By on January 12, 2017

2015 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel HFE

The Environmental Protection Agency calls the emissions control devices found on diesel Jeep and Ram vehicles a “clear and serious violation of the Clean Air Act” — something the CEO of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles isn’t very happy about.

In their morning announcement, EPA officials claimed the automaker hasn’t done anything to prove the devices found on 2014-2016 EcoDiesel models aren’t regulator-tricking “defeat devices.” According to Brent Snavely of the Detroit Free Press, Sergio Marchionne is mighty steamed, calling the insinuation of cheating “unadulterated hogwash.”

So, what are these eight auxiliary devices, and what penalty could the automaker face if found in violation of the law?

According to the EPA notice of violation, the devices weren’t mentioned in FCA’s applications for certificates of conformity (COC). The certification allowed FCA to sell the 104,828 affected Jeep Grand Cherokees and Ram 1500s in the U.S., each outfitted with a 3.0-liter diesel V6. The company maintains that all of its vehicles meet regulatory requirements.

Unfortunately for FCA, or any other automaker for that matter, conflicts with the EPA never end on “agree to disagree” terms. Testing revealed higher-than-legal amounts of nitrogen oxide emissions from the vehicles, something FCA needs to rectify.

On board the EcoDiesel models are eight auxiliary emission control devices (AECD):

  1. Full Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Shut-off at Highway Speed
  2. Reduced EGR with Increasing Vehicle Speed
  3. EGR Shut-off for Exhaust Valve Cleaning
  4. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) Dosing Disablement During Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) Adaptation
  5. EGR Reduction Due to Modeled Engine Temperature
  6. SCR Catalyst Warm-up Disablement
  7. Alternative SRC Dosing Modes
  8. Use of a Load Governor to Disable Ammonia Refill of SCR Catalyst.

Fun stuff!

Diesel engines — especially those governed by strong environmental regulations — require a bevy of software and hardware to help manage emissions and optimize efficiency, so the appearance of certain AECDs isn’t shocking, nor is it a crime. The EPA’s beef with FCA arises from several factors, including that the automaker didn’t disclose the devices, all of which “fail to conform…to the vehicle specifications described in the application for the COCs that purportedly cover them.”

That could lead to a fine for each of the vehicles sold.

What’s most eyebrow-raising, however, is that some of the AECDs appear to modify emissions only when undergoing compliance testing. Besides that, the EPA claims that some of the devices, working individually or in combination with others, result in higher-than-allowed emissions when the vehicles are driven in a normal manner.

AECDs are designed to protect the vehicle’s exhaust system under certain conditions — cold weather, for example — which leads to temporary spikes in tailpipe emissions. However, the EPA report claims that two AECDs (number five and six on the list) reduce the emission system’s effectiveness in a way that “does not appear to be justified to protect the vehicle.”

Under U.S. Department of Justice rules, any automaker caught selling a vehicle in violation of Clean Air Act guidelines could face a fine of $44,539 per vehicle. In this case, that puts the potential fine at just over $4.6 billion.

To put that number into perspective, FCA is desperately trying to clear away a roughly $5 billion debt.

[Image: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

106 Comments on “Sergio Calls EPA Accusation ‘Hogwash,’ But Here’s What It Could Cost FCA...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Orange Jesus will save us.

  • avatar
    Speed3

    Yikes! Just as predicted, VW wasn’t the only one playing fast and loose with the EPA. Maybe VW’s case is more severe (unfortunately for FCA, a precedent has just been established), but VW also has many more resources to weather its diesel scandal.

    FCA does not have the cash to pay fines and settle lawsuits and really can’t afford to be distracted with this.

    There were rumors Alfa and Maserati were already up for sale. I wonder whats next?

  • avatar
    RHD

    Sergio Marchionne is following the Kubler-Ross model. First of all come denial and anger.
    Just like VW, the lawyers and executives will be bargaining, the stock price and company reputation will fall into depression, and finally the penalties and consequences will be accepted.

    However, Kubler-Ross missed the public’s steps of progression. May I suggest Incredulity, Ridicule, Apathy, Boredom, Forgetfulness and Shopping at the Ford or Toyota Dealership.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      VW pretty much confessed to their initial crime immediately, followed by various obstructions along the way.

