having a steady stream?

Urea also evaporates and degrades. What if someone leaves their truck for a month? Will they have to drain the tank?

Any sensors to detect urea quality?

Ur not the only engineer on here. Tier IV is .

wannadiesel

Not an ISX question, but will the medium duty engines be using urea in 2010?

In your opinion, is it more sensible to buy an '09 truck to avoid urea for a little while or to jump right in and get a 2010 model for better fuel economy?

HOHN

Depends on which medium duty truck you are talking about.

The Dodge ram will not be adding urea. Instead, it's going to just be cooled EGR, as far as I know (haven't read much on it, but ISB has met 2010 since 2007. Cummins did that to store up a nuch of carbon credits..



Anyway, the decision of whether or not to jump right in is a tough one. I would have to ask a person how costly downtime is. Since a new engine has warranty, you won't eat repairs if it goes down. But the TIME down can be bad. A new engine might not have as big a stock of inventory, so you might get delayed waiting for newfangled parts to arrive.

The big cost of a 2010 engine is all the aftertreatment. It adds a lot of money.

I wouldn't be *afraid* of a 2010 truck, but it's no brainer that an engine with fewer emissions stuff and aftertreatment stuff is simpler, and hence just statistically more likely to have problems.

If it were MY money, I'd buy the '09. It's a more mature product that's had 3 years of refinement. I'm proud of the 2010 product and it will get better mpg out of the box. But I'd still go for the 09 just based on the raw statistics of it.

JMO

Number47

i work on trucks for a living and all this emission stuff is done nothing but make there trucks have more problems. And with the state of the current economy if with a new truck that's under warranty, owner/operators end up jobless due to down time. i was reading a mag. and they said the duramax with the urea injection would have to refill its little tank every 100k miles. with the number you gave makes me wonder what size tank they have or if they was a communication error

HOHN

Musta been a typo, unless that tank is larger than the truck bed.

duratothemax

Justin, I could be wrong, but I thought I might have read somewhere that the cummins [ISB] only meets 2010 emissions at the current 350hp level? If cummins raises the HP level significantly to compete with the new 390-400hp 2010 powerstrokes and dmax's, are they going to have to add something significant (urea?) to account for the extra emissions that an extra 40-50hp is going to result in???

ben

Number47

thats what i was thinking

johnyb59

It freezes at around 11* F and I believe the systme is going to be outfitted with heated lines. The quality of the urea is checked by differences in NOx in and NOx out. The DEF has a steady state of decomposition. So if someone was to dilute it, water it down, what not, the ecm will see a different reading than what is expected. In turn this will give some sort of a derate. As for a "limp mode" when you run out I believe you will be limited to 5mph or 1000 rpm

Volunteer1968

I'm thinking of buying a 2009 or a 2010 motorhome with an ISL Cummins. I've noticed on the Cummins web site that a 2010 ISL is listed as "EPA ISL9" and shows the max hp rating to be less than the 425 hp currently advertised in the 2009 motorhome brochure. Also the torque is 1300 lb-ft for the EPA ISL9opposed to the currently advertised 1200.

I have several questions regarding this apparant change to the ISL.

1. Has the displacement changed for the 2010 engine? If not, why the "9"?
2. Why is the hp rating reduced for the EPA 2010 ISL9?
3. Will the EPA 2010 ISL have better gas milage than the 2009 425 hp ISL?
4. Will there re-gen/idiling concerns with the 2010 ISL?
5. If hp is reduced, how can torque be increased?

Your answers are appreciated

Regards

Volunteer 1968