The point I'm trying to make is that if an engine package passes the test for automotive emissions, it automatically passes the off road test as well. Any engine package certified for on road use is able to be used in anything.

Since testing is so expensive I would think that we'll see more & more automotive engines in equipment (maybe boats too), and since it's the entire engine "package" that gets certified, that would include the electronics.

I understand that PSI is the manufacture of record - but PSI doesn't manufacture the components it installs. If you check the current Hysters & Yales with the 2.4L Vortec engine, the LP system it uses is direct from the auto industry in Europe. They use a lot more LP cars over there than we do.

I know the other forklift makes aren't using automotive LP systems, but I suspect that as emission rules get stricter & costs get more expensive & pricing gets more competitive, the automotive market of engine packages will become more appealing to forklift manufacturers.

however the rules are just about the same for "large (over 25 BHP) spark ignited engines" for off road use as they are for marine use, so you might see some companies that specialize in marine engine conversions using the same tech on forklifts.

Brewski, The block is the only thing that is Mitsi and it is a license agreement between them and Mitsubishi.

BB, Certification for over the road and off highway engines are two diferent certifications just because a engine is certified for over the road use does not mean that it is good for off road and vs versa.
CARB website is very specific about this.

New engines are PSI. Basically refitted Mitsubishi's. High performance option is a Kubota. These engines are not automotive emission certified. PSI is the manufacturer of record for the Mitsi, Kubota is the manufacturer of record for the Kubota.

While doing research on a Hyster FT which is giving me trouble it occurred to me that this issue won't be much of an issue in the near future. The current 2.4 liter GM Vortec engines in the Hyster FT series is the same engine which is powering the Holden Rodeo. It's a C24SE gm engine which has been around since the 80's.

I wondered why a "new" GM industrial engine would be from the automotive world. In investigating that question I found out that the emission laws seem to be the answer. Once an engine passes an emission standard, then that engine package can be installed in anything. It seems that automotive emission standards are accepted by any/all off road certifications. With the cost of getting an engine package thru the emissions process it would make sense to use automotive engines in forklifts in an attempt to keep pricing low.

We'll have to see if the replacement for the 2.4 Vortec comes from an automotive background.

Try to get info on the orange and black down here in TX and watch what happens.

Back in the 80s car manufacturers did not want service stations to obtain any literature on error codes on new cars.
In the USA the automotive Association took the manufacturers to court and won the case. In New York we have companies purchasing Toyota forklift trucks specifically because Hyster and Yale wouldn't supply them with the tools and the programs to work on their own trucks.

bbforks see email

Roibeard,with all due respect, I don't understand what you don't understand about the point I'm trying to make.

The subject is " does a owner of a newer forklift, with an on board computer, have the right to repair the computer?"

The owner of the forklift has the right to fix anything on the truck he/she wants to, but how would an owner fix a computer/software issue if they don't have access to the tools needed to diagnose/repair the electronics? The day is coming that independents like me will have no choice but to call the dealer in for help whenever an electronic issue arises. The same is true for the end users. The electronic diagnostic tools needed are OEM protected, therefore aren't available for use by anyone except a representative of the OEM-ie, the dealership tech.

The only reason I brought up reprogramming the computer was to show that, if an end user wanted to have access to the computer programs, that although doable, is cost prohibitive.

We are slowly being conditioned to replace, rather than repair, the "gadgets" we use in our personal lives along with what we use in business. The costs of repairing things is slowly raising to the point where replacing is actually the less costly option. (I was recently quoted $6,000.00 for a 7 series Toyota LP forklift wiring harness - the truck is only 9 years old. Customer bought new truck instead- no surprise).

bbforks, emissions targets are not the responsibility of end users it is the OEMs responsibility to meet whatever EuroX level is required under EU regs. Why would a forklift end user want to alter and go to the cost to re-homologate, this would be absurdly inefficient. I never mentioned installing your own software, what would be the point.
In this country there is a disposal cost for all electrical goods, we also get paid for scrap metal etc just as in the US.
The suggestion that only the dealer would have the authority and information to repair the truck is wrong and heaven forbid this ever did come to pass because the technical capability within OEM dealerships is extremely poor.

Roibeard
I've been doing my best to wrap my head around your post (with great difficulty I may add). When I said that when you buy something with a computer program installed, you are actually only purchasing the right to use the program, what I meant was that, when you buy, say a forklift, with a computer program installed, you are in fact purchasing the entire forklift (even the installed computer program), but, you are only purchasing the right to use 'said' program. You do not have the right to alter, reproduce, etc, anything to do with the program. Those rights are protected by copyrights, etc.

If, in fact, you wanted to replace 'said' program with one that you owned the rights to, you could erase 'said' program, install yours, then change, duplicate, etc without any legal issues. The challenge comes in with regard to liability & emissions. You would be held liable for any issues concerning the forklift while your program was installed. As far as the emissions go (at least in the US), any emission compliant engine cannot be altered - period. To install your own program would mean that you'd have to get that particular engine tested - which is EXTREMELY cost prohibitive. Because of this reason alone (emission testing & certification) most of the forklifts today are using basically automotive engines which already have been tested & certified, therefor lowering the cost of the forklift.

As far as the suppliers who are developing & servicing these programs, they do so under agreements which allow them to do so. Just because a certain part is labeled "dealer item only", doesn't necessarily mean that the manufacturer of the forklift actually made the part, it only means that whoever made it, made it under license that the only distributor of that part was the OEM.

As far as disposal cost, we here in the US get paid to scrap metal- electric motors & all.

Of course this argument doesn't technically hold water when you consider end of life cost. Here when I dispose or replace any electrical item I have to pay a WEEE cost which is a disposal cost for electrical items but if the above argument held true then the OEM is liable. Now to retrospectively charge the OEMs for the cost of the millions of units disposed of in just the last 10 years would run into 100's of millions and more likely billions. Then there's the issue of all the computer repair companies are they operating illegally? and for that matter the automotive OEMs do not design and manufacture 99.9% of the electronics in their vehicles, it is the tier one, two and three suppliers and they are the ones with the expertise which they guard like a tiger so technically the Forklift OEMs are breaching the above since they don't hold no patents on the CPUs, ALUs, algorithms, ASICs, PIAs, UARTS, PALs, PLAs, DACs, ADCs, vector controllers, PIDs etc in their machines. So when you analyse the above argument you will find that by the time you define ownership then most if not all OEMs are in breach of the above which is of course pedantic but absurd.

From the people I've been speaking with in the electronics industry, when you purchase ANY type of gadget that has a proptietory computer program installed, you're really only buying the right to use it, you're not technically buying the entire gadget outright. Patents & copyrights protect the proprietary programs installed.

Combine this fact with the price of the electronic diagnostic tools needed to diagnose complex computer systems installed in equipment today & the answer will be that only dealerships will have the authority & the information needed to service their brand of equipment.

Well my car is a classic car 43 yrs old and I wouldn't entrust a modern garage to repair it. They may be good with hand held diagnostic equipment and changing sensors but when it comes to torquing a nut up they don't know how. Still that's another story, just imagine if they made it illegal to work on Ones own car. Should I be writing to MP.

Nero

I just read a similar article yesterday but they also include most of the auto manufactures as well.

news dot boldride dot com/2015/04/gm-wants-to-make-working-on-your-own-car-illegal/76702/