Slashdot Mirror
US EPA Accuses Fiat Chrysler of Excess Diesel Emissions (yahoo.com)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday accused Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV of illegally using hidden software to allow excess diesel emissions to go undetected, the result of a probe that stemmed from regulators' investigation of rival Volkswagen AG. From a report: FCA shares plummeted as the maximum fine is about $4.6 billion. The EPA action affects 104,000 U.S. trucks and SUVs sold since 2014, about one-sixth the vehicles in the Volkswagen case. The EPA and California Air Resources Board told Fiat Chrysler it believes its undeclared auxiliary emissions control software allowed vehicles to generate excess pollution in violation of the law. Fiat Chrysler Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne angrily rejected the allegations at a hastily-assembled conference call with reporters, saying there was no wrongdoing and the company never attempted to create software to cheat emissions rules by detecting when the vehicle was in test mode.
and insist that its fake news.
is really attacking foreign corporations because he is racist. He hates them for not being one of his racist American kind. That is how our President be now.
US EPA accuses Fiat Chrysler of cheating on emissions test. A much more serious offense than having excessive emissions.
The problem was discovered with new testing that better measures real-world emissions. The new tests were implemented in the wake of the VW scandal.
.
"Most vehicles pass these tests," said Giles. "It is by no means impossible to make a clean diesel passenger vehicle that meets these standards."
I though there were some people saying you couldn't make a diesel passenger vehicle the EPA liked, emissions wise. Am I wrong?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Fiat and VW have no love for you and your failed ideology.
Buy a plug-in electric car, SUV, or truck (they sell them for $9000 in China today and in First World nations like Canada) and stick it to the man.
Take back your own money and fill your tank with electrons that cost 1/20th what imported Russian gasoline does.
Or do you want to keep being serfs to your foreign masters?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Err...don't you hate it when all these years, you've been singing the WRONG lyrics...?
Should be:
"Your heart is true, you're a pal and a confidant."
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You do know that unless it's fairly new that Fx50 probably rolled off the assembly line w/o even a catalytic converter installed.
Newsflash, diesels smoke, especially older ones.
I drive an older VW diesel (not in scope of diesel gate) and was once ticketed for excessive smoke. I came to court with a clean bill of health from the emissions test and the ticket was dismissed.
My car will smoke if it's lugging or has not been pushed hard in a while. Pushing it hard will 'blow the soot out'.
All that having been said - yes people modify their vehicles to belch smoke and I'll agree it is stupid.
The other major crime is that of judging diesel emissions by using metrics that vastly favor larger vehicles over small commuters.
For example, they don't care whether it's a 1.6-2.0 liter 4 cylinder in a 3000lb car that gets 50mpg or a 7 liter V8 in a 7000lb package that gets 15-20mpg.... what they do is nullify the engine size, vehicle weight, and even economy by only considering the amount of emissions per gallon of diesel burned.
According that type of scale, no thought at all is given to *how much fuel will actually be burned*. Since we can't even measure how much fuel is burned, we also cannot measure how much emissions are actually released. Thus in this scale we wrongly normalize all the vehicles into a single group and then regulate that group.
It's easy to make up insane comparisons that are obviously wrong yet appear equal under this system.... I can demonstrate.
A fictional vehicle weighing 20,000lbs with 2 different V16 turbo diesel engines that gets a total of 1 mile per gallon is perfectly equal to a 2000 pound 3 cylinder diesel which gets 75 miles per gallon. Why? Because both vehicles output 300 grams of emissions per gallon burned. No thought is given to how much fuel each vehicle will burn over the course of a month.
How is THAT logical?
Does California not have on-going emissions standard and not just point of sale emissions standards?
Who thought it was a good idea for any part of emissions testing to rely on a query to the entity being tested?
"I'm doing everything very efficiently, I promise!"
-Everyone
The only way that this would possibly be ok would be if the emissions testing system being queried was from a 3rd party that was forced to be installed in the vehicle. But I can see problems with that, too. If you are literally testing to see if a part is breaking the law or not, why the hell would you ever ask the manufacturer if the part is breaking the law?
...eeerrrr...
Burma Shave?
They need to test them driving around as well as sitting on a dyno. And they should not be allowing manufacturers to make any changes (e.g. taping intakes to reduce drag), the standardized testing is good but you also need to have some real world smoke (ha ha) tests.
My car will smoke if it's lugging or has not been pushed hard in a while. Pushing it hard will 'blow the soot out'.
Gas engines will do that as well if they haven't been driven hard in a long time. If I don't go wide open throttle for months when I do there will be a sudden puff of smoke left behind when I rocket away and then the exhaust goes back to being invisible as usual.
I expected this was going to happen. I also expect that in the days to come, we're going to find that every single auto manufacturer has been cheating in some way or another, and that in the end, they're all going to say that the emissions standards were impossible to meet without cheating.
Hell there are people so blatant they are running dual 6-8 inch smokestacks that literally vomit black smoke into the air.
Ever see how they do that? They actually burn extra fuel to "prove a point". They're just narcissists. And they get annoyed when they're called stupid.
