Report Finds FCA Diesels Exceeded Legal Emissions Limits

Ram ED engine II

Amid apparent delays in Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' request for approval to sell several light-duty diesel vehicles for the 2017 model year, new attention is going toward findings from an independent laboratory at West Virginia University. On May 22, the university's Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions found that FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel engine, in certain conditions, emits three to 25 times more than the amount of nitrogen oxide that is legally allowed. That's according to Dan Carder, director of CAFEE.

According to Automotive News, CAFEE did verification testing of the emissions of Volkswagen vehicles during its diesel emissions scandal. The lab more recently did preliminary testing of the turbo-diesel 3.0-liter V-6 engine used in FCA's model-year 2014-16 Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs and Ram 1500 pickup trucks involved in a federal civil complaint.

Carder would not disclose who hired the center for the testing, but did report that when comparing static dyno testing results with real-world, on-the-road results, researchers found significant differences. Whether that suggests an intent to circumvent emissions regulations remains to be seen and likely will take a long time to resolve; CAFEE says it's simply reporting the findings, not alleging any defeat device.

Interestingly, although Automotive News reports that researchers recorded on-the-road emissions levels higher than legal limits allow, FCA officials noted that U.S. standards for emissions are based on laboratory testing, so comparing lab emissions to on-the-road emissions is "invalid."

FCA previously said it would "vigorously defend itself" in the civil lawsuit and that has not changed. In other emissions news, GM is being sued in a class-action lawsuit that accuses the automaker of intentionally trying to evade emissions requirements with the turbo-diesel 6.6-liter Duramax engine used in its heavy-duty pickups. Naturally, the FCA suit could have implications for the GM suit and vice versa.

Cars.com images by Evan Sears

 

Ram Track 1 II

 

Comments

The PUTC website is sick again. Lost a commentary just moments ago. It's been double posting comments for several days. Hmmm

FCA are cheaters!!! Next will be GM and Ford. Can't trust the big 3

Yep, the people who payed for this research are on-named. Kind of like the professional protesters before the last election, who paid them?. Yes, the college did the emissions testing, but not to the EPA specs, but to their own criteria. Apples and Oranges here. Alpar has the complete report.

The PUTC website is sick again. Lost a commentary just moments ago. It's been double posting comments for several days. Hmmm

Cooked goose.
I wonder what this will do to those trucks already on the road. Will they be required to return them to correct the problem to be legal?
I wonder how this will affect the next one in line, Ford, and if they will delay rollout to proactively get more extensive tests done.

Cooked goose.
I wonder what this will do to those trucks already on the road. Will they be required to return them to correct the problem to be legal?
I wonder how this will affect the next one in line, Ford, and if they will delay rollout to proactively get more extensive tests done.

Smells

An FCA statement said the company has requested more information about the WVU testing, but noted that it apparently had been “commissioned by a plaintiffs’ law firm for purposes of litigation.”

Smells

An FCA statement said the company has requested more information about the WVU testing, but noted that it apparently had been “commissioned by a plaintiffs’ law firm for purposes of litigation.

Smells

An FCA statement said the company has requested more information about the WVU testing, but noted that it apparently had been “commissioned by a plaintiffs’ law firm for purposes of litigation.

Smells

An FCA statement said the company has requested more information about the WVU testing, but noted that it apparently had been “commissioned by a plaintiffs’ law firm for purposes of litigation.

Smells

An FCA statement said the company has requested more information about the WVU testing, but noted that it apparently had been “commissioned by a plaintiffs’ law firm for purposes of litigation.

American voters need to let Washington get a bit less involved in everybody's private business.

If individual states and cities want to force the automakers to produce specific models for their areas, let them. Telling somebody who lives in Wyoming that his truck has to include expensive emissions gear so that the guy who lives in Los Angeles can comply with LA's rules is kind of ridiculous.

Let the public buy what it wants. Let local governments determine what's needed most in their areas.

Washington has not produced an annual budget in about 10 years and overspends its own spending targets EVERY year.

"Carder would not disclose who hired the center for the testing"

Sounds like a bunch of made up horse ....... if you ask me. If its true why hide stuff!

if individual states and cities want to force the automakers to produce specific models for their areas, let them. Telling somebody who lives in Wyoming that his truck has to include expensive emissions gear so that the guy who lives in Los Angeles can comply with LA's rules is kind of ridiculous.
/QUOTE

Not really,what if the guy from Wyoming drives to LA and spews his dirty air poluting exhaust there.?
Will they keep him out?

I like old cars for example but every time I see one driving around I can smell its dirty exhaust because in those days they had no emision systems of any kind..
Its disgusting,and air is much cleaner nowadays thanx to the cleaner running new engines..

It's been double posting comments for several days.

It's been double posting comments for several days.

"and air is much cleaner nowadays thanx to the cleaner running new engines" Chevrolet builds a better way to see the USA | Jun 16, 2017

@chevrolet builds a better way...

