Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United States

US EPA Accuses Fiat Chrysler of Excess Diesel Emissions (yahoo.com) 125

Posted by msmash from the smells-fishy dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US EPA Accuses Fiat Chrysler of Excess Diesel Emissions More

US EPA Accuses Fiat Chrysler of Excess Diesel Emissions

Comments Filter:

  • Headline should be (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You can't do it without urea injection and exhaust particulate filters.

  • 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?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by green1 ( 322787 )

      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.

      You do realize that the US has a huge number more electric vehicles available than Canada right? Most EVs are only available in CARB states, which Canada isn't.

      • per capita? nope

        Required to be sold in every province in Canada? yup

        • Re:Conservatives need to realize cheating occurs (Score:5, Informative)

          by green1 ( 322787 ) on Thursday January 12, 2017 @04:09PM (#53656343)

          Where do you get your information?

          I live in Canada, there are very few models of EV available for purchase here compared to any CARB state in the US.

          There is also no requirement that EVs be sold at all anywhere in the country, unlike the US where CARB states require the sale of EVs.

          So let's revise what you said:
          models available: nope
          Required to be sold in every province in Canada? nope.

          I can purchase locally the following EVs: Tesla Model S, Tesla Model X, Nissan Leaf and BMW i3. That's the entire list. If I go to another city I can add Smart ED, Kia Soul EV, and Mitsubishi MiEV. (theoretically the chevy spark and ford focus electric are also available, but I've been unable to find anywhere selling them)

          I can not buy the following EVs anywhere in Canada despite their availability in the US:
          Fiat 500EV
          eGolf
          Mercedes B Class Electric
          Scion iQ EV
          Honda Fit EV

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luthair ( 847766 )
            The Bolt is supposed to be available soon in Canada and the pricing is actually much better than in the US.

    • Re:Conservatives need to realize cheating occurs (Score:4, Informative)

      by ProzacPatient ( 915544 ) on Thursday January 12, 2017 @03:39PM (#53656129)

      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.

      And where do you think that electricity comes from? The vast majority of it is from fossil fuel electric generation plants [eia.gov]. Until nuclear takes over fossil fuels in power generation any arguments about the merits of electric vehicles is moot, except maybe, from an economic standpoint, electricity generated from coal plants.

      As a side note about your comment about imported Russian gasoline, it appears most of the fossil fuels in the United States is actually imported from Canada [eia.gov].

      • Then buy a solar panel and trickle charge it yourself.

        Gosh you snowflakes are so special. Serfs to the utilities. Paying the government cheddar because you can't grok that solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels and you can install it yourself - 90 percent of the cost is labor.

        Do you need government mommy to get you out of bed in the morning, snowflake?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Luthair ( 847766 )
        In Ontario (Canada) we have no coal plants, though 5% of production comes from natural gas. (65% nuclear, 25% hydro, 4% wind)

      • Until nuclear takes over fossil fuels in power generation any arguments about the merits of electric vehicles is moot

        Holy shit that myth was debunked before Tesla even existed. Why do you continue to perpetuate it? Even if 100% of emissions came from fossil fuels (it doesn't) the total emissions over the lifecycle of the vehicle are far lower for electric than for diesel / petrol.

        With an ICE engine you are talking about one of the dirtiest ways of generating energy coupled with one of the least efficient thermodynamic processes.

        • Come on now some of those reciprocating piston ICE are really efficient. Granted you wouldn't put it in a passenger vehicle, but things like 400 ton trucks, trains, and ships use those same high efficiency engines that they use in power plants that are getting close to 60% efficiency. A combine cycle heat+power natural gas turbine gets to 70% but that is only if there is a use for the waste heat otherwise they are only 50% efficient.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      They realize, didn't you see how they went after Bill Clinton!

    • A VW Golf gets 33 mpg.
      My VW Golf gets maybe 3.7m/kWh

      A gallon is like $3
      A kWh is like $.15

      So really, it's half the cost, and that's if you're filling up entirely at home. If you use charging stations regularly, you pay about the same price as if it was gas.

      I really like the car, but the impression that they're 1/20th the price to keep fueled is a bit of a stretch. Electric trucks are not $9K in China, that is malarkey. Electric scooters are really common, though.