      FCA isn’t singing the same tune yet, it seems to me. We’ll see.

      • 0 avatar
        sirwired

        VW only confessed to the crime AFTER the EPA told them they were about to get a violation letter; before that they had spent most of a year stonewalling the Feds with outright lies.

        (And, even AFTER VW confessed, their CEO STILL was in denial that this was an intentional violation… like VW had just mis-read something.)

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      1. Denial
      2. Anger
      3. Bargaining
      4. Depression
      5. Acceptance/Resolution

      Welcome to corporate and political America where no one ever gets to 5.

  • avatar
    mleclerc19xx

    So my $3.5B estimate in a previous comment was off, even if some told me it was impossibly high. VW could afford $17B; FCA CAN’T afford $5B. Time to start FCA’s Deathwatch!

    • 0 avatar
      brettc

      That’s why I said that FCA doesn’t have VW’s level of assets to weather this.

      The only way they’ll get out of it is because they’re a “domestic” manufacturer that’s making a lot of vehicles in the U.S. They’re screwed if they get hit with a multi-billion dollar fine.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      It was off because even if this is proven to be what you and others assume it to be, it can be solved with a software update, not a buyback. It is unclear if this was deliberate or simply a mistake, with VW it was most certainly deliberate.

      Don’t let facts stand in your way, though, DOWN WITH FCA! Burn Sergio at the stake! We’ll sort out the details later after we drop the nuclear bomb in Auburn Hills.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Sorry but disabling EGR at highway speed and reducing it as speeds increase is the exact opposite of what you would do to maintain emissions compliance and doing so was definitely deliberate and will cause the emissions to rise.

        So yet again we see that the vehicles who’s performance was too good to be true really was, as the mfg was cheating to gain that competitive advantage.

  • avatar
    Corey Lewis

    All these diesels are actin’ suspicious.

  • avatar
    cRacK hEaD aLLeY

    Sorry but this is not going to cost Chrysler, Sergio or Fiat anything. There will be little left of the EPA once Trump finishes Again Making America Great.

    The EPA will be lucky if they get a contract to monitor the water quality in Point Barrow, Alaska.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      From your keyboard to God’s ear…

    • 0 avatar
      Whatnext

      Yeah because who needs clean air and water anyway? Look at how great China is, they don’t need no stinkin regulations!

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Well, that is one way for the moral majority to deal with the anti-birth control agenda.

      • 0 avatar
        pragmatist

        Assuming that micro regulation by bureaucrats is actually changing the real world and not just another power or money grab.

        But the EPA says so, it must be true.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Well, it certainly is clear that corporations can’t be trusted to do the right thing. Now the the EPA being gutted (kind of like putting Hitler in charge of investigating Nazi war crimes) FCA will probably get a minor slap on the wrist. But only if HEMI production gets moved to Detroit.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            and Ram HD’s.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @golden2husky
            VW will say ” what about us?” The Donald has expressed sympathies for VW’s plight in the past

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Well, it would be fair to question inequitable treatment from one company to the other for the same crime…

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            And of course its the same crime, no need to investigate it or even speculate that it might be the same. There’s no doubt that it is! This is FCA we’re talking about! The B&B’s favorite punching bag, after Trump and those ingrates in the flyover states too stupid to buy Corollas instead of F-Series to work their useless dirt farms.

  • avatar
    2manycars

    The EPA is an out of control agency that at this point is little more than a motley collection of gangsters and thugs running a protection racket. Here’s hoping the new administration reigns the dirtbags in.

    • 0 avatar
      rev0lver

      Yeah. Who needs clean air anyway! MOAR COAL ROLLIN!

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “The EPA is an out of control agency that at this point is little more than a motley collection of gangsters and thugs running a protection racket. Here’s hoping the new administration reigns the dirtbags in.”

      Don’t worry, you’ll soon be getting as much pollution as you can possibly handle. Be sure to blame Obama.

    • 0 avatar
      epc

      It takes no more than $1200 to fly roundtrip from the northeastern USA to Shanghai or Beijing, China. I invite you to spend this money to travel to the land where there has been very little environmental regulation / enforcement over the last 40 years, and observe personally with your eyes and lungs the effects thereof.

