Guilin’s Government Procurement Case of 3308 Sewage Treatment Vehicle EHY5045TWCE6 and Cost Comparison Analysis Opening Insight: In 2025, a municipal sanitation department in Guilin procured a batch of sewage treatment vehicles to meet urban drainage network and river cleaning requirements, including Chengli’s EHY5045TWCE6 model. A total of six units were delivered, primarily for emergency rainwater drainage, sludge removal from sewage ponds, and remediation of black-and-odorous water bodies. Customer feedback indicates outstanding anti-corrosion coating performance under hot, humid, and rainy conditions, superior sealing component durability beyond expectations, and failure rates lower than the industry average under high-load operation. Based on this case, this article provides procurement guidance from perspectives including cost comparison between fuel-powered and battery-electric versions, differences in application scenarios, charging infrastructure requirements, and Chengli’s electric vehicle solutions. I. Fuel-Powered vs. Battery-Electric Versions: Cost and Performance Comparison In the Guilin case, the EHY5045TWCE6 sewage treatment vehicle primarily adopts fuel power; however, customers have expressed interest in battery-electric alternatives in subsequent procurements to reduce operating costs and carbon emissions. The table below compares key parameters of the fuel-powered and battery-electric versions, based on publicly available tender information and Chengli’s product database. Comparison Item Fuel-Powered Version (EHY5045TWCE6) Battery-Electric Version (Chengli CLW5040TWCBEV, reference model) Chassis Type Dongfeng / Foton / FAW (China VI emission standard) Battery-electric chassis (CATL battery) Engine / Motor Power Approx. 85–110 kW (diesel) Approx. 60–80 kW (permanent magnet synchronous motor) Range / Operating Duration Approx. 8–12 hours continuous operation on full tank Approx. 4–6 hours continuous operation on full charge Unit Acquisition Cost (based on public tenders) Approx. RMB 220,000–280,000 Approx. RMB 350,000–420,000 Annual Operating Cost (including fuel/electricity and maintenance) Approx. RMB 45,000–55,000 Approx. RMB 25,000–35,000 Carbon Emissions High (approx. 15 tons/year) Zero emissions (dependent on electricity source) Applicable Scenarios Areas without charging infrastructure; long-distance operations Urban fixed-route operations with convenient charging access Cost Analysis: The battery-electric version incurs an initial acquisition cost approximately 50–60% higher than the fuel-powered version, yet its annual operating cost is about 40–50% lower. Over an 8-year service life, the total cost of ownership for the battery-electric version can be reduced by approximately RMB 150,000–200,000. In the Guilin case, customers reported relatively high fuel consumption for the fuel-powered version during high-load rainy-season operations (approx. 25–30 L/day), whereas the battery-electric version eliminates such concerns. II. Differences in Application Scenarios: Performance Under Hot-Humid Conditions and High-Load Rainy-Season Operations Guilin features a subtropical monsoon climate, with an annual average rainfall exceeding 1,800 mm. During the rainy season (April–September), operational frequency is high, imposing stringent demands on sewage treatment vehicles. In this case, the EHY5045TWCE6 demonstrated the following characteristics: Anti-Corrosion Coating: Chengli employs epoxy zinc-rich primer plus polyurethane topcoat; tanks and piping undergo hot-dip galvanization. Customers reported no rust spots after six months of high-humidity exposure—extending service life by approximately 30% compared to competing brands. Sealing Component Durability: Fluoroelastomer O-rings and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) gaskets are used, offering excellent resistance to acid/alkali corrosion and humidity-induced aging. In this case, no leakage was observed after 3,000 consecutive operating hours—exceeding ind