GM Inside News Forum banner

US says Fiat Chrysler used software to cheat emissions tests

5K views 30 replies 16 participants last post by  Chassis Guy 
#1 ·
US says Fiat Chrysler used software to cheat emissions tests
http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/05/24/us-says-fiat-chrysler-used-software-to-cheat-emissions-tests.html

Published May 24, 2017
Associated Press

The U.S. government is suing Fiat Chrysler, alleging that some of its diesel pickup trucks and Jeep SUVs cheat on emissions tests.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday by the Justice Department marks the second time the government has gone after an automaker alleging use of software on diesel engines that allows them to emit more pollution on the road than during Environmental Protection Agency lab testing.

Last year, the government accused Volkswagen of cheating on tests, and the company ended up pleading guilty to criminal charges in a scandal that cost VW more than $20 billion in the U.S. alone.

In the latest case, the government alleges that Fiat Chrysler, or FCA, put eight "software-based features" on diesel engines in nearly 104,000 Ram pickups and Jeep Grand Cherokees from the 2014 to 2016 model years. The software allowed the vehicles to emit fewer pollutants during lab tests by Environmental Protection Agency than during normal driving conditions.

The 3-liter FCA diesels emit nitrogen oxide at a much higher rate than allowed under federal laws when on the road, the EPA said in a statement. The company failed to disclose the software during the process to become certified so the vehicles can be sold, according to the EPA. The agency called the software a "defeat device" that changes the way the vehicles perform on treadmill tests in a laboratory.

Continues at link
 
See less See more
#14 · (Edited)
This is a Tricky Case. -
In more ways than one.

Obviously a completely different situation even if there is some lay person / spin doc / optical overlap.

If you read thru the Court Docs.... a fair statement is there is also several Fishing Expeditions included - including a Big One.

And a ridiculously weak and vague assertion concerning a possible Defeat Device.

No question though, they did have some undeclared AECDs - worth about 8 - 80 M $ in Fines etc - tops.

And yeah given FCA has a Software fix that will work - shame on them for not doing that in the first place.

Obviously, 'somebody' / somebodies do not want a quick and sensible resolution which is exactly what the EPA and this recent Action is preventing.

Notice also the complete lack of any type of quantification or even 'a' relevant number never mind all of them .... outside of the '8' AECDs mentioned.

Go look at FCA NV stock performance ( and Ferrari who is outperforming Tesla ) since offered in the current form ( or earlier ) versus some 'others'..... and of course the Electrification historical record to see who might want it that way.

Or if you prefer, since Mulally and then Fields took the reins at Ford and Toyota's developing weaknesses became apparent.....

One of the problems this nicely illustrates is that the relevant Legal / Administrative Code is far far too weak and vague - really has not kept up either; which also allows application of it to be far too easily politicized and corrupted.

Selective Enforcement and Selective this and that including Selective Spiritual 'assessment' is often worse than none at all.

The Gassers are being afforded a great deal of worse than useless 'clever' but highly misleading advantage versus Diesel.


This is why we have no usable nor truly comprehensive USA RWE data for Gassers - no siree Bob.

And really no usable EMR Pollution Data / Health effect assessment for the Electrics -
 
#15 ·
AGAIN, I say this is more about over-regulation rather than "evil car makers!"

#2 Rule for bureaucrats: Make a rule impossible to meet. Discover cheaters whose very survival depends on meeting the rule. File suit with taxpayer dollars to deal with violations of impossible rule you instituted with your tax dollars.

It's a WIN-WIN-LOSE. What a country!
 
  • Like
Reactions: redriderjf87
#16 · (Edited)
Oh dearie me - just look at a minuscule amount of what EPA has ( deliberately and repeatably ) failed at -

"Breath deep, the gathering Gloom.....".

Pathetic.



Swiss team concludes that particulate filters should be mandatory for GDI engines
24 May 2017

Based on a three-year study of toxic and environmentally relevant pollutants from gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines, Swiss researchers have concluded that some GDI engines emit just as many soot particles as unfiltered diesel cars did in the past. Further, the GDI particles carry numerous carcinogenic substances. Based on this current data, they recommend that particulate filters be mandatory for GDI engines.