      Whenever visitors from my Chinese suppliers come over, none of them fail to be amazed by the air quality here. “The air is so crisp and clean that my lungs hurt!” “You don’t need to boil water to drink?”

      Having been to China plenty of times myself, I consider the EPA to be worth every penny of its budget. I challenge anyone who has gone to China and stayed there for more than 3 days to differ.

      • 0 avatar
        OldManPants

        “I challenge anyone who has gone to China and stayed there for more than 3 days to differ.”

        Let’s call that the EPiC Challenge. Put up or shut up, Thumpers.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        I’ve been to China many times and yes, the air pollution is bad.

        What that has to do with potential over-regulation by the EPA escapes me.

        As if the only alternative to over-regulation is no regulation at all. Nice straw man, but that argument won’t fly with those of us with more than two brain cells to rub together.
        .
        .

        • 0 avatar
          OldManPants

          How long didja stay each time?

        • 0 avatar
          epc

          It’s not a straw man. Once you start regulating, then you will always be “over-regulating” in someone’s eyes. What to me is reasonable regulation by EPA is always “over-regulating” to some of you.

          The correct way to look at this issue is: if the government doesn’t step in, then will individuals or corporations be able to achieve the kind of air and water quality that we currently enjoy? Specifically, if EPA hadn’t been formed back in the 1970s, could individual citizens or corporations have done the same work that EPA did over the last 40 years?

          The answer is no. Individual citizens would not have the financial and technical resources to do it; nor would they have the statutory power to compel corporations to do anything. And corporations would not have the will to do it. Even in present day China where everyone is swimming in smog, the Chinese government has to exert herculean effort to shut down polluting factories; factory owners themselves aren’t doing anything on their own except to maximize their profits.

          Ergo, you need the government to do it. And once you agree on this, then it’s silly to try to say, ” wait, but you’re over-regulating!”

          The end justifies the means here. Do you want your kid to grow up in the US or China, given the environments? If you say the US, then don’t quibble about “over-regulation.” I have the opportunity to work in China, but I want my kid to grow up here, so I don’t quibble.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          I challenge you to get two people to agree on how much regulation is “over regulation.”

          you won’t. They’ll just fall back on claiming what they currently believe is “common sense.” Bunch of idiots who think they’re the smartest people in the room.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        Because there is no middle ground between excessive bureaucracy/regulation and China-level pollution. Its one or the other, nothing else is possible.

        You don’t HATE Trump like we do? Then you must want to club baby seals and dump billions of gallons of used oil in the drinking water supply! Again, no middle ground is allowed: You either damn him to hell and blame all problems past and future on him before he takes the oath, or you’re a Nazi sympathizer who murders puppys and bunnys for kicks. Take your pick.

      • 0 avatar
        AVT

        Agreed. Once visited their for 3 weeks training my counterparts on quality standards. After I got back I told my employer at the time if they asked me to do it again, I would not, and if they demanded, I would leave immediately. I left 3 months later. Ironically, the entire project I was working on was cancelled as our Chinese counterparts were unable to maintain the same quality standards. Billions were written off I found out later from someone who still worked their in lost production, management changes, etc.

  • avatar
    klossfam

    I figured there would eventually be ‘noise’ on the EcoDiesels (a class action had already been filed separate from these EPA accusations)…I traded my 2015 EcoDiesel six weeks ago…Even as I did it I was thinking ‘Should I hang on to this for a potential buyback in the future?’

    Not that it’ll come to that but I’m jealous of the sweetheart deals VW TDI owners got…like my neighbor’s 2010 Jetta TDI which he essentially got 7 years of FREE use out of other than fuel, maintenance and insurance.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      He got the pre-DieselGate value, which is exactly the same as the new purchase price of the then five year old car? Wow. I didn’t know VWs had 0 depreciation throughout their lifespan. No wonder they want $22k for a ’99 Jetta with 180k and a broken VR-6. Wait, maybe that was the repair estimate…

      I realize they recieve other financial compensation, but does it really add up to the car’s initial purchase price? I doubt it.

