Ram 1500 Part of EPA's FCA Diesel Emissions Violation Allegations

Ram ED engine II

The EPA has issued a "notice of violation" against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, alleging that its turbocharged 3.0-liter V-6 EcoDiesel engine used in 2014-16 Ram 1500 pickup trucks and Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs may have auxiliary software that can alter the emissions in a way not fully disclosed by the automaker. And by failing to disclose this software and selling the vehicle in the U.S., FCA may have violated Clean Air Act. FCA is the parent company of Ram, Jeep and several other brands.

Not long ago, a class-action lawsuit was brought against FCA and Cummins Inc., accusing of them of similar charges. That suit targets Ram heavy-duty pickups only. Cummins denied the allegations and even threatened to countersue.

We've driven quite a few versions of the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel, most recently in our Texas Truck Showdown 2016. During that Challenge, the EcoDiesel actually got better fuel economy when driving around Houston near its maximum payload.

To read the full story at Cars.com, click here.

Cars.com image by Evan Sears

 

Ram Track 1 II

 

 

Comments

Well, you enjoy your apple cheaply made in china. Don't you ? You wouldn't buy it for $3000 made in USA. Hypocrite


Then we would have air like this

https://youtu.be/S27ycsxUtRM


Posted by: Chevrolet builds a better way to see the USA | Jan 13, 2017 5:33:55 PM

If people like it or not, having a clean air act is a good thing. Pollutants have been reduced and it paves the way for new inventions. If a company like FCA don't have the technology to build a clean diesel they should not till they can get it. They purposely programmed fraud in their programming based on the EPA testing results. I personally like breathing clean air.

Whoa,whoa, whoa, hold on a second.

The EPA has yet to explicitly accuse Fiat Chrysler of installing a defeat device that actually senses when the car is on the emissions rolls being tested, and the company’s CEO Sergio Marchionne addressed this in a teleconference earlier today, saying:

There is nothing in the current calibration of the Ram 1500 or the Grand Cherokee diesel that distinguishes between a test cycle and normal driving conditions. This is a huge difference because there has never been an intention on part of FCA to create conditions that are designed to defeat the testing process. That is absolutely nonsense. 

According to the EPA, Fiat Chrysler allegedly failed to disclose the following eight AECDs, which tamper with exhaust gas recirculation, EGR, and selective catalytic reduction, SCR, under certain vehicle conditions:

Example 1: The first example in the EPA’s Notification of Violation claims that AECD #3 above, along with AECDs #7 or 8, increases vehicle emissions by disabling EGR without dialing up the SCR to compensate. The EPA says this doesn’t appear to be done in order to protect the vehicle, and that it yields reduced emissions control system effectiveness during “conditions reasonably expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation or use.”

Example 2: The second example essentially says that AECD 5 and 6, EGR reduction due to engine temperature and SCR shutoff for catalyst warmup, yield high NOx emissions “at temperatures outside of those found in the Federal emissions test procedure,” but not needed to protect the vehicle.

Example 3: The third example the EPA gives is how AECD #4, when combined with AECD #8, increase NOx under “reasonable” conditions, and that AECD #1, 2 and 5 can also increase the frequency of the NOx-spewing AECD #4.

Example 4: The final example given talks about how AECD #7 and 8 increase NOx “particularly in variable grand and high load conditions.”

What does all of that mean? It means these “devices” cause increased engine emissions in certain conditions that the EPA deemed reasonable, and that may or may not have been encompassed by the EPA’s test procedures.

If you look at example number two above, you see that the EPA is unhappy about the affected Jeep and Ram models producing too much NOx at “temperatures outside of those found in the Federal emissions test procedure.”

So that prompts the question: isn’t Fiat Chrysler only responsible for meeting emissions requirements at the temperatures specified by the EPA?

In other words, if the EPA’s tests go from 20 Fahrenheit to 95 Fahrenheit, should engineers have to design the emissions system to work well at -10F or 0F, temperatures where engineers might want to make changes to the combustion strategy for faster warmup (for example).

