US Engine Maker Will Pay $1.6 Billion To Settle Claims of Emissions Cheating (nytimes.com) 100
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The United States and the state of California have reached an agreement in principle with the truck engine manufacturer Cummins on a $1.6 billion penalty to settle claims that the company violated the Clean Air Act by installing devices to defeat emissions controls on hundreds of thousands of engines, the Justice Department announced on Friday. The penalty would be the largest ever under the Clean Air Act and the second largest ever environmental penalty in the United States. Defeat devices are parts or software that bypass, defeat or render inoperative emissions controls like pollution sensors and onboard computers. They allow vehicles to pass emissions inspections while still emitting high levels of smog-causing pollutants such as nitrogen oxide, which is linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses.
The Justice Department has accused the company of installing defeat devices on 630,000 model year 2013 to 2019 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines. The company is also alleged to have secretly installed auxiliary emission control devices on 330,000 model year 2019 to 2023 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines. "Violations of our environmental laws have a tangible impact. They inflict real harm on people in communities across the country," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. "This historic agreement should make clear that the Justice Department will be aggressive in its efforts to hold accountable those who seek to profit at the expense of people's health and safety."
In a statement, Cummins said that it had "seen no evidence that anyone acted in bad faith and does not admit wrongdoing." The company said it has "cooperated fully with the relevant regulators, already addressed many of the issues involved, and looks forward to obtaining certainty as it concludes this lengthy matter. Cummins conducted an extensive internal review and worked collaboratively with the regulators for more than four years." Stellantis, the company that makes the trucks, has already recalled the model year 2019 trucks and has initiated a recall of the model year 2013 to 2018 trucks. The software in those trucks will be recalibrated to ensure that they are fully compliant with federal emissions law, said Jon Mills, a spokesman for Cummins. Mr. Mills said that "next steps are unclear" on the model year 2020 through 2023, but that the company "continues to work collaboratively with regulators" to resolve the issue. The Justice Department partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency in its investigation of the case.
The Justice Department has accused the company of installing defeat devices on 630,000 model year 2013 to 2019 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines. The company is also alleged to have secretly installed auxiliary emission control devices on 330,000 model year 2019 to 2023 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines. "Violations of our environmental laws have a tangible impact. They inflict real harm on people in communities across the country," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. "This historic agreement should make clear that the Justice Department will be aggressive in its efforts to hold accountable those who seek to profit at the expense of people's health and safety."
In a statement, Cummins said that it had "seen no evidence that anyone acted in bad faith and does not admit wrongdoing." The company said it has "cooperated fully with the relevant regulators, already addressed many of the issues involved, and looks forward to obtaining certainty as it concludes this lengthy matter. Cummins conducted an extensive internal review and worked collaboratively with the regulators for more than four years." Stellantis, the company that makes the trucks, has already recalled the model year 2019 trucks and has initiated a recall of the model year 2013 to 2018 trucks. The software in those trucks will be recalibrated to ensure that they are fully compliant with federal emissions law, said Jon Mills, a spokesman for Cummins. Mr. Mills said that "next steps are unclear" on the model year 2020 through 2023, but that the company "continues to work collaboratively with regulators" to resolve the issue. The Justice Department partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency in its investigation of the case.
What's the real deal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Cummins said they "seen no evidence that anyone acted in bad faith and does not admit wrongdoing." OK... how does what the DOJ claims is an "auxiliary emission control device" install itself accidentally? Is the DOJ not painting the correct picture here? Are those devices normal and just "miscalibrated." Am I missing something .. what's Cummins side of this?
Re:What's the real deal? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: What's the real deal? (Score:2)
Sounds similar to pleading 'no contest' in traffic court..."I won't admit to doing what I did because the insurance company will jack my rates if I do."
Re: What's the real deal? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine how they can avoid lawsuits. The recall will affect something, probably performance and fuel efficiency.
