Jeep and Ram EcoDiesels Are Plenty Dirty, West Virginia University Tests Show, But FCA's Having None of It

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

The university that sparked the emissions wildfire under Volkswagen has turned its testing equipment on Fiat Chrysler’s 3.0-liter EcoDiesel vehicles. The results aren’t pretty, especially for those with diminished lung capacity.

West Virginia University researchers who tested tailpipe emissions in real-world driving conditions claim the Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesels, singled out by the Environmental Protection Agency in January for excess pollution and unauthorized emission control devices, are indeed quite harmful to air quality. The university plans to detail its findings in a report to be published within weeks.

FCA, which proved unable to sidestep the EPA’s wrath or a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice, has spoken out against the university’s methods.

The Wall Street Journal, which received a copy of the study, reports that researchers tested 2014 and 2015 model year vehicles. The EcoDiesel was made available on 2014 to 2016 models. Due to the emissions flap, FCA has not been able to certify its 2017 EcoDiesel models for sale. The university chose to put five vehicles from two model years under the microscope because a previous emissions controversy forced FCA to recall 2014 models for select catalytic converter replacement.

What did the university discover? When tested in real-world conditions, the 2015 Rams reportedly emitted up to 25 times the allowable amount of smog-causing nitrogen oxide. The diesel 2015 Jeeps were eight times above the legal limit. As for the 2014 models, both the Jeep and Ram returned “significantly increased” emissions levels compared to tests performed in a lab.

The earlier recall “definitely didn’t fix the problem,” Dan Carder, director of West Virginia University’s Center for Alternative Fuels Engines and Emissions, told WSJ. He added, “when you see differences [between field and lab results], it’s suggesting there are control strategies that are making emissions controls perform differently in the test than in the field.”

If found guilty of violating the Clean Air Act, FCA could find itself on the hook for billions of dollars in penalties. The automaker has denied any wrongdoing, offering up a fix for the roughly 104,000 EcoDiesels already on the road and making software changes for the yet-to-be-certified 2017 model year. Its certification application landed on the EPA’s desk just days before the DOJ’s lawsuit.

FCA has also called the university’s findings into question. After trying in vain to discuss the findings with the researchers, the automaker issued a statement. The study “appears to have been commissioned by a plaintiffs’ law firm for the purposes of litigation,” FCA stated, referring to the lab’s funding by an outside firm headed by ex-Wall Street investment types.

FCA claims the university tested the vehicles in a far different manner than federal government lab procedures. The real-world tests saw the vehicles attain a speed 50 percent higher than in a simulated fashion in the lab. Payload was also 600 to 700 pounds greater.

The university claims it stands behind its findings and the method used to gather the information.

[Image: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 56 comments
  • Pricha33 Pricha33 on Jun 14, 2017

    An institution that is pushing for alternative fuels finds an issue with diesel fuelled vehicles , what a joke. If the vehicles pass the EPA test without any software that only operates only during said testing, those vehicles meet the mandated standard. Tell the ambulance chasers to go pound salt !!!

  • JustPassinThru JustPassinThru on Jun 15, 2017

    Maybe, just maybe, it is the test that is flawed - not the software. The test requires that vehicles PASS THE LAB TEST. Those that are cleaner in real-world use but do not conform to the TEST, are failed. The obvious conclusion here is that the test is flawed. The second obvious conclusion here is that the university is anything but dispassionate - they are waging a jihad on petroleum-powered automobiles.

    • See 1 previous
    • Vulpine Vulpine on Jun 18, 2017

      @HotPotato: Can I assume you have access to the WVA test report? Because up to now I've not heard of any official release of the report and you're announcing a number of details that are not public knowledge. Secondly, if FCA is attempting to work with the EPA and not just blatantly saying, "we didn't do it," the suggestion is there that someone dropped the ball in reporting those subroutines rather than any intentional attempt to hide them. We simply don't have enough data to make a comprehensive conclusion at the moment and doing so now, without that data, may be a mistake. To the best of my knowledge, and I admit it's a bit sketchy on details, VW's issue was intentional pretty much top to bottom and may even have been a bit of a conspiracy since Bosch itself is now coming into play as a software/electronics supplier to VW. This association may account for some of FCA's issues since supposedly Bosch supplies components and software to the Italian company as well as to multiple German and possibly global customers. It also seems strange to me how diesels, which were always known for great torque but relatively low horsepower, suddenly became almost as good in acceleration and high-horsepower operations as gasoline engines despite diesel being a slower-burning fuel. I'll grant turbocharging was a big part of that boost but that doesn't mean the fuel itself is any cleaner burning than it was.

  • W Conrad I'd gladly get an EV, but I can't even afford anything close to a new car right now. No doubt if EV's get more affordable more people will be buying them. It is a shame so many are stuck in their old ways with ICE vehicles. I realize EV's still have some use cases that don't work, but for many people they would work just fine with a slightly altered mindset.
  • Master Baiter There are plenty of affordable EVs--in China where they make all the batteries. Tesla is the only auto maker with a reasonably coherent strategy involving manufacturing their own cells in the United States. Tesla's problem now is I think they've run out of customers willing to put up with their goofy ergonomics to have a nice drive train.
  • Cprescott Doesn't any better in red than it did in white. Looks like an even uglier Honduh Civic 2 door with a hideous front end (and that is saying something about a Honduh).
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Nice look, but too short.
  • EBFlex Considering Ford assured us the fake lightning was profitable at under $40k, I’d imagine these new EVs will start at $20k.
Next