Is it not the job of the EPA’s test cycles to provide bookends for automotive design? If the EPA is unhappy with Fiat Chrysler’s emissions systems only performing well in conditions bounded by federal test procedures, is it the EPA’s job to change the spec?

If you read the definition of Defeat Device, it says any device that increases emissions in “conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use.” This makes it seem like the Federal Test Procedures are really only a guideline, and that engineers shouldn’t design their cars solely to meet them.

If that’s the case, should the EPA provide bounds for what is considered a “reasonable” use case? After all, there are an infinite number of temperatures, grades, and drive cycle that engineers could optimize their systems for.

Well EPA think, that engines run just in conditions they set for testing and FCA met those conditions, but engine runs in many different conditions, like very cold weather...and engine needs to protect themselves and maybe EPA needs to get out of the office and check the real world to see what's out there to set a new conditions for every one, not just for FCA.
No worries, they are gone in no time and will loose their limousines they drive to the work every day.

Dude, you just hosed yourself in your own quote. Several of those observed conditions started up with no cause to. Not to protect the engine, protect the vehicle, etc. it is a clear violation in your own quote. You should have read it more thoroughly. Eh

A simple and clear cut case of fraud:

The Clean Air Act requires vehicle manufacturers to demonstrate to EPA through a certification process that their products meet applicable federal emission standards to control air pollution. As part of the certification process, automakers are required to disclose and explain any software, known as auxiliary emission control devices, that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution. FCA did not disclose the existence of certain auxiliary emission control devices to EPA in its applications for certificates of conformity for model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks, despite being aware that such a disclosure was mandatory. By failing to disclose this software and then selling vehicles that contained it, FCA violated important provisions of the Clean Air Act.

Mike, do you work for EPA ?

Putting extraordinarily increasing regulations on vehicles that are already clean only hurts us. Increasing prices far beyond value. The current system we use works for us But too good would be an understatement. The direction of manufacturers is being guided by govt regulations. That's normal but in this case the ideologically idiotic are he'll bent on wrenching my wallet for personal gain. I say make China clean up the worry about heroine needles being tossed on side of roads. I think that's a bigger problem.

Mike, do you work for EPA ?
Posted by: RAM | Jan 13, 2017 8:04:56 PM

Probably, he probably was the in charge of the EPA crew that released 3 million gallons of contaminated water into Animas River in Colorado making water toxic in 3 states. After the EPA hire him to sniff diesel exhaust, to see how retarded it would make him.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/10/431223703/epa-says-it-released-3-million-gallons-of-contaminated-water-into-river

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/11/13/epa-charged-with-lethal-experiments-on-hundreds-of-unsuspecting-subjects/#521617e57513

Damn it sure did make him dumb.

So all dodge diesels should be removed from the roads due to cheating the rules? Or should we allow them to disappear thru attrition?

They'll probably return to scrap yards before any litigation is final anyway. Could take 3 to 5 years.

You people are short-sighted, it's not even funny anymore. Let FCA disappear, all drive a ford and pay $150,000 for a 2L triple akaboost truck which will last until the lease is up and let's all pretend, it's clean. People likes to be screwed over and I don't feel sorry for you anymore. I feel comfortable in my position and if you wanna go to hell, just because it must be by your therms, let's be it. I will survive and I am ready to see you cry and will enjoy that, because you asked for that.

I understand the need for these engines.
I'm just really glad I don't need one for my job!

My client with a 4 yr old 3500 Ram used for ranch/hunting duty got hit with $6,300 in engine repairs. He was looking for a pre-80's diesel last time I saw him.

After reading the EPA report i find FCA disgusting. To cheat or skirt the rules for their benefit and in the end screw the customer. Wait till they need to get their truck smog tested to renew their plates and get denied because FCA installed a cheat program. FCA should pay dearly for their disgusting actions.

Michel, did FCA screw you over ?

EPA doesn't really care about your health people, just about the easy money to grab to justify their existence.
Thanks God , it's going to be dismantled soon.

New Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) petrol engines for cars emit more cancer-causing particles than modern diesel engines, a new study by independent vehicle researchers TÜV Nord revealed today. While GDI engines make petrol cars more fuel-efficient and emit less CO2, the findings show that these new petrol engines typically release around 1,000 times more harmful particles than traditional petrol engines and 10 times more than new diesels.

