Yachts over 24 meters required to meet IMO TIER III engine emissions next year.

Not that big of a deal unless you re signing the checks

Now I m confused. The article linked above states

“The new Tier III regulations apply to any vessels that moor or may pass through North America, the US Caribbean, the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, and all future NOx Emission Control Areas”

great... what about vessels running in the Med or in the Middle East or the Far East?

Businesses always like to play the blame game. Viking can claim all they want but they're not laying off 300 people over this, they don't build much in the size range and have very few employees doing so.

It's called adapting, which you either do in business or you go out of business over time. The two US builders mentioned don't sell many boats in that range. If they did, they'd have solutions planned.

While you guys are worrying about Tier IV, the EU and Cummins are working on Tier V. It will probably not happen in the USofA, but the EU is working very hard to eliminate all NOx
http://www.servicetruckmagazine.com/features/tier-5-emissions-standards-not-expected-anytime-soon/

Truck stops all have dedicated pumps for DEF. Just as you bought fuel for your trip to St Louis in barrels from a distributor. Larger marinas will have to sell it the same way. It's not a big deal.

IT WORKS. It's been working for the trucking industry for ten years. Buying new engines or not is the owners choice.
Personally I don't care what Viking does. That's their decision to put hundreds of people out of work, because they didn't plan on this. Like I said before the info has been available for YEARS.

Adapt or get out of the way for someone more enterprising.

Has any organization calculated how many boats between 26 and 50 meters are delivered each year, figured an average fuel burn annually, determine the emission level and compared this number to the massive amount of pollution emitted by counties like China, India, Pakistan, Russia and Central Asian nations?

I guess not.

the low volume is why the technology hasn’t matured and become usable and affordable.

comparing to trucks is completely irrelevant. I don’t think any road going trucks use 2000+ hp engines used in the boats affected but this regulation.

The trucking industry had loads of trouble with the def mandate and still do. The def motors are more complex and when not functioning properly go into limp mode. How would that work on a vessel???? I've lived the def nightmare with all my heavy equipment, for all of you cheering the mandate where is your personal history of dealing with this technology??? It's easy to applaud a solution like this until you live with it and all its psychotic episodes.

Urea consumption is approximately 3% of fuel consumption on the high side. Maybe lower but I don’t have the data in front of me.

A 92 Viking SF has 4015 gallons of fuel. That’s only 120 gallons per one total burn of fuel, probably less in reality. And I haven’t researched if the regulations apply in all those hard to reach sportfishing paradises, may be a non-issue for them in the middle of no where.

And you can actually gain fuel efficiency as they come out with new engine models that specifically design for it, approximately 5% in some of the presentations going around.

So you will have marina based fuel docks stocking up, mobile delivery by water or land, whatever the entrepreneurs come up with.

And remember, on the lower end the regulation starts at 24m for the Load Waterline. This is 78’ - 9” of waterline exclusive of bow rake and transom overhangs. Bow rake is 8’ - 9’ at least so now you are at 87’ - 9” overall. The only thing I see impacted on the machinery deck level is an aft crew quarter space or toy storage.

IMO and the EPA have impact studies on all that. I have not seen them all, but they are the ones making the claims on emissions reductions. As I have said before, they have no sympathy towards who bears the cost (owners/operators) or jobs lost.

That is not their main objective.

If they have DEF vehicles operating on any of the larger islands the supply chain has already started.

Def diesels burn fuel to get a hot enough reaction chamber. They use alot more fuel. Been there done that with identical 40 ton john deere excavators. Pre def machines were 20% more fuel efficient than def machines. Shut them off a few times during a cleaning and they go into limp mode. JD mechanic has to come out and force a regeneration. Let's try that in crooked or san Salvador. Give me your opinions AFTER you've lived with it.

Well said. The Def mandate has played hell with heavy equipment and big trucks. Our 1 ton trucks have been doing pretty good with the DEF. So maybe the technology is advancing. But have had heavy equipment shut down with the DEF sensor not reading correctly (def tank full) and other problems relating to emissions. That wouldn’t work to well at sea. Don’t know if mandate would allow for a DEF override in a marine application. And definitely don’t pour the def into the fuel tank. That ruins the fuel system. It would be nice if government could be a little more nimble to accommodate issues such as this. But they paint with a very broad brush.

Another good point. The fuel consumption is definitely noticeably worse with the emissions “stuff”.

Some who have posted seem to adopt the position that screw business let them innovate and figure it out. But the mandates are not just costing the business. That cost is passed to the consumer. I am not referring to the person that can afford a new 90’+ boat. Look how much more our vehicles cost today. In this age of income disparity I think an analysis of what all of this is costing the poor and the working class would be revealing. I get it, if we destroy the earth the last thing we are going to worry about is profit, but as it looks right now we might destroy ourselves before the enviroment.