And then there are the narcissists with their loud motorcycles. "Loud pipes saves lives! D'uuuuuhhhhhhhhhh"
Few cars like that make no fucking difference. Consentrate on making sure there's enough power and technological advancements continue in electric and other types of motors.
Also there has been few "breakthroughs" in biodiesel field as well.
California reached a nexus point on this issue in the 1990s. See, emissions testing is cost-effective only if a significant fraction of the vehicles are in violation. If a smog test costs $40, and 10% of the cars are failing, then it's costing the economy $400 to detect each non-compliant car. If the excess pollution the car was putting out costs the economy (say) $1000, then testing is a cost-effective way to get these polluting cars fixed or off the road.
But what if the program is successful and compliance rates increases to 99%? Then you're spending $4000 to detect each non-compliant car, and the cost to detect these polluting cars exceeds the damage they do. That's the situation California found itself in in the 1990s.
The companies which made emissions testing equipment came up with a radical suggestion. Get rid of the annual smog tests. Instead, mount emissions detecting equipment at areas where cars normally slow down to pass. Freeway off-ramps, intersections, etc. The equipment would constantly detect emissions, and when it saw a spike in emissions it would snap a photo of the offending car(s). If the same car's plates showed up in multiple photos, you could send that registered owner a fix-it ticket requiring they bring the car in for testing. This way you're not wasting time or money dealing with the 99% of cars which are in compliance, and only spending extra money testing the 1% of cars which are probably in violation.
Unfortunately by the 1990s, smog testing in California had grown into a billion dollar industry. The service stations and smog test stations lobbied hard in Sacramento to kill this idea. They won, and so we still require smog tests today even though the vast majority of cars pass. It's worth nothing that an on-road emissions detection system would've caught the violating VWs nearly a decade ago when they first started cheating.
I suspect this will play out like the doping scandals in sports -- everyone is doing it because if you're not, then you're at a competitive disadvantage.
I'm sure this is why none of the other manufacturers called our VW for this practice before the EPA found out... they didn't want to raise attention to it. I'm sure they all knew about.... if one manufacturer released an engine that met impossible-to-meet standards, you can bet that they all dissected the engine to see how they did it.
This is why there is a law for Corporate Average Fuel Economy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Unfortunately by the 1990s, smog testing in California had grown into a billion dollar industry. The service stations and smog test stations lobbied hard in Sacramento to kill this idea. They won, and so we still require smog tests today even though the vast majority of cars pass. It's worth nothing that an on-road emissions detection system would've caught the violating VWs nearly a decade ago when they first started cheating.
so we should sue service stations and smog test stations instead of banrupting a company and causing the loss of countless jobs?
What's worse: Illegal emissions software, or dropping over 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone without any declaration of war? I'd say our government is far worse than Fiat. But then again, nobody seems to care about that except for the people who are watching their loved ones getting blown to pieces every day.
> For example, they don't care whether it's a 1.6-2.0 liter 4 cylinder in a 3000lb car that gets 50mpg or a 7 liter V8 in a 7000lb package that gets 15-20mpg.
Not sure who the "they" you refer to is. In the US EPA cares, the have CAFE standards, and the Estimated fuel economy is used to calculate the allowed CO2 emissions per mile. Other emissions are not directly tied to fuel economy, but hitting the above standard closes the loop.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...
These standards
apply to model years 2009 through 2016
and require CO2 emissions for passenger
cars and the smallest light trucks of 323
g/mi in 2009 and 205 g/mi in 2016, and
for the remaining light trucks of 439 g/
mi in 2009 and 332 g/mi in 2016
Err...don't you hate it when all these years, you've been singing the WRONG lyrics...?
Should be:
"Your heart is true, you're a pal and a confidant."
He forgot to post as an anonymous coward so I think the jig is up.
The joke is on them when they foul their urea emissions system and find out the price of repairs.
Smog tests have sort of a dual purpose in Cali.
We don't have vehicle inspections but smog tests effectively get the dangerous junkers off the roads all the same - The old, poorly maintained cars fail smog before they become unsound and unsafe. Get rid of smog tests and we'd have to add safety inspections. You would not save any money or time.
If you were alive in the 60s and 70s you'd remember the miasma, the horrible smog in even the mid-sized towns and cities. There are a LOT of cars in California and dealing with the emission problem is worth the price.
lets not forget the massive fraud the got cought doing of failing cars that passed just so they could fine people.
you be an idiot
Will the EPA also go after California for the Los Angeles methane leak last year?
Because that caused more long-term destruction to the environment than all the VW diesels combined could have ever hoped to achieve in their lifetime.
Yes, every two years.
In California cars manufactured 1975 and earlier are exempt from smog testing.
So in other words they give lard-asses in the large trucks and SUV a pass to pollute more. Giving a pass isn't the same as 'caring'.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I do know that here in Texas, if people roll coal, the DPS (Texas analog to the CHP) will actually scrape off the inspection sticker off the windshield and force the driver to have their vehicle towed to a shop. Plus, with the cost of fuel these days, why waste it on a detuned engine?
A car from 1976 is generally considered old. Even a car from the 90s is getting pretty up in years and might have a hard time passing smog.