As the ‘EU Year of Air’ draws to a close, air pollution in Europe is estimated to contribute to 406,000 deaths annually and cause over 100 million lost days of work – costing the EU economy €330-940 billion per year.[1] Small particles in the air pose the greatest risk to health, penetrating deep into the lungs and being absorbed into the blood. This causes a range of illnesses, including cancer, and even deaths.

Where the hell is EPA asking ford to install particle filters on their ecoboost engines ? Eh. Who approved ecoboost for the public use ? No one asks, no one protests, no one sue . Where the hell is California on this issue ? Uneducated Hypocrites.

Quite an interesting read. You would think since FCA received a government bailout they would follow the rules instead of cheating and lying. I cannot believe FCA thought they could get away with their fraud. Really really sad. Talk about a huge step backwards for diesel in light duty trucks.

FCA didn't received a government bailout.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/21061251/?client=safari

They sure did ram and they decided to screw the gift horse with their actions. Despicable!

They sure didn't . It was Chrysler bro.

Geee I wonder what the C stands for in FCA. Get over it, they got caught trying to pull a fast on in the EPA. FCA is a complete joke.

Well, your article says Chrysler and not FCA, so I would stick with that, because technically FCA didn't receive a government bailout.
It was a Chrysler, a completely different company than FCA by legal terms.

Well, your article says Chrysler and not FCA, so I would stick with that, because technically FCA didn't receive a government bailout.
It was a Chrysler, a completely different company than FCA by legal terms.

Oh yea, FCA is in trouble

FCA has been turned down once by GM, Ford, Toyota, google and who knows who else. Sergio is trying to off that company because he knows some serious fraud has occurred and is trying to get away and fast

This site won't let me post a link. Google GM authority and GM merger with FCA. GM flat out said no again. Haha

At FCA, the software does not detect testing; the violations listed by the EPA prevent engine damage and wear, and would probably have been no issue at all, if they had been disclosed in advance (except one, which the EPA claims was designed to cut diesel emissions fluid use).

The law clearly calls for full disclosure of any programs or devices that change the working of emissions systems, for any reason. The EPA did not say the eight issues they discovered were “defeat devices,” softening the blow.

The problem is likely the same as with the “recall scandal” — “sloppiness” within a company that lost most of its engineers, hired thousands of new ones, and keeps working people long hours.

Sergio Marchionne pointed out that, unlike Volkswagen, “There has never been an intention on part of FCA to create conditions that are designed to defeat the testing process. That is absolutely nonsense. Anyone that tries to draw the comparison between us and VW is smoking illegal material. … We have done – in our view – nothing that is illegal. ”


I don't see any big problem for FCA in here. It might cost them some money , but maybe nothing at all.

Let's wait and see. i am happy to hear from you, admitting, that FCA didn't receive a government bailout.


Ram, you smoking that illegal substance. How do you think fiat acquired Chrysler? The bail out money went to FCA because that was the rules of the bailout.

John, you are wrong. Fiat paid for Chrysler. Bailout money went to Chrysler.
I sure don't enjoy driving behind the exoboost priducing 1000 times more harmful particles than my HEMI. I always switch to cabin recirculation, when I see a ford of me.
Very nasty stuff, but because you don't see it, you think it's all right. They should ban them completely.

@RAM, good thing Ford is using both DI and MPI in their engines to reduce those emissions eh. It's a shame that fiat decided to screw all the EPA regulations everyone else follows.