Re: What's the real deal? (Score:2)
The issue is less nefarium and more political processing. Most regulators in the epa are evidence based, science driven, and aligned with the obvious goals of the department. But political leaders are beholden to their various constituencies, only one of which is voters, and so pressure epa (and other departments) to make all the changes they can, leading to bizarre, inefficient, and counterproductive results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the real deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The deal struck with VW was that they wouldn't be bankrupted on the condition that they implement an accelerated transition to EVs & phase out ICE vehicles more rapidly, as well as paying compensation to all their customers. A win for the environment & a win for the customers.
Re: (Score:3)
Their EVs are overpriced, old-fashioned, and inefficient in both manufacture and operation
VWid.3 is comparable to the Chinese-made MG4, but cots $10,000 dollars more
Quote their CEO: "Our id series cars take 30 hours to make; Tesla takes 10 hours to make a car"
VW software shuts off occasionally on the highway, leaving you unable to slow down, and no instruments showing on your screen.
Part of their sett
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is lawyer language for we did it but were not admitting anything that could get us sued by our customers.
No. I've worked in the automotive software space previously. The articles I've read don't mention anything specific. They only mention a secret "auxiliary emission control device". That's a legal term for a software function that might impact emissions.
In automotive software, there is wiggle room for what you can and cannot do in your software. One thing you absolutely cannot do, is have poor documentation. How many software engineers do you know that write good documentation?
Cummins statement tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'll have to consult the manual. [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Woop, updated link: https://twitter.com/Jerknado/s... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
$1.6 billion says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Probably some code and the good ol' trick of having an algorithm detect well known test procedures and modify engine behavior.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe a bypass for a bad DEF system sensor. Many truck engines will shut down if they get a bad sensor input. Bypass jumpers or plugs are available to get them running so they can be serviced. The truck drivers might just be ordering the bypass plugs to avoid having to fill up on DEF. Not Cummins fault if the need for the bypass was misrepresented.
Re:What's the real deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is absolutely not what happened. Cummins did effectively the same thing that volkswagon did.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. So they had code detect a test procedure and modify behavior. I wonder if that 1.6b is really as impactful as they claim. It seems that I've never seen a company fail over a government's fine, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
It will be reduced on appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the real deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "defeat device" isn't a physical thing that plugs in somewhere, it's in the software of the ECU.
I'm assuming the trick is similar to what VW pulled a few years back. The software would detect when the car was being run on a dyno (that is, being tested) and would change the engine's combustion parameters to be emissions-compliant. As soon as the car was off the dyno and back on a normal road surface, it would revert back to its "normal", non-compliant operation.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
it's in the software of the ECU.
At one point, the EPA authorized [cwpma.org] bypass software patches due to the unavailability of repair parts. Could be that the truck owners just neglected to have the patch removed.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, for "630,000 model year 2013 to 2019 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines. The company is also alleged to have secretly installed auxiliary emission control devices on 330,000 model year 2019 to 2023 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines. " ? Uh huh. You appear to be a corporate whore!
Re: (Score:2)
The "defeat device" isn't a physical thing that plugs in somewhere, it's in the software of the ECU.
Exactly. Engine manufacturers don't get in trouble for failing emissions tests. They get in trouble for undocumented code.
I've yet to find an article that mentions how this code works. Detecting a vehicle is being tested is a blatant violation. However, any undocumented code that might impact emissions [dieselnet.com] is considered a violation of the Clean Air Act.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What's the real deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cummins said they "seen no evidence that anyone acted in bad faith and does not admit wrongdoing."
Well, see, the higher ups that ordered this didn't "do" anything - they only said something. They ordered their employees to install these devices, but didn't tell the employees why they were being installed.
The employees who did "do" something - install the device - were unaware of why it was being done, so they did not act in bad faith. They were just following the boss' instructions.
Can I have my law degree now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OK... how does what the DOJ claims is an "auxiliary emission control device" install itself accidentally?
