top of page
Writer's pictureRALPH COPE
2 minutes ago4 min read

Understanding the Difference Between Common Rail and Mechanical Excavator Engines: Feasibility of Retrofitting Common Rail Technology




Excavators are the backbone of construction and earthmoving industries, and the choice of engine technology significantly impacts performance, maintenance, and operational costs. Two primary types of diesel engines dominate the market: common rail and mechanical engines. While both serve the same fundamental purpose—powering heavy machinery—they differ substantially in design, operation, and suitability for retrofitting. This blog explores these differences and evaluates whether retrofitting a common rail engine into a machine originally designed for a mechanical engine is a feasible endeavor.


Common Rail Diesel Engines

Common rail engines utilize a highly advanced fuel injection system, delivering fuel at extremely high pressure through a shared rail (the “common rail”) to individual injectors. This design is managed electronically via an Engine Control Unit (ECU). The technology offers several advantages:

Key Features and Benefits

  1. Precision Fuel Delivery:

    • High-pressure injection ensures optimal atomization of fuel, improving combustion efficiency.

  2. Improved Fuel Economy:

    • Reduced fuel consumption due to precise injection timing and quantity.

  3. Lower Emissions:

    • Better combustion control minimizes particulate matter and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

  4. Enhanced Performance:

    • Superior throttle response and consistent engine power delivery.

  5. Quiet Operation:

    • Quieter than mechanical engines due to controlled injection events.

Challenges

  • Complexity:

    • High dependence on electronic components makes the system sensitive to failures.

  • Maintenance Costs:

    • Specialized diagnostic tools and expertise are required.

  • Fuel Sensitivity:

    • Requires cleaner, high-quality diesel fuel.


Mechanical Diesel Engines

Mechanical engines rely on a simpler, mechanically driven fuel pump and injector system. Fuel delivery is controlled by mechanical linkages rather than electronics, offering distinct advantages and limitations.

Key Features and Benefits

  1. Simplicity:

    • Robust design with fewer electronic components reduces failure points.

  2. Ease of Maintenance:

    • Repairs can often be performed on-site without the need for specialized tools.

  3. Fuel Tolerance:

    • Operates reliably even with lower-quality diesel fuel.

  4. Cost-Effective:

    • Lower initial cost and cheaper repairs compared to common rail engines.

Challenges

  • Lower Efficiency:

    • Fuel consumption is generally higher than that of common rail systems.

  • Higher Emissions:

    • Less control over combustion leads to increased emissions.

  • Performance Limitations:

    • Engine responsiveness and power consistency are lower compared to common rail engines.


Feasibility of Retrofitting a Common Rail Engine into a Machine with a Mechanical Engine

Retrofitting a common rail engine into an excavator originally designed for a mechanical engine presents both technical and financial challenges. Let’s examine the key factors:

1. Mechanical Modifications

  • Mounting and Fitment: The dimensions and mounting points of common rail engines often differ from those of mechanical engines. Extensive modifications may be required to the engine bay, mounts, and associated components.

  • Fuel System Overhaul: A common rail system requires high-pressure fuel lines, a high-pressure pump, and specific fuel tank modifications to accommodate the advanced system. These components may not be compatible with the existing mechanical fuel delivery setup.

2. Electrical Integration

  • ECU Installation: Common rail engines depend on an ECU to control injection events. Installing an ECU involves reconfiguring the electrical system, adding sensors, and wiring harnesses.

  • Battery and Alternator Upgrades: Increased electronic demand may necessitate upgrades to the machine’s battery and alternator.

3. Cost Implications

  • Initial Investment: The cost of retrofitting often exceeds the price of replacing the machine with one designed for a common rail engine.

  • Maintenance and Repairs: Post-retrofit, the machine would require specialized servicing, which could increase operational costs.

4. Operational Factors

  • Fuel Compatibility: Retrofitting a common rail engine into environments with subpar fuel quality (common in remote locations) could lead to frequent breakdowns and high maintenance costs.

  • Performance Gains: While a common rail engine may offer performance improvements, these gains might not justify the significant retrofit costs for older machines.

5. Regulatory Considerations

  • Emission Standards: In regions with strict emissions regulations, retrofitting may be more appealing to reduce environmental impact. However, achieving full compliance requires comprehensive testing and certification.


Alternatives to Retrofitting

Instead of retrofitting a common rail engine into a mechanical system, consider these alternatives:

  1. Engine Overhaul:

    • Rebuilding the existing mechanical engine can restore efficiency and extend its lifespan at a lower cost.

  2. Machine Replacement:

    • Investing in a new or used excavator with a factory-fitted common rail engine ensures optimal performance without the challenges of retrofitting.

  3. Hybrid Approach:

    • Some manufacturers offer hybrid solutions, where mechanical engines are paired with advanced fuel management systems to enhance efficiency without full conversion.


Conclusion

While common rail engines deliver superior efficiency, performance, and emissions control, retrofitting one into a machine designed for a mechanical engine is rarely practical. The technical hurdles, financial outlay, and operational risks outweigh the benefits in most cases. Operators are better served by maintaining their mechanical engines or upgrading to modern machinery with factory-installed common rail engines.


For those operating fleets with older machines, companies like Vikfin offer a reliable source of high-quality used OEM parts, including both mechanical and common rail engine components. This ensures that your excavators remain productive, cost-effective, and well-maintained, regardless of the engine type.


Comments

bottom of page