Mike, yes, they started this year, not before, because they know, what particles did to you and all of us already. EPA knows for 8 years, but didn't ask ford to implement filters yet and get ford a slack , they will need to by 2020 even with MPI. Its mandatory in Europe, but EPA doesn't care about US citizens at all.
Diesels are 10 times cleaner than ford DI, but obama screwed up your health big time.
What do you think you were breathing since the first ecoboost ?
Very bad for lungs and heart. Particles are so small, they gets to your body through the skin and you can't get rid of it any way.
Ford was killing us slowly since the first ecoboost and EPA didn't do anything. Even di Caprio sits back, because he is dumb.
My HEMI is 10 times cleaner and safer , than ecoboost.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5129264/

Ram, not sure why you are so worried about direct injection. Just about every auto manufacture uses direct injection around the world. You trying to bring up Ford here is grasping for straws. And a sad attempt at that. Doesn't fiat us direct injection?

ram you need to show data that your engine is cleaner than any other engine out there. You provided a link for DI and you try to bring Ford in this for some reason. But is not Ford and Nissan using both DI and MPI? Looks like you are trying to slide away focus on the FCA scandal with them deliberately not giving the EPA proper documentation for their illegal diesel calibrations.

It may be surprising to learn that the modern gasoline direct-injection (GDI) engines in today’s passenger cars can emit more hazardous fine particulate matter than a port fuel-injected engine (PFI), or even the latest heavy-duty diesels equipped with a particulate filter. And the potential impact to public health from these particulates is driving new developments in fuel delivery, controls, and combustion strategies.

Cars with downsized, turbocharged GDI engines such as Ford’s popular EcoBoost families have become automakers’ most effective tool in meeting stricter government fuel economy standards. BMW, Daimler and Kia are already using GDI technology in most of their production vehicles while Robert Bosch sees GDI as an ideal basis for future hybrids, 48-volt, strong or plug-in. So it’s no wonder that GDI engines are to be the fastest-growing market segment in propulsion during the coming decade, with some 40 million units in use by 2025, according to the research firm IHS.

Such growth means that GDI particulate emissions, though low compared to those of an unfiltered diesel, is now an emerging issue that has researchers examining various approaches to mitigating the problem including new combustion design and engineering concepts, alternate fuels and emissions controls.

Unhealthy soot

Confirmation of the hazard comes via a recent study conducted by researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL) Fuels, Engines and Emissions Research Center who found that sample GDI engines emit five to 10 times more particulate matter than their PFI counterparts.

“The tradeoff for fuel economy is higher particulate matter emissions,” said ORNL senior R&D team leader John Storey. “The particulate size ranges from 5 to 5000 nm in diameter and they can include very heavy, low volatility hydrocarbons and tars.”

These carbon-based agglomerates can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, contributing to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and even premature death especially among the vulnerable: children, the elderly and those with respiratory conditions.

The particles that are released by GDI engines are smaller and more varied in size than diesel particles, Storey noted. And since these ultrafine particles (UFPs) are just on the heavy end of smoke size-wise, they can penetrate deeper into lungs, thus posing greater health risks. Public health authorities are growing concerned about UFP risks in urban areas and near busy highways and major roads.

The California ARB LEV-3 limits and U.S. EPA Tier 3 standard for particulate mass (PM) emissions start this year, said Cary Henry, principal engineer for aftertreatment technology at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio. For cars, that means PMs must go from releasing less than 10 mg/mi to 3 mg/mi during a 2017-to-2021 phase-in period, and then down to 1 mg/mi beginning in 2025—a 90% reduction. Engine emissions tend to change with internal wear, so the goal is to maintain these levels over a vehicle’s 150,000-mi (93,200-km) lifetime.

In Europe, a 5 mg/km (3.1 mg/mi) PM emission limit for GDI engines took effect in 2009 with the Euro 5 standard. The first restrictions for particulate number (PN) emissions—considered more difficult to achieve than PM targets—come into effect this year with Euro 6, Henry explained. The latter initially limits PN totals to 6 × 1012 number/km, and then in late 2017 falls an order of magnitude to 6 × 1011 number/km. In the U.S., adopting PN standards is under debate.

Yeah, in USA EPA doesn't care about your health at all.

http://articles.sae.org/13624/

It may be surprising to learn that the modern gasoline direct-injection (GDI) engines in today’s passenger cars can emit more hazardous fine particulate matter than a port fuel-injected engine (PFI), or even the latest heavy-duty diesels equipped with a particulate filter. And the potential impact to public health from these particulates is driving new developments in fuel delivery, controls, and combustion strategies.

