Attention Minnesota Expediters
- Thread starter ATeam
- Start date
We are gathering bids and working on the application. We intend to submit it before the deadline.
Unknown
Unknown until the unit is installed (assuming we receive the grant money, but that is in no way guaranteed).
I do not know. We are looking at this only for our application.
----------------
There are many unknowns at this point. The first step is to apply for the grant and see if it is awarded. If it is not, no other action is needed. Our truck is CARB-legal now and will be for several more years without modification.
Research done today gives us an idea of what is coming but nothing can be planned that far out. Technology changes. Prices change. Rules change. Revenue changes. Our health may change. Until several years pass, we will have no idea what we will be dealing with.
For that matter, we don't know if we will be in a truck at all. We have lived a great life on the road and made some really good money as expediters, but if the CARB rules end up taking the good money and fun out of the business, we are out too. Expediting is not a charitable activity. We do not haul freight to break even or suffer losses. If the money is not there, neither are we.
We always figured that we would replace the reefer once over the life of the truck. The replacement would come before 2012, when the reefer would run afoul of the CARB rules. Putting a CARB-compliant reefer engine in now and having the government pay for 75% of it is an attractive option that will extend the life of the reefer.
Hanging that DPF monstrosity on the truck is not an attractive option, even with the government paying 100% of the cost (assuming we get the grant). We do not know how fuel economy will be affected, or if it will be affected at all. The DPF regeneration produces exhaust temperatures of 1,100 degrees F. That may require some custom exhaust work to keep that heat away from the underbody reefer. It adds weight to the truck (thank goodness we spec'ed a 14,600 lbs front axle when we built the truck). It adds maintenance costs that we do not now have to pay.
The only advantage is the DPF extends the useful life of the truck under the CARB rules. With the possibility of having the governemnt pick up 100% of the $35,000-$40,000 cost today, the above disadvantages are offset. Of course, there is also the public benefit of cleaner air that benefits one and all.
The crazy part of this is you can replace an entire truck engine for less than $40,000. Thanks to CARB rules and stimulus money, we now have tax dollars used to spend $35,000-$40,000 a pop to hang ungainly exhaust system components on a limited number of trucks.
When we bought our truck, we planned to run it for ten years or more and hoped agressive maintenance would enable us to do so without an engine rebuild or replacement. But we also allowed for the fact that the engine might have to be replaced at some point.
Without the grant money, we would probably run the truck as long as possible and then make a decision when crunch time came. Options would then include replacing the entire truck, replacing the engine and exhaust system with one that is CARB-compliant, or modifying the existing exhaust system to be CARB-compliant.
With several years between now and then, and with any number of things likely to change (rules, revenue, technology, prices, etc.), and any number of things that may happen (unexpected blown engine, lucrative inra-state opportunity that prompts a switch to dry box truck, easier money made outside of trucking, etc.) there is no way to plan anything. We can only do our best to know what is going on and prepare for as many possibilities as we can forsee.
Today, our single best action is to apply for the grant money, which we are in the process of doing. We cannot know what to do next until we know if the money is granted or denied.
Last edited:
Our truck has a D-12, 2006 model-year engine. The D-12 is no longer made. If we ever replaced the engine, it would be with a D-12 rebuilt or a new D-13. The latest info on the Volvo SCR system is on their web site. Good information can be found there. The videos are especially informative. See this.
moose
Veteran Expediter
While this is an old thread, there is new information to share. I share it to complete the story for anyone who comes across this thread in a search that may be done in the future.
We won the grant that we applied for and were told by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that approximately $16,000 would be coming our way.
It soon became clear that it was in our best interests to forfeit all but $5,000 of that money. We let the DPF part of the grant go and continued the process of getting the money for a new reefer engine.
Four months after winning the grant, the money remains tied up in bureaucratic procedures and there is no telling how much longer it will be until it is actually disbursed.
Bureaucratic delays and present-day business considerations now lead us to conclude that accepting the $5,000 and replacing the reefer engine, will cost us more than $5,000 in lost revenue (net). We have not done so yet, but it is increasingly likely that we will decline the $5,000 too.
This was a promising program on the surface. At least in our case, and in our particular circumstances, it has turned into a waste of time, money and effort; and into a program that has so far failed to provide the economic stimulus and environmental benefits it is intended to provide.
More about this on my blog entry for today. Updates to follow as appropriate.
We won the grant that we applied for and were told by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that approximately $16,000 would be coming our way.
It soon became clear that it was in our best interests to forfeit all but $5,000 of that money. We let the DPF part of the grant go and continued the process of getting the money for a new reefer engine.
Four months after winning the grant, the money remains tied up in bureaucratic procedures and there is no telling how much longer it will be until it is actually disbursed.
Bureaucratic delays and present-day business considerations now lead us to conclude that accepting the $5,000 and replacing the reefer engine, will cost us more than $5,000 in lost revenue (net). We have not done so yet, but it is increasingly likely that we will decline the $5,000 too.