You sound pretty confident about your facts. So if the clean engines are the reason, why continue the CAFE and EPA enforcement? CAFE is a huge cost burden on consumers and the automakers. For what?

Let the LA's of the world enforce their own pollution laws without impinging on the rights of everbody else.

The testing is nonsense. If you don't follow the precisely prescribed testing procedure, guess what- you get different results. The emissions equipment (SCR aftertreatment) is sized just large enough to comply. So if it's capable of taking 100 parts of NOx and treating it down to 1 part emitted, when the higher engine loads send 150 parts, it will emit 51 parts. That has the result of emitting over 50x as much on paper. All this is of course way oversimplified.

Thanks to the dumbass Obama the standards are at a level they can't reach.

"On May 22, the university's Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions found that FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel engine, in certain conditions, emits three to 25 times more than the amount of nitrogen oxide that is legally allowed."

There's a strong qualifier here: "... in certain conditions,...". If these are conditions specifically coded for in order to protect the engine AND have already been recorded by the EPA, then it's really a non-issue. FCA is not being sued for having "cheat codes" in the same way as VW was, they're being sued for having neglected to report all of the changes to existing programming that permit such releases.

WVA's report comes across in the media as being an almost full-time release of emissions but this is the first time I've seen that qualifier used, which makes a significant difference.

What a load of crap. Finally get useful pickup trucks with nearly 30mpg highway fuel economy with a lot of torque for towing, and some garbage liberal college publishes a so-call study with accusing FCA of cheating, yet they don't disclose their testing methods. I hope they get a letter stating: "the federal government reviewed their funding to your college and decided it was appropriate to reduce our funding by 80% for the 2017-2018 academic year."

What a load of crap. Finally get useful pickup trucks with nearly 30mpg highway fuel economy with a lot of torque for towing, and some garbage liberal college publishes a so-call study with accusing FCA of cheating, yet they don't disclose their testing methods. I hope they get a letter stating: "the federal government reviewed their funding to your college and decided it was appropriate to reduce our funding by 80% for the 2017-2018 academic year."

FCA needs to pull the proverbial head out out from the behind. Admit you failed to disclose software that disables emissions, pay the penalty, fix it, and move on.

The current nonsense of claiming of being an innocent victim will only delay the inevitable.

Gotta love Sergio's latest sound bite that this fiasco isn't hurting revenue. Right!

"Let the LA's of the world enforce their own pollution laws without impinging on the rights of everbody else."

Wow.

How does the desire for clean air impinge upon someone else's rights?

"American voters need to let Washington get a bit less involved in everybody's private business."

Polluting what I breath isn't "private business". Air does not stay within city, state, or federal borders.
You propose that we all wander around wearing Scott air packs? That is the only way to make the air one breaths "private".

And this is why we Americans can't have diesel trucks because we like to govern ourselves to extinction.

@Lou

Take a pill. There might be 10 or 15 places on earth where the air quality is so poor that it demands special public-policy concerns. The majority of the world's population is more at risk from dictatorships and religous fanatics than they might be from some soot or oxides of nitrogen in the air.

For the places that have serious air quality issues they need to address them locally. Alternatives make sense.

for a guy who lives in western Kansas to be required to own a car or truck that's designed with Los Angeles or Beijing in mind is ridiculous.

Scott air packs? C'mon Lou!

Lou is a top down authoritarian big government liberal statist.

@papajim - air does not stay in one place.

@papajim - air does not stay in one place.
Posted by: Lou_BC

@Lou

I could not have said it bettter myself! That's the whole point. Why do I want to spend vast sums to "clean" the air in one place, while the people in another are building the biggest coal fired electric grid on earth?

We have enormous fossil fuel reserves (crude, coal, natural gas) in several parts of the world today. So called "clean" air is a luxury that is well down the list of needs in the Third World.

Clean water is a big deal, however. I'm on board with that movement because abuses to the world's potable water supplies can't be endured for long. Agriculture, industry and human nutrition all demand clean water.

As Mexico City and Beijing prove every day, people can endure vehicle exhaust and stinky air.

@papajim - China has scaled back building coal fired plants and so have virtually every country. The whole "why should we do anything if everyone else isn't" excuse is just that, a lame excuse.

You mention clean water, where does that atmospheric pollution eventually end up?

As Mexico City and Beijing prove every day, people can endure vehicle exhaust and stinky air.

"As Mexico City and Beijing prove every day, people can endure vehicle exhaust and stinky air."

I take it that you do not work in health care.

I take it that you do not work in health care. Posted by: Lou_BC

@Lou

You've resorted to a cheap rhetorical device. Do YOU work in health care? Does your lack of status as a climate expert mean your opinion about the politics of climate change isn't valid?

I shared an observation, one that many very qualified people have shared: The world's challenges in the area of clean WATER are much more immediate than the concerns over the theory that human behavior is altering the world's climate in significant ways.

Thanks to the dumbass Obama the standards are at a level they can't reach.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us