Cars with downsized, turbocharged GDI engines such as Ford’s popular EcoBoost families have become automakers’ most effective tool in meeting stricter government fuel economy standards. BMW, Daimler and Kia are already using GDI technology in most of their production vehicles while Robert Bosch sees GDI as an ideal basis for future hybrids, 48-volt, strong or plug-in. So it’s no wonder that GDI engines are to be the fastest-growing market segment in propulsion during the coming decade, with some 40 million units in use by 2025, according to the research firm IHS.

Such growth means that GDI particulate emissions, though low compared to those of an unfiltered diesel, is now an emerging issue that has researchers examining various approaches to mitigating the problem including new combustion design and engineering concepts, alternate fuels and emissions controls.

Unhealthy soot

Confirmation of the hazard comes via a recent study conducted by researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL) Fuels, Engines and Emissions Research Center who found that sample GDI engines emit five to 10 times more particulate matter than their PFI counterparts.

“The tradeoff for fuel economy is higher particulate matter emissions,” said ORNL senior R&D team leader John Storey. “The particulate size ranges from 5 to 5000 nm in diameter and they can include very heavy, low volatility hydrocarbons and tars.”

These carbon-based agglomerates can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, contributing to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and even premature death especially among the vulnerable: children, the elderly and those with respiratory conditions.

The particles that are released by GDI engines are smaller and more varied in size than diesel particles, Storey noted. And since these ultrafine particles (UFPs) are just on the heavy end of smoke size-wise, they can penetrate deeper into lungs, thus posing greater health risks. Public health authorities are growing concerned about UFP risks in urban areas and near busy highways and major roads.

The California ARB LEV-3 limits and U.S. EPA Tier 3 standard for particulate mass (PM) emissions start this year, said Cary Henry, principal engineer for aftertreatment technology at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio. For cars, that means PMs must go from releasing less than 10 mg/mi to 3 mg/mi during a 2017-to-2021 phase-in period, and then down to 1 mg/mi beginning in 2025—a 90% reduction. Engine emissions tend to change with internal wear, so the goal is to maintain these levels over a vehicle’s 150,000-mi (93,200-km) lifetime.

In Europe, a 5 mg/km (3.1 mg/mi) PM emission limit for GDI engines took effect in 2009 with the Euro 5 standard. The first restrictions for particulate number (PN) emissions—considered more difficult to achieve than PM targets—come into effect this year with Euro 6, Henry explained. The latter initially limits PN totals to 6 × 1012 number/km, and then in late 2017 falls an order of magnitude to 6 × 1011 number/km. In the U.S., adopting PN standards is under debate.

Yeah, in USA EPA doesn't care about your health at all.

http://articles.sae.org/13624/

Muscle car guy, you are correct that ram is trying to side tract attention to Ford for some reason. He fails to realize everyone uses DI. What he fails to admit is FCA broke the rules by hiding emissions cheating calibrations. Ford or anyone else has not hid their calibrations on DI gas engines. FCA is however trying to sell the company to GM through a forced merger again with GM. They are hoping the new administration will bail them out. He has better things to do than worry about a hack car company. That little ram is sure playing defense here. He must be a damage control employee for FCA.

@Muscle car guy
you want a data ? Ask Mike, he works for EPA. They have data since 2009, but they don't care, because people don't see a smoke, they think it's all right to drive a ford with GDI and without MPI and particle filter around.
You can google it alternatively. There is tons of research done for a years already about this issue. Ford got a time from EPA and obama to adjust, even they knew , they are harming public health.
That's the real crime in here, not just not to disclose some stupid engine software, which meets EPA testing anyway.
EPA is going to be dismantled soon.

@Muscle car guy
you want a data ? Ask Mike, he works for EPA. They have data since 2009, but they don't care, because people don't see a smoke, they think it's all right to drive a ford with GDI and without MPI and particle filter around.
You can google it alternatively. There is tons of research done for a years already about this issue. Ford got a time from EPA and obama to adjust, even they knew , they are harming public health.
That's the real crime in here, not just not to disclose some stupid engine software, which meets EPA testing anyway.
EPA is going to be dismantled soon.