      • 0 avatar
        klossfam

        I should have been more accurate in my “free use” assessment…’Essentially’ free use…A one time check from VW for $7,000 and approximately $7,000 in NADA ‘Retail’ value = $14,000. I believe he paid $22K or so new…but that is a no brainer good value for 7 years and 150,000 miles of driving. Best I ever did was buy a Toyota Highlander Ltd new in 2008 for $33,900, drive it 3 years and 65,000 miles and trade it for $24,700…

  • avatar

    Prediction:

    FCA will be forgiven after fixing all affected vehicles in return for military vehicles at or below cost for some period of time.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Nope. FCA doesn’t build anything to military specs anymore, only specialty defense contractors. Other non-military vehicles are subject to other procurement standards.

      Instead, the new EPA director will insist his agency techs prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there was deliberate malfeasance involved, a difficult thing to prove, and even in the unlikely event a smoking email turns up, any fine will be calculated on ability to pay.

      Reminder: all we’ve got to go on is what the EPA says are several undeclared “devices”. How they work and what they do has not been examined or reviewed outside of the EPA’s technical investigation, and the announcement (accusation, really) was unaccompanied by any technical data. Imagine how far that would get you in a court of law.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Anger and denial, bargaining, try to blame Willy the mailroom boy, consultation with lawyers to find a fall guy, acceptance, apology, make no claim of responsibility.

    One key difference, FCA can’t afford a big ass fine. Sergio better be ready to give the Cheetos Jesus a golden shower.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    “What’s most eyebrow-raising, however, is that some of the AECDs appear to modify emissions only when undergoing compliance testing. Besides that, the EPA claims that some of the devices, working individually or in combination with others, result in higher-than-allowed emissions when the vehicles are driven in a normal manner.”

    Sounds like someone’s taken a page from the VW playbook.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    And I apologize for the duplicate post, but I have no tech knowledge…I’m just wondering if someone could design defeat software for *gas* engines? Is that feasible?

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      Absolutely possible. The emission standards are easier to meet, though, so the temptation to, uhhh, get creative will be much less.

      • 0 avatar
        iNeon

        I posed this same question in the initial post, and do feel like it could dovetail with your question quite well– do selective/adaptive transmission and engine programming for other cars work to the same effect as these diesel ‘defeat’ devices?

        Suppose I understand the difference between environmental damage v. using a bit more fuel intellectually– but it still seems like the same kind of cheating emotionally.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          @iNeon:

          No, the cheat devices would reprogram the engine to run differently when it “senses” it’s being emissions-tested, and then run with more pollution when the test was over. Different kind of thing.

          • 0 avatar
            th009

            Just like engines that detect they are being EPA fuel economy tested — and otherwise run with greater fuel consumption.

            As FreedMike said, it’s fuel economy vs pollution, but the tricks are very much the same.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Just like engines that detect they are being EPA fuel economy tested — and otherwise run with greater fuel consumption.”

            and your evidence that they do is?

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            there’s really no reason to, since a gas engine’s exhaust can be cleaned up with a simple three-way catalyst. all it has to do is oscillate between slightly rich and slightly lean, and have a high enough capacity catalyst. Gas engine emissions controls are mature and well understood. Comparatively speaking, diesel engine emissions controls are almost like late 1970s gas engines.

          • 0 avatar
            iNeon

            That type of device hasn’t been found on VM/Chrysler engines?

            As far as I can tell– Chrysler simply designed their systems to deliver drivability and durability outside of the tested parameters, which may not be cheating at all.

            I don’t like the fact that those 8-10 ‘devices’ weren’t fully-disclosed to the government– but who is to say Chrysler even knew about those instances. The electronics are Bosch and the programming was done by VM as I understand.

            So there will be cautious optimism from the iNeon camp. If this is found to be blatant cheating– I will no longer be a Chrysler customer.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @th009:

            “Just like engines that detect they are being EPA fuel economy tested — and otherwise run with greater fuel consumption.”

            Apparently the EPA tests cars on a dyno, just as you would for emissions, so…yeah, who knows?