In the spring 2014, the GasOMeP project (Gasoline Vehicle Emission Control for Organic, Metallic and Particulate Non-Legislative Pollutants) got underway. The Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), Bern University of Applied Sciences, the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, several industrial partners and Empa were all involved. The project was funded by the ETH Domain’s Competence Center for Energy and Mobility (CCEM) and coordinated by Empa chemist Norbert ****, who has made a name for himself in the last 25 years by analyzing diesel emissions and studying filter systems.

Empa researchers Norbert **** and Maria Munoz discovered large quantities of benzo(a)pyrene (red bar)—a combustion product responsible for cutting short the lives of cigarette smokers—in the exhaust gas emitted by GDI engines. Dibenzo(ah)anthracene (pink) is also carcinogenic. The carcinogenic potential in one cubic meter of exhaust gas from gasoline direct injectors is up to 1,700 times higher than the EU limit for clean air. By contrast, diesel cars with particle filters exceeded the limit only 45-fold.


Figure 4 genotoxic PAHs pattern WLTC cold v3-png






The results of the GasOMeP project were presented during a conference held at the Empa Academy in late March.

For the study, the team selected seven direct-injection gasoline cars, including a Mitsubishi Carisma (2001 model, exhaust emission standard Euro 3). The other vehicles were all built between 2010 (VW Golf, Euro 4) and 2016 (Citroën C4, Euro 6b). By way of comparison, a current Peugeot 4008 (2013, Euro 5b) with a diesel engine and a particle filter was also included. All the vehicles were tested based on the WLTP cycle (Worldwide Light-Duty Vehicles Test Pro-cedure), which will be mandatory for newly licensed models as of September 2017.

The results were sobering: every tested gasoline car emitted ten to 100 times more fine soot particles than the diesel Peugeot. Under the microscope, the particles from the gasoline engines were similar in size to the soot particles that had given diesel a bad name: primary particles measuring ten to 20 nanometers in size, which congregate into particle agglomerates measuring 80 to 100 nanometers before leaving the exhaust.

Once inhaled, these particles remain in the body forever.
—Norbert ****

The evidence shows that they can penetrate the membrane of human alveoli in the lungs and thus get into the bloodstream. However, the particles are not the only problem. **** notes that liquid or solid chemical toxins from the combustion process, including polycyclic aromatic compounds, accumulate on the surface of the particles, which can then smuggle these substances into the bloodstream like a Trojan horse.

Maria Munoz, a colleague of ****’s from Empa’s Advanced Analytical Technologies lab, took a closer look at the exhaust emissions from the vehicles tested in the GasOMeP project and discovered the combustion product benzo(a)pyrene, a known carcinogenic substance also found in cigarette smoke.

The World Health Organization (WHO) considers even the tiniest dose of benzo(a)pyrene harmful. The EU settled on an air limit of one nanogram per cubic meter. Levels in exhaust emissions were found to be as much as 1,700 times above this limit. Or to put it another way, one cubic meter of exhaust gas transforms up to 1,700 cubic meters of clean air into a mixture deemed carcinogenic according to the EU standard.


Once again, the diesel vehicle with particle filter fared much better: in the test, the Peugeot emitted only 45 nanograms of carcinogenic substances—6 times less than the best one of the analyzed gasoline cars.
Centerfold-Abgas-EN-web




© 2004-2016 Green Car Congress


http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05/20170524-gdi.html

Also from the above -

https://www.empa.ch/web/s604/soot-particles-from-gdi

https://www.empa.ch/web/s502/gasoline-emissions

From the Comments section - and also worth a ( bitter laugh ) - and bringing VW another good Leader Board position in addition to their Euro 6 Diesel EM Performance....

Davemart

VW has already started fitting particulate filters to their gasoline engine cars (2017).

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/...t-particulate-filters-all-petrol-engines-2017

Laszlo

Posted by: laszlo | May 24, 2017 at 07:31 AM

Maybe the renewed assault on Diesel is somehow tied to the Dam about to break on Gassers - or so one can hope.
 
#18 ·
Oh dearie me - just look at a minuscule amount of what EPA has ( deliberately and repeatably ) failed at -
Smaller PM are issues with GDI. EPA will not measure it. Why? I don't know but currently there is IMO an anti-diesel movement there. Once when they put diesel to that they will go face to face with GDI. That's just their way to push for EV.

In the meanwhile European soft regulations will be much more strict than EPA's.
Starting with Euro 6c. New approvals from 9/2017 and for all from 9/2018. NEDC will be replaced with more severe WLTP. Official fuel economy numbers will be worse. Also they are starting to measure finer/smaller PM. That will mean implementation of GPF (gasoline particulate filter) on GDI engines or at least on most of them.
Then Euro 6d in two phases. New approvals from 9/2018 and for all from 9/2019. That's attack on NOx. Not a American way of doing things with subjective or grey area AECD. This will be with RDE (real driving emissions). A test equipment which weighs 350-500 kg will be at the back of the car connected to tailpipe during driving. At the first conformity factor will be x2.1 and latter x1.5.
 
#25 ·
Bribing the proper people works wonders. Just a question, I know nobody in Worshington could ever be bribed!
 
#26 · (Edited)
Just with a superficial search recently, there are at least fifteen to thirty good to great news Diesel EM stories out there - but of course, they are not making the spin cycle for obvious reasons.

One I 'like' - because it already has been out there in the RW for a while is this one -

http://media.daimler.com/marsMediaS...ercedes-Benz-diesel-engine.xhtml?oid=17471543

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...hensechszylinder-v8-e-verdichter-1492541.html

https://www.adac.de/infotestrat/tests/auto-test/detail.aspx?IDTest=5492

http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/ratgeber/auto/--10369358

And of course, CCG who once again ..... leads the way as far as something in English.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05/20170522-om654.html



Better all around in everyway - especially RW EM, with a less expensive, far simpler After treat System.....


So..... apparently......... future proofed against not only the soon arriving RWE measurements plus the related tougher lab testing ( by a huge amount ) but also ....... the best guess as to what comes after - whew.


And there is much more than can be done with this one....... even now and or a little later.

We also now have some real good news on what a variety of very sensible and straightforwardly desirable Diesel Fuel mods could bring and yes, there could be / would be a multiplier effect.

Especially perhaps in many ways ..... for the USA Diesels in particular.


But really......


-----


Anyway, I'm just cynical enough about all the foot draggin' here by EPA DOJ etc to suggest - this may also be about aiding the idea - that Ford busts 30 MPG Highway before Ram does it.

No good reason here why the 2017s are not allowed to sell, either.

Name the last time a Gasser that had some serious EM questions such as here or even real issues..... prevented current product if in compliance from being Certified - was prevented like this.

Or even other Diesels, other fuels, and or battery - never mind.

--

GM's Diesel moves of late have a long term potential to be very well timed and at least somewhat clever - like a Fox.
 
#29 ·
Kinda' funny that last about the smell.

About two years ago..... ran into three different Import Gassers with various interesting anomalies.

Commom Core seemed to be certain types of Exhaust System 'leakages' plus suspected EGR / Tank Pollution / Super sluggish but with no light O2 sensor performance + Other

All three smelled like an older Diesel ( no smoke , oil consumption etc etc )...... which I would have appreciated except I knew it was from Gasoline.....


____

Got a couple of new Blonde in '55/ '56 T- Birds to find as well.

Three times in the last year and half or so - always at the same intersection in the same lane etc etc I end up behind some Dakota Diesel with a nicely placed but very discreet BlueTec identifier on the lower left edge of the Tailgate.

Related - keep bumping into every now and then a one Gen Back Suburban Diesel - who seems to not like it much if you start following too much or try to wave him down.


And then one I wonder about in more than one way......

One of the 2.0 L VAG diesels I got some Skin in the Game with was a Major Supplier Lease Return...... early on time, but low on miles outta' Ann Arbor.
 
#31 ·
They're still under investigation,too. That's why I mentioned Bosch. All of them use Bosch EM systems for their diesels. Common thread? Yes. Hello, NHTSA? not so fast...

Whatever.

If government employees had to work at a real company in a real job, this would been addressed long ago.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top