Muscle car guy, you are correct that ram is trying to side tract attention to Ford for some reason. He fails to realize everyone uses DI. What he fails to admit is FCA broke the rules by hiding emissions cheating calibrations. Ford or anyone else has not hid their calibrations on DI gas engines. FCA is however trying to sell the company to GM through a forced merger again with GM. They are hoping the new administration will bail them out. He has better things to do than worry about a hack car company. That little ram is sure playing defense here. He must be a damage control employee for FCA.

Fiat use MPI, not DI so no particles yet. I'd rather have more CO2 than particles, which kill us all like ford does.
Their GDI MPI combo is just getting to the showrooms , no particle filter yet.

You really want to talk , who is killing us in reality ? This is reality people, not some silly missing software disclosure.

Well Mike, now I am 100 % sure, you work for EPA and drive a ford with DI. What a uneducated person you are. You disgust me.

Mike I noticed the same thing too. I hope Ram is making big overtime money running damage control for fiat. I looked and found where Sergio is banking on the new administration to bail him out, again. Not only on this emissions scandal but to get rid of FCA through a forced merger with GM. You know Sergio knows there is a lot of skeletons in the FCA closet and Sergio want to run from the company and fast. I bet he was not banking on the emissions scandal to be release so fast.

I don't work for FCA any way . I am just more educated, than you are and I don't need EPA to tell me what's right for me.
You are going to be out of job soon anyway and I will still enjoy my HEMI and feel better than ecoboost driver polluting and killing all of us , because EPA allowed them to.
Keep up front of ecoboost HEMI drivers to be safe and keep the distance, because their brakes which they didn't start recalling yet might break.

Pretty convincing report

Ram you obviously work for FCA. I have read your comments, are are not nearly as smart as you think you are. You appear to be more of a laborer worker than anything. Working damage control is obviously testing your upper limits.

Well Muscle what ever, you are wrong, I don't work for car industry, but feel free to post any link to prove me wrong. I am open for serious discussion about this issue without peronal attacks.

Ram you are far from open to discussion. You obviously work for FCA because who in their right mind would spend all day defending FCA even though they have clearly hid information from the EPA and they knew better. You started the personal attack and now you want to cry because I fired it right back to you. Second reason it is obviousl you are FCA employee. First Sergio want to beg for mercie from the new administration and you want to cry about personal attack?

Of course you could be right with not directly working for car industry. My best bet is you are a telemarketer subleased for FCA to handle bad press like here. Explains a lot and fits perfectly

Like I said I don't work for FCA or any telemarket company, everyone knows that in here, but it looks, you have no argument and no any link to prove me wrong what ever I posted in here, so you will repeat this nonsense over and over again.
I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong what I said about GDI ecoboost particles and no regulations in the U.S. yet.
Ecodiesel is less harmful than Ecoboost and EPA knows that, Mike knows that and you work with Mike in the same EPA cubicle probably as well.


What he fails to admit is FCA broke the rules by hiding emissions cheating calibrations.
Posted by: Mike Jones | Jan 14, 2017 8:21:42 PM

Say's who? It's still under investigation. Common Ford clown clueless!

The majority of the world's cities and suburbs have mild air pollution issues.

Exceptions might be like Los Angeles, Mexico City, Beijing.

In reality the largest parts of the world's population still live in places that have virtually NO air pollution problems. People living in places like Florida live right on the edge of the Gulf Stream and the air we breathe today is halfway to the northern Atlantic by next week. No amount of EPA fiddling on the engines and exhaust will change that.

Americans have allowed silly people in Congress and universities to force rules on the citizens that Congress and their donors don't follow themselves.

Enough!


Say's who? It's still under investigation. Common Ford clown clueless!


Posted by: johnny doe | Jan 14, 2017 11:26:06 PM

Who are you kidding? You clearly did not read the notice to fiat.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/fca-caa-nov-2017-01-12.pdf

Since reading appears to be difficult to many people here who knows if you can understand this but it says the EPA has investigated and will continue to. This is also a notice of violation for not disclosing auxiliary emission control devices even though they knew they were required to.



The comments to this entry are closed.