            Difference is, though, that the person who buys the car can easily detect if the vehicle isn’t delivering on the EPA fuel economy figures. Example – my new Jetta is returning anywhere from 32-35 mpg in a mix of highway and city driving, which is pretty much what the EPA found. If I drive aggressively, then that drops to the high 20’s. But the advertised figures are definitely attainable without too much trouble “in the field,” so to speak. So, I don’t think any cheating went on.

            But most folks don’t have a tailpipe emissions measurement system sitting in the garage.

            As I recall, Hyundai and Ford both got busted for mis-stating EPA MPG figures not so long ago…

    • 0 avatar
      BigOldChryslers

      Go drive a Yukon with the 6-speed automatic and cylinder deactivation. Then ask yourself if the power curve and shift points were designed for pleasant driving or to maximize results during EPA testing. (Technically not cheating though, since you are subjected to the same anemic response to gas pedal input that they’d experience during testing.)

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Joke’s on you, I derive pleasure from achieving seemingly unthought-of efficiencies from an inefficient vehicle. The ’15 Tahoe LTZ we rented a few years ago for a road trip to IL never seemed anemic with 6 adults and their luggage, but the cylinder deactivation, shift points, and air dam netted us 19 MPG highway.

        • 0 avatar
          BigOldChryslers

          The Yukon was a great highway cruiser. You didn’t drive it in the city enough to know what I’m talking about. It was never in the “right” gear to accelerate when you needed it to, and took too long to decide to downshift.

          This behaviour was painfully evident when I was driving 55MPH on a country highway with the speed control on and encountered a string of small rolling hills. This was on a road that I travel regularly to visit family, and I’ve never been in a vehicle that behaved anywhere near so poorly under this condition. My wife even complained that it was going to make her seasick.

          Going up each hill the speed would go slower and slower. Almost at the top, it would finally realize it needed to do something about it, so it hammered the accelerator, downshifted, and flew over the top of the hill, Then it coasted down the other side going too fast, upshifted, then repeated the process going up the next hill.

  • avatar
    05lgt

    Pipe / Fever Dream:
    FCA will be liquidated to pay of the now 10B debt + customer compensation and Jeep, Dodge, Ram, & Chrysler will be purchased by a consortium including the UAW.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Jeep and Ram are the only things of value. Chrysler has 2 models, including the aged LX platform (reference the Demon story FCA fanbois before you rage that the LX cars aren’t THAT old). There is really nothing there. What the Americans began, the Germans continued, private equity accelerated, and now the Italians are finishing.

  • avatar
    seanx37

    What’s another $4.6 billion? Not like FCA is going to pay it. Or any of the other billions in debt they have.

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    Federal Judge: So Mr Sweater what do you have to say for yourself?
    Defendant Sweater: I beg the court for mercy!
    Judge: You should have confessed and pleaded guilty when you had the chance.
    Defendant Sweater: But, the man with a chinchilla living on his head said not to worry about fouling the air if I supported his campaign.
    Judge: The jury found you guilty so I’m recommending that you serve you 10 year sentence in Federal butt pounding prison.
    Defendant Sweater: But, I don’t want to go to federal butt pounding prison.
    Judge: Well, there is a program for white collar convicts like you to work off their sentences.
    Sweater man: What do I have to do.
    Judge: It’s simple. All you have to do is to go to Russia and ask Mr Putin to take the blame for interfering in the US presidential election.
    Sweater man: Federal butt pounding prison is starting to look a lot safer!
    Judge: You’re not as dumb as you look!

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Paging BAFO………….

  • avatar
    BigOldChryslers

    So AECD numbers 5 and 6 are most worrying to the EPA. 5-7 are the ones that I can make the least sense of from their descriptions. Does anyone here know what AECDs 5-7 actually entail?

  • avatar
    whitworth

    Move all the Ram production currently in Mexico back into the US and all will be forgiven. Software update with a free oil change.

    Watch the Peso fall even further.

  • avatar

    Maybe FCA will have to sell Jeep to someone that doesn’t milk the brand for all it’s worth. Then FCA can go and die off silently in a corner whilst the only decent brand that fuels the rest (Jeep) has a chance to thrive and not support failing companies. Anyone at this point could handle the Jeep brand better than Sergio and his crew.