This was a promising program on the surface. At least in our case, and in our particular circumstances, it has turned into a waste of time, money and effort; and into a program that has so far failed to provide the economic stimulus and environmental benefits it is intended to provide.
More about this on my blog entry for today. Updates to follow as appropriate.
Last edited:
Thanks for the update, very informative.
rogerddgr188
Not a Member
You just can't surpress the need to yank the guys chain ?
How foolish you've become with the relentless trolling of
every ATEAM post.
Doggie Daddy
Veteran Expediter
It's okay roger,Phil has Greg on ignore. 
rogerddgr188
Not a Member
It's okay roger,Phil has Greg on ignore.
GOTCHA !!!
Phil also, is a actuall driver. He even has his own truck. I seen the pics.
You would be advised to refrain from using multiple screen names.
Last edited:
Doggie Daddy
Veteran Expediter
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
If that is true Dave, why not just eliminate him?
Last I heard, murder is illegal... no matter how justifiable.
jrcarroll
Expert Expediter
However there is a big point being overlooked.
I dont care how you spell it, grant money is still money paid to the government in taxes.
So your going to get your money to buy upgrades for your truck so it will be compliant with new laws! What is wrong with that picture?
Ask the good people who earlier this year went out and got a new car under the "cash for clunkers" program. I've been told that now they are getting a form so as to pay taxes on that money the government gave them for the ole clunker they traded in...
I'll just keep my money and let big government go fly a kite in a storm!!!!
jrcarroll
Expert Expediter
Yet California will not help the port drivers who now haul in and out of the ports in CA. So many of them will have to park the truck and try to find other work when they are shut out of the ports
Having now received and reviewed the terms and conditions of accepting the the grant money that we were awarded, we have decided to decline the money and exit the program.
The government wants to give us $5,000 toward the replacement of our reefer engine with a new one that will reduce emissions. The actual cost is over $7,000 with us making up the difference.
The travel and down time needed to re-power and re-certify (TVAL IOQ) the reefer, the invasive disclosure forms, the time required to complete the follow-up reports that will continue after the new reefer engine is installed, and the inclusion of what I consider to be a gag order in the grant agreement makes the terms and conditions administratively unaccepable and financially more expensive than shelling out the $5,000 ourselves when the time comes to replace or upgrade the reefer several years from now.
Declining the grant money is a financially sound decision. It also frees us from dealing with bureaucrats who cannot complete their end, even after four months, but demand a response from us within five days of them mailing out the paperwork.
The agreement is horribly one-sided leaving us with nothing to count on but the good graces of the bureaucrats. If we entered into the agreement and then went public with protests about poor bureaucratic service after receiving the go-ahead to replace the reefer engine at our expense, the promised grant money may not be reimbursed because we may be found to be in violation of the grant agreement publicity clause. The clause requires us to get written permission from the grant administrator before publicizing information about the program. That would likely be a fight we could win on appeal but it would produce more delays and expense.
Having already found all of the people we dealt with to be administratively incompetent and all but one of them to be lacking any concern at all for our circumstances, we are pleased to forfeit the money and exit the program.
It saddens me to see such an anti-citizen, bureaucracy-first attitude codified in writing and deeply entrenched in this state government agency and the the federal EPA that is also involved in the program.
The government wants to give us $5,000 toward the replacement of our reefer engine with a new one that will reduce emissions. The actual cost is over $7,000 with us making up the difference.
The travel and down time needed to re-power and re-certify (TVAL IOQ) the reefer, the invasive disclosure forms, the time required to complete the follow-up reports that will continue after the new reefer engine is installed, and the inclusion of what I consider to be a gag order in the grant agreement makes the terms and conditions administratively unaccepable and financially more expensive than shelling out the $5,000 ourselves when the time comes to replace or upgrade the reefer several years from now.
Declining the grant money is a financially sound decision. It also frees us from dealing with bureaucrats who cannot complete their end, even after four months, but demand a response from us within five days of them mailing out the paperwork.
The agreement is horribly one-sided leaving us with nothing to count on but the good graces of the bureaucrats. If we entered into the agreement and then went public with protests about poor bureaucratic service after receiving the go-ahead to replace the reefer engine at our expense, the promised grant money may not be reimbursed because we may be found to be in violation of the grant agreement publicity clause. The clause requires us to get written permission from the grant administrator before publicizing information about the program. That would likely be a fight we could win on appeal but it would produce more delays and expense.
Having already found all of the people we dealt with to be administratively incompetent and all but one of them to be lacking any concern at all for our circumstances, we are pleased to forfeit the money and exit the program.
It saddens me to see such an anti-citizen, bureaucracy-first attitude codified in writing and deeply entrenched in this state government agency and the the federal EPA that is also involved in the program.
Last edited: