Navistar RV (Monaco) and MaxxForce Engines

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Ken & Sheila

Ken & Sheila

Site Team
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Posts
3,864
Location
Illinios
Navistar RV (Monaco) has been promoting its MaxxForce Engines as an advantage because they didn't need the Urea Fluid additive.

Now it appears they were WRONG and have been using "earned emission credits" to continue to ship product as compliant with EPA regs. They are also in "discussions" with the California CARB.

Now they have announced a new solution called ICT+, which apparently involves their current technology AND a deal with Cummins Engine. Cummins would supply its Cummins Emission Solutions, its proven urea-based after treatment system, to Navistar.

So much for MaxxForce having better technology and not needing Urea! This apparently will start sometime in 2013 as will a deal for Cummins to supply Navistar with its ISX15 engine. This after Mike Snell, VP Sales of Navistar RV, recently announced that they were working on an RV approved version of the MaxxForce15 for the new Dynasty.

Looks like Cummins RULES.

ken' 
 
I love Cummins, but year 2003 and before.  Starting in 2004 engines they started using EGR and statistics show that those motors are in the shop 3 times more often than a pre-egr motor.  The Urea is just another problem.  I just spent $23,000 to put a "new" 2003 motor in my truck instead of buying another truck.  One of my newer trucks had an EGR motor, and when it blew, I replaced the truck.  It's not worth putting money into these new engines.  My experience is a lot of down time with EGR motors and later.

I hear great results from the Paccar motor but there aren't many of them out with much more than 100,000 miles on them at this time.  If you're going to buy a new diesel motor make sure you get the warranty and that it covers all of the emissions junk, as that is where the money is these days.  If the government had stayed out of our motors, trucks pulling 80,000 lbs would be getting over 10 mpg now, and DP would be getting in the 20's.
 
Navistar tried to get by with an advanced ERG type system for the 2010 certification, but has apparently failed and will now add Cummins Urea system to their ERG.

All these engines are more complicated earlier versions. My 94 8.3C Cummins was just about bullet proof. I had a few issues with the ISC in my 2000 Windsor. So far the only issues with the 2009 (2007 EPA Certification) has had problems with peripherals, ie Compressor, Turbo Modification.


I think at this point, all 2010 "compliant" engines are using urea fluid - DEF. Detroit and Mercedes use the Blue Tec system. Volvo has their own system. Caterpillar dropped out of the over the road engine business.
 
It is also significant that the Chairman & CEO of Navistar, Dan Ustian, who backed the failed "Advanced EGR" solution to the hilt, has been replaced. He literally bet the company on it and failed miserably after the EPA refused to certify the Navistar engines.
 
Gary, that was in the same article that announced the deal with Cummins.

Heglmeier and topdownman, I personally have been involved in several law suits against the EPA, BUT I support the programs to clean up our air the water - my problems came from the bureaucracy, not the goals or even the primary policies.
 
De-funding the EPA in order to stop forcing engine mfg'ers to continually develop "cleaner" engines would hurt us all.  Our air would soon look like the "bad air" in China.  It's just something we all will have to accept and live with!

JerryF
 
No, I don't remember any burning rivers, but I do remember Pittsburgh when I was a kid.  It was black with smoke and at noon the streetlights had to be on to provide illumination.  I recall a friend of my mother's visiting us from the south and wearing a white coat to go downtown.  When she returned it was gray and she said it could never be cleaned.  Although the steel mills were good for the economy, they weren't good for the air we had to breathe!  Same with automobile emissions.  California instituted the rules first and I remember reading the estimates of how much junk was taken out of the air every day after we got cleaner fuel.  There has to be a "happy balance" somewhere in the equation.

ArdraF
 
Adra, I worked in Pittsburgh in the late 50's and I remember the dirt and the soot in the air. Since that time, I have had the pleasure to live in several far east countries where diesels are not subject to emission standards and must say they spew out a lot of soot. The problem is, the EPA has imposed regulations on the industry which has out paced current technology. Industry and EPA needs to be able to communicate and develop the technology before imposing gestapo rules on the industry which destroys jobs.
 
Turns out this came from a lawsuit from competitors claiming an unfair marketing advantage.

http://www.overdriveonline.com/white-house-finishes-work-on-epas-navistar-rule/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=08-30-2012&utm_campaign=OVD

 
I got a 404 on  the above link. Is this the article you were referring to?
http://www.overdriveonline.com/white-house-completes-work-on-epas-navistar-rule-2/

Or this earlier one?

http://www.overdriveonline.com/ruling-to-decide-fate-of-navistars-non-compliant-engines/
 
I notice that Navistar RV has remove all previous references to its "story" about the superiority of it's Advance EGR vs DEF. Makes sense since their "newest" engines will either be a Cummins (ISX15) or their MaxxForce with Cummins SCR(DEF) technology added.

The lawsuit was about whether Advanced EGR was compliant (EPA tests proved that it wasn't), but against an interim EPA ruling that allowed Navistar to sell Non-compliant engines by just paying a penalty on each engines. The competitors said that was unfair because they spent the money to meet the new rules and that EPA's own regulations did not allow what the interim ruling allowed.

I have a personal interest that Monaco (Navistar RV) succeeds and stays in business, but I am not a fan of Navistar. Navistar makes a good product (truck and bus), but really lack in customer service. Here I reference there handling of the Workhorse brake issue and Monaco Warranty issue.

I sincerely hope they do better in the future. My hope comes from their appointment of Bill Osborne as President of Navistar RV and Workhorse. But it remains to be seen if Navistar will allow Mr Osborne to do the things that are needed to "right the ship".

ken
 
I think it was Newt that proposed the EPA be renamed the Environmental Solutions Agency.  Sort of says it all.

FWIW - our Cummins ISL has been a really good engine.  We had a exhaust manifold gasket fail just within the 5 year 50k warranty but that is the extent of the Cummins issues in over 70k miles.
 
As for Navistar and CAT, the marketing departments prevailed over the companies' engineers. That drove CAT out of the over-the-highway truck engine business and has set Navistar back big time. I'd never buy a Navistar product. I do own CAT stock. CAT, btw, has introduced a new truck that would make a fine chassis for a motorhome, I'm thinking.
 
alvins4062 said:
The CAT trucks are manufactured in a Navistar plant. Cat has no truck plants.
Click to expand...

What part of the trucks are made by Navistar and what parts by CAT?

Who engineered the product? CAT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 523 (members: 6, guests: 517)

Forum statistics

Threads
131,954
Posts
1,388,150
Members
137,708
Latest member
7mark7
Back
Top Bottom