    • 0 avatar
      Tstag

      If this really does result in FCA needing a bailout from another car company then I suspect someone may buy all the brands. For Asians Alfa and Maserati have appeal as the provide access to premium markets. Even Fiat could do OK rebadging Hyundais or something like that. The US brands will appeal even more.

      I think the buyer could come France almost anywhere

  • avatar
    thx_zetec

    We don’t know yet, put the rope away for now. For VW it was blatant, the software recognized very specific cues it was under EPA testing. Sure corporations sometimes cheat, but so do regulatory bureaucracies.

    In this case the software might have just been optimized for certain conditions. If you tell a bunch of engineers to pass a test, they will look at test conditions. This is similar to EPA fuel economy testing. In defense of this approach, if the test is well written then results will generally reflect test.

    VW was a foreign automaker w/ tons of money, a perfect EPA whopping boy. FCA is (perceived) domestic without much money.

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    Nice touch for the EPA to do this in the days of the administration. This is an Obama middle finger to flyover-country Bubbas who buy RAMs (and voted overwhelmingly for Trump). Obama’s been settling numerous scores just before leaving office…

    He gave an F-You to Israel and garnered favor with the Jew-hating campus left with his non-veto of the UN condemnation resolution. That was even too much for libs like Chuck Shumer…

    And Obama just flipped off Cuban Americans by changing long standing policy regarding Cuban refugees. Now they’ll be sent back to rot in a cell or labor camp…

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “Jew-hating left”?

      Given the fact that 70-80% of us Jews self-identify as liberal Democrats, I your “argument” means one of three things:

      1) We Jews are too dumb to know this;
      2) Jews are, in fact, anti-Semitic
      3) You are completely full of it

      I’ll take 3).

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        I vote for #3. It doesn’t appear that the alt right is capable of processing the idea that holding true to policies which differ from those favored by the right winger running Israel at this moment does not make you an anti-Semite.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          What folks like this don’t realize is that unquestioning support for Netanyahu among American Jews is tepid, at best. There is a great deal of opposition to his policies among Jews here.

          http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/

          But this doesn’t stop the “Obama hates Jews” crowd and the derp-a-derpy blockheads who buy into it.

          (Same basic “logic” behind the “Democrats do nothing but keep black folks on the plantation” argument, which you hear from the same crowd…the basic assumption you have to make for that argument is that black people are too stupid to “know they’re being used.” Nothing bigoted there. And they wonder why black folks don’t vote Republican?)

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            And the criticism of Obama on the Cuban visa issue is frankly amazing. We are actually tightening immigration rules, and a Trump supporter found a way to fault Obama for it.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Doesn’t amaze me at all. Trump and his supporters love to gaslight.

            Unfortunately, unless you’ve had someone with Borderline Personality Disorder, or a malignant narcissist (and my ex suffered from both) in your life, this kind of thing is so far outside your normal experience that you can’t believe it’s happening. You think there must be a limit to it all.

            Nope, there isn’t. And it never ends…because the person doing it is too narcissistic to think there’s anything wrong with what he’s doing. And I see so much of this in Trump. The first clue is a complete inability to handle criticism. His little stunt the other day at the press conference reminded me 100% of my ex – not only does the critic need to be confronted, he needs to be tossed out of the room.

            A perfect poop storm. All I can say is that I hope Americans wake up sometime between now and the midterms.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            I don’t think it’s just the trees he hates on.

            This guy can’t even figure out that campaigning for Israel to stop its apartheid policies is not the same thing as hating Jews.

      • 0 avatar
        ihatetrees

        RE: FreedMike’s orignial response…

        FIRST:
        I didn’t write “Jew-Hating Left”.

        I wrote “Jew hating campus left”. Your parsing above is borderline dishonest.

        The campus left hates Israel. Period. They often sympathize with tyrant states in conflict with democratic states. It’s their M.O.

        You COULD have debated whether they hate Jews in general or just Jews in Israel (because of their politics). I think the latter…

        SECOND:
        Re: Your other quote: “Given the fact that 70-80% of us Jews self-identify as liberal Democrats”

        That’s about as relevant to my “campus left hates Jews” point as the inflation rate in Venezuela. My point had NOTHING to do with YOU as a Jew. It was about the campus left.