      Also, I like being a serf to a foreign mast

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mlts ( 1038732 )

      In my experience, electric cars are wanted regardless of political tastes. Here in Texas, I know a lot of rural people who would love an electric pickup truck. The two biggest advantages of electric vehicles, which are max torque at 0 RPM and zero noise would help things immensely on the farm. The fact that there are fewer moving parts means upkeep is easier. Plus, on larger ranches, there is plenty of room for solar panels, and wind farms are common in the western side of the states.

      Of course, having a

      • We won't have any of that talk around here. Everyone know if you are a farmer or rancher you need a F350 crew cab long box with dualies, 33" mudding tires, dual stacks, and a set of truck nuts.

        All silliness aside those remote areas are were renewables are a really good idea and providing you can get the needed range it seems like an EV would be a good fit. I have a lake property up in northern Minnesota that I will be putting up a cabin on at some point and have looked into the cost for getting electrici

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mlts ( 1038732 )

          A friend of mine has a rural Texas cabin that he visits in his campervan. The cabin is small, small enough that the A/C unit can run from the van's generator (a 2500 watt Onan.)

          The winds are not great, so all of his stuff is solar. The carport has a roof tilted south and is covered with panels, about 3KW worth. The batteries are Iron Edison (NiFe), about 2000 amp-hours, with a self watering system and box with fans in it that are thermostatically controlled. He also has an inverter, and a battery charge

          • I don't believe the neighbors up at my lake place have AC but then in the summer when it gets oppressive hot and humid (I've been up there when the dew point was in the upper 70s and 80s) the thing to do is go out into the lake and sit in an innertube over the nice cool spring that feeds the lake and just fish and/or drink. There is a nice breeze that comes off the lake most of the time that goes right into our properties as well. A good wood stove + fan can and does provide a lot of heat. As I will be usin

  • This is why emissions testing should actually test (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tanman ( 90298 ) on Thursday January 12, 2017 @03:29PM (#53656071)

    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?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      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.

    • Re:This is why emissions testing should actually t (Score:5, Informative)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday January 12, 2017 @03:48PM (#53656191)
      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.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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 deal

      • lets not forget the massive fraud the got cought doing of failing cars that passed just so they could fine people.

  • Not surprised in the least (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Thursday January 12, 2017 @03:40PM (#53656135) Journal
    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.

    • 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

      Sure but wouldn't believe the scale in which one company is cheating. They took out engine and put an electric motor in it's stead. Of course they needed a battery, so they took out just about everything else and slapped on on the bottom. Of course this means you have to charge the battery of the cheat system but they go on to make preposterous claims like: "no emissions" and "doesn't use gasoline". I thought they would be busted for sure but these greenfreaks at the EPA just lap it up and think it's th

    • If the car makers can't meet emission standards and they all say the same thing to the regulators, the regulations will change so this is not really relevant. California mandated a certain number of zero-emission vehicles be sold and the manufacturers made their case that the deadline wasn't achievable. So the regulators came of with a scheme to give partial-credit for efficient vehicles with extra emission controls. Hence why you see "PZEV" vehicles. They count toward part of a vehicle for this purpose
      • An AC who commented above you made a valid point, (s)he said:

        Impossible while still meeting certain other criteria (like shiny!)

        I'm sure that they can meet the current, and future, emissions standards of even California, but it'll likely be at the cost of performance, and naturally, cost to the consumer.

        Someone else above also made a flippant remark about electric vehicles; to be quite honest that's where we're headed, and I'm okay with it. I've been working on internal-combustion engines (and the associated drivetrain) in one form or another my entire life, and frankly

        • The funny thing is, right prior to bankruptcy, GM was promising a hybrid Hummer. Their argument at the time was that it was actually easy to make larger hybrid/electric vehicles because you could carry a lot more batteries. Seems reasonable that you could put a ton (as in 2000 lbs) of batteries under the bed and have quite a bit of storage capacity. Right now those batteries, I'm guessing, would cost as much as some downmarket houses.
          • Musks' Gigafactory may begin to change that. That, and research into better electric energy storage technology is fast and furious right now. Batteries, or whatever ends up replacing them, will get cheaper over time.

  • Everyone's doing it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Thursday January 12, 2017 @03:55PM (#53656229)

    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.

  • ... How many diesel Fiats and Chryslers are on the road ??

  • 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 significant

  • This is what happens (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing. -- Descartes

Close