... How many diesel Fiats and Chryslers are on the road ??
Not me.
I almost never post as AC (when I do it's because I'm on something.slashdot.org and don't realize it - I've got my shit set up such that my slashdot.org cookie for being logged in isn't accessible by subdomains).
I posted the GG shit today (as myself) because I missed seeing it. I'm glad someone else has picked it up. (Or maybe it's the original poster of it - anything's possible.)
I'm also not the original MOO/cows guy, though I often posted that one (again, as myself, not AC). For about a month people would accuse any AC Moo/cows poster of being me because they had seen some with my name attached, thinking I forgot to post as AC. Nope, not me.
I considered picking up on the "Who cares?/Thing Store/FairyDust-powered" one, but I got bored of it before I bothered to copy and paste it.
Today there aren't many of these on the road in general use for this to be an issue.
Original AC, yes that was a good counter argument but somehow these huge trucks are still everywhere to be seen and small diesel cars are apparently so difficult to "get right" that no one has any. Doesn't that seem odd to you at all?
Through basic reasoning I still believe burning less fuel is overall the best strategy. Whatever we can do to reduce the amount of fuel needed will help the most. Burning twice as much fuel to clean the air a bit seems absurd. I'm upset at how freely they turn to making us burn more fuel to "clean" things. If making these engines clean will reduce their mpg then how is that a net gain? Any cleaner air is offset by the need to burn more fuel to go the same distance.
Also none of this addresses that fuel isn't renewable yet so lets *completely* ignore that. And no our food (ethanol) isn't free to create either and doesn't count as long as a single person starves. That's just converting the human bodies into fuel essentially which I wouldn't call renewable.
Lets just clear up everyone's confusion. Diesel is and always has been more efficient per gallon due to combustion via compression as well as the higher inherent energy content of diesel fuel versus the Otto cycle that uses a spark ignition and generally heptane/octane (collectively known as gasoline). That said, diesel fuel results in REAL POLLUTION. The kind that causes cancer, burning eyes, asthma, headaches etc.
Quoted from Wikipedia:
"Emissions from diesel vehicles have been reported to be significantly more harmful than those from petrol vehicles. Diesel combustion exhaust is a source of atmospheric soot and fine particles, which is a component of the air pollution implicated in human cancer, heart and lung damage, and mental functioning. Moreover, diesel exhaust contains contaminants listed as carcinogenic for humans by the IARC (part of the World Health Organization of the United Nations), as present in their List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens. Diesel exhaust pollution is thought to account for around one quarter of the pollution in the air in previous decades, and a high share of sickness caused by automotive pollution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Using diesel for passenger vehicles or anywhere other than a powerplant or other application with room for a large, advanced air scrubber on the exhaust is and always has been a bad idea.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Diesels put a shit ton of particulate matter into the air regardless of their origin.
The post smog large diesels suck balls compared to the older ones. Seriously, suck big wet donkey balls, like a 80s gas engine.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This is exactly what happens when we let business regulate itself. It's really not surprising in the least. I would bet dollars to donuts that every major car manufacturer is guilty.
And now the Big Orange Blowhard & cronies are going to dismantle the EPA and eliminate regulations? Hello, global climate change.
I live in a country were the majority of cars are diesels and I can't remember the last time I saw smoke coming out of a car. It's really rare in modern diesels.
It's been known for a while that petrol engines actually produce more particulates, often by an order of magnitude, but since the average size is smaller, they were previously not noticed. However, smaller particulates are also thought to be much more harmful, since they penetrate further into the lungs and are more likely to enter the bloodstream. In addition, petrol engines produce more volatile organic compounds, many of which known or suspected to be carcinogenic.
Fortunately, the EU will require petrol cars to meet the same particulate number limit that diesels already have to obey. In practice, this will mean that they will need a particulate trap, just like diesels. It won't be as efficient, though, because of the smaller particulate size, but at least it won't need regeneration due to the higher temperature of petrol engine exhaust. Daimler and VW have already announced that all new models with petrol engines will have particulate traps starting this year. I hope the rest will follow. Although it won't solve the VOC problem, it will make the gap between diesels and petrols a lot smaller.
Unfortunately by the 1990s, smog testing in California had grown into a billion dollar industry. The service stations and smog test stations lobbied hard in Sacramento to kill this idea. They won, and so we still require smog tests today even though the vast majority of cars pass. It's worth nothing that an on-road emissions detection system would've caught the violating VWs nearly a decade ago when they first started cheating.
VW and Fiat Chrysler cheated on NOx emissions, not on particulates or volatile organic compounds. A smog test would not have found it.
Current petrol engines typically produce an order of magnitude more particulates than current diesels of comparable size and power output. Moreover, the average particulate size is smaller, so the adverse health effects are far worse.
So in other words they give lard-asses in the large trucks and SUV a pass to pollute more. Giving a pass isn't the same as 'caring'.
Or they are encouraging people to buy vehicles which are larger and heavier and more expensive than they need to be. I wonder who would want that?
Will the EPA also go after California for the Los Angeles methane leak last year?
Are you joking? The EPA will not even pay to clean up their own mess and for damages caused by it.