        THIRD:
        Re: That I am (allegedly) “3) Completely full of it”

        Please… Calling people names doesn’t work anymore.
        That’s part of the reason why Trump (whom I did NOT vote for) won.

        Do yourself a favor.
        Put on your big boy panties.
        Think.
        Reason.
        Make an argument.
        Don’t emote by default.

  • avatar
    DudeMcLovin

    Closest translation to Hogwash in Italian – cretinate.

  • avatar
    Sceptic

    By now it should be obvious to anyone that EPA is on the witchhunt. They blame manufacturers for their faulty testing techniques. By their own words: higher emissions when driven in the normal manner(vs test). Total incompetence on part of EPA. Why not test under normal conditions, normal driving style? This is outrageous. Lets hope EPA will soon be replaced by a more agile, smart, smaller entity that would concentrate on protecting nature and not engage in corporate witchhunts.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “Why not test under normal conditions, normal driving style?”

      because for a test to be scientifically valid, it must first be repeatable. What you propose is not repeatable, not scientifically valid, and not useful.

      but I’m not surprised at your question, given how science is considered evil in this country.

      • 0 avatar
        Sceptic

        I expected this argument. Somehow, the wizards at the EPA should have designed a test that would not exclude the common sense, casual driving exercise just to confirm that the lab results are valid in the real world. Once again, VW HAS SATISFIED THE SCIENTIFIC PART OF THE EPA TEST 100%! Why are they being persecuted? They followed the letter of law. This is the kind of government arbitrary prosecution that has to stop.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “Once again, VW HAS SATISFIED THE SCIENTIFIC PART OF THE EPA TEST 100%!”

          Well, if you’re OK with them cheating, I guess so…

          • 0 avatar
            Sceptic

            You cannot cheat a truly scientific test. Face it: EPA screwed up in their methodology and found some convenient scapegoats.

            The problem is that those gov’t agencies in power could define any kind of business behavior “cheating” or illegal. Can’t they design a test that could not be circumvented?
            Yes, VW cars polluted, sometimes exceeding the max set by EPA a spectacular 20-40 fold! How could EPA missed that? Incompetent. Government. Bureaucracy.

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    My friends are telling me the calibration was done by VM Motori.

    Also mentioned something about rules change. Something about as launched in production the rules were FTP pass = good to go. Now it’s a different criteria.

    He did mention several of the functions listed are for other EPA requirements.

    So hardware = Bosch, Cal = VM. FCA was just program management / customer.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “FCA was just program management / customer”

      …and bag holder.

      “Something about as launched in production the rules were FTP pass = good to go. Now it’s a different criteria.”

      Maybe artificially constructed rules shouldn’t change on a whim? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      regardless of who did the actual calibration work, the routines (AECDs) listed by the EPA should be part of the PCM code, and I can’t believe these vehicles would go throughout development to launch without at least several code reviews with FCA.

    • 0 avatar
      BigOldChryslers

      What does the acronym “FTP” mean in this case?

      Even if VM Motori did the programming, VM is wholly owned by FCA so that doesn’t really deflect the responsibility much. I also presume FCA applied for the COC, so it’s their name on the dotted line.

      Hopefully FCA/VM can show that this is just a documentation issue and these operating modes (AECDs) are reasonable and necessary.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    The juice just isn’t worth the squeeze anymore for diesels in this class of vehicle in the US. Leave the diesels for the working rigs. Given the complicated emissions, high initial cost compared to gas, and increased maintenance requirements as well as more expensive fuel in many parts of the world these vehicles make sense for a small niche of folks and it is a shrinking one.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • el scotto: @ SCE to AUX Sir, you are exactly right. Most vehicles are manufactured with 100’s if not...
  • el scotto: Just nasty, like something unidentifiable and sticking to the bottom of your shoe. Badge-engineered with...
  • ToolGuy: Static shock? Problem solved: https://neptunic.com/products/ sharksuits
  • Corey Lewis: Jaguar is bad about that. They’ll tell you it’s a Performance S with 310 horsepower, but not...
  • zerofoo: “and the lack of bullet trains and other public transportation alternatives is causing our freeways to...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber