Loading...
Remove Text Formatting

Likes Likes:  3
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Diesel-gate part deux.

  1. #1
    Admin ZR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Toronto, On
    Posts
    36,745

    Diesel-gate part deux.

    Now it's Dodge / Cummings.

    Owners of Dodge Ram trucks are now claiming that Fiat Chrysler installed so-called “defeat device” technology — though different from what was found in Volkswagen’s ongoing “Dieselgate” scandal — that was allegedly designed to do a bad job of restricting emissions.
    The lawsuit [PDF], filed Monday in a federal court in Detroit, is the first brought against a U.S.-based manufacturer. It accuses Fiat Chrysler of conspiring with engine manufacturer Cummins in knowingly deceiving consumers and regulators about the amount of emissions released by certain Dodge Ram trucks.
    According to the lawsuit, more than 500,000 model year 2007 to 2012 diesel-engine Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 trucks contain devices that allow the vehicles to emit nitrogen oxide at up to 14 times more than that allowed under federal law.
    Despite this, the suit claims that FCA and Cummins worked together to market and sell the trucks under the false pretense that they were “super clean” or “cleaner than gas vehicles,” or environmentally friendly.
    “Cummins Inc. and Chrysler saw a golden business opportunity, and worked together to build a truck that, at least on paper,” met stringent standards set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001.
    The two companies allegedly created a plan to “leapfrog” the industry and produce a vehicle that met standards three years before they were set to take effect in 2010.
    The result was a truck touted as the “strongest, cleanest, quietest best-in-class” turbo diesel engine that was “super clean” and used exclusively in the Dodge 2500 and 2500 Heavy Duty trucks.
    The Ram owners — represented by the law firm of Hagens Berman — claim that in order to produce a diesel engine with “desirable torque and power characteristics, good fuel economy, and emissions levels low enough to meet the stringent standards,” the companies developed a flawed product with limited capacity to trap or minimize excess emissions.
    Typically, the primary emission control after-treatment technologies in the vehicle included a diesel particulate filter (DPF) and a NOx adsorber catalyst system to capture and reduce NOx into less harmful substances, such as nitrogen and oxygen.
    However, the lawsuit claims that the catalysts in the Dodge trucks are not durable and do not meet emission standards.
    As a result, testing by Hagens Berman found that the trucks emit an average of 702mg of NOx/mile in stop-and-go traffic, significantly more than the 200 mg/mile allowed under federal law.
    Additionally, under highway driving, tests found the trucks emitted 756mg/mile, a violation of the 400mg/mile allowed under California law.
    The suit further alleges that creating a device that prevented NOx from being broken down, which means the vehicles require more gas and deteriorate more quickly.
    Specifically, the catalytic converter wears out prematurely, resulting in the vehicle burning fuel at a higher rate. As a result, owners pay more for fuel and often must replace the converter after the warranty has expired at a cost of approximately $3,000 to $5,000.
    The plaintiffs accuses FCA and Cummins of fraudulent concealment, false advertising, and violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
    Additionally, the companies are accused of intentionally misleading the public, concealing emissions levels, illegally selling noncompliant polluting vehicles, knowingly profiting from the dirty diesels and using fraudulently gained emissions credits from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use on further production of high-polluting vehicles

  2. #2
    Off my meds again
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cancuckistan
    Posts
    1,771
    People who buy "clean diesels" for anything but torque and fuel economy deserve to be duped.

  3. #3
    Member bluetoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by StAnger View Post
    People who buy "clean diesels" for anything but torque and fuel economy deserve to be duped.
    I think the people who say that they bought their diesel to save a tree are liars. I'll tell them that to their face too. lol I think if they start really digging they will find that all the car companies have some sort of emission "cheating" device on all cars and trucks gas or diesel. It's gotta be next to impossible to meet the retarded EPA emission and fuel economy standards.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Stephen06GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Bolton
    Posts
    11,005
    Oh boy, this is not good. More fuel for governments to tighten emissions regulations , then they will target aftermarket tuners , then...

  5. #5
    nom nom nom RedSN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Markham
    Posts
    11,102
    The suit further alleges that creating a device that prevented NOx from being broken down, which means the vehicles require more gas and deteriorate more quickly.
    Well there's your problem
    -Don____________

  6. #6
    Member Laffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Windsor, ON
    Posts
    4,566
    I'm confused, is similar diesel gate where there was defeat device in place that only limits emission under certain condition, or are they alleging that the emission equipment as installed was of poor design to begin with and costly to maintain and repair?
    Quote Originally Posted by ludacris View Post
    I'm Supercharged with the HideAway License Plate

  7. #7
    Posting and liking.... Ponyryd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Windsor area
    Posts
    2,771
    What kind of stupid law firm took this case? They just saw FCA as an easy target and expect a quick cash settlement would be my guess.
    I've seen issues with the components they claim are failing, but only on trucks that idle all day long, or are used as grocery getters. People don't realize that a Diesel engine needs to be worked to get it hot enough to function properly, same goes for the emissions systems, and this applies to any Diesel engine/emssions system. Actually I've seen many more failures from Ford trucks, but under the same circumstances, trucks that sit and idle for long periods of time.

  8. #8
    tulowd
    Guest
    I believe my first post on the VW diesel scandal suggested that they were not the only ones. Liberals now have something else to freak out about besides the media and polling fails.
    As far as the temps go, I think that is wrong. Emissions standards are pretty clear and doubtful they will require you to tow a trailer up a mountain in order to be warmed up enough. Some semblance of "normal operating conditions" I would suspect.

  9. #9
    Off my meds again
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cancuckistan
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetoy View Post
    I think the people who say that they bought their diesel to save a tree are liars. I'll tell them that to their face too. lol I think if they start really digging they will find that all the car companies have some sort of emission "cheating" device on all cars and trucks gas or diesel. It's gotta be next to impossible to meet the retarded EPA emission and fuel economy standards.
    If I ever bought one of the "scandal" VWs, I'd have a sticker made up that says. TDI: Because saving $$$ > saving trees

  10. #10
    Admin ZR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Toronto, On
    Posts
    36,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffs View Post
    I'm confused, is similar diesel gate where there was defeat device in place that only limits emission under certain condition, or are they alleging that the emission equipment as installed was of poor design to begin with and costly to maintain and repair?
    I've also read it several times and don't have a 100% grasp on how they feel if the trucks are emitting high emissions it's actionable by private owners vs US EPA folks going after them. I do get the part where they claim it's a result of catalytic converters failing prematurely.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

SiteUptime Web Site Monitoring Service