We talked about this during VW Dieselgate (which actually included Mercedes and BMW too.) Software that performs the function is also considered a "defeat device". It's possible to miscalibrate the software in the PCM to do this accidentally, although it's extremely unlikely.
Cummins' plan for the future is hydrogen ICEVs, which are a total boondoggle, so you can safely assume them to have done this on purpose too.
Bye Bye Cummins. (Score:1)
Must be an investor with connection out there looking to buy cheap.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you're under 45 years old. Know how I can tell? You didn't see the Cuyahoga River burning on the nightly news, or the mercury children, or rivers changing to bizarre colors downriver from the mine tailings, or Love Canal, or ...
Things had gotten so bad that a conservative Republican president had to create the EPA.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If something important is configured wrong you fix the config, you don't just throw it away and not replace it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Hope they have to uninstall... (Score:2, Insightful)
...those "Roll Coal" kits brain-dead necks have put on their trucks. Morons.
Re: (Score:1)
I know that most on here like to bash the end user, but there are valid reasons for getting rid of all that emissions crap. After doing the DPF delete and the EGR bypass, my truck went from 11 mpg to 18 mpg. Mind you I am not one of those "Roll Coal" types. I just wanted better fuel mileage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There were probably idiots like you back in the 70s complaining about the original cat converters while people were literally choking in smog in places like LA. "That emissions crap" isn't there to personally piss you off, it has a valid purpose which morons like you are too arrogant to care about.
Re: (Score:3)
There were probably idiots like you back in the 70s complaining about the original cat converters while people were literally choking in smog in places like LA. "That emissions crap" isn't there to personally piss you off, it has a valid purpose which morons like you are too arrogant to care about.
Lots of things have a "valid purpose," but are so fucking poorly implemented that they cause more damage then they solve. The first generation (pre urea) diesel particulate filters were just such a situation.
Re: (Score:1)
Firstly, it's not your, or any regular consumer's, problem to fix. And secondly, no they weren't.
Most consumers who have bought diesel vehicles have had absolutely no reason to do so other than they own stupidity and selfishness.
Re: (Score:2)
"had absolutely no reason to do so other than they own stupidity and selfishness"
Right, because torque and hence load hauling ability and fuel economy had nothing to do with it.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
In the US, most consumers buying diesel have absolutely no need for that much torque and load hauling. Most consumer diesel vehicles on the road have never actually hauled anything in their entire lifetimes. And for most consumer diesel vehicles, the fuel economy is outweighed by pretty much every other negative possible - loud, slow, dirty, more expensive to maintain. So, unless the consumer actually needs that torque and hauling ability, the only other reasons to buy a diesel is because they're stupid. Th
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you drove a diesel vehicle? They haven't been loud and slow since the 2000s. As for maintenance - modern diesel engines are easily good for 300K miles. A gasoline/petrol engine will be lucky to do half that without a major overhaul.
Re: (Score:1)
They are still louder and slower than the average equivalent gas counterparts, regardless of how much they may have improved.
And for maintenance, including all costs of ownership: the diesel is more expensive upfront. Since 2004, the fuel is more expensive than gas. And yes, you are right that the diesel will go longer before needing maintenance, however when it does need that maintenance, it is more expensive. Couple that with more expensive upfront and the fuel, unless you are hauling, you aren't getting
Re: Hope they have to uninstall... (Score:2)
I used to own a 3.0 diesel 300c (sold in europe and aus). It did 0-60 in 7 secs, considerably quicker than the 3.5 petrol version and only 2 secs slower than the v8. So no, they're not slower. But given diesel prices in the US I can see they dont make economic sense there but personally i prefer the low down torque and low rpm unstressed engines.
Re: (Score:1)
I used to own a 3.0 diesel 300c (sold in europe and aus).
Ok. That's fine. But since it's not available or sold in the US, it isn't relevant. The US only has diesel pickup trucks and SUVs as consumer vehicles, so I'm only ever comparing all of the diesels available in the US vs all of the non-diesels available in the US.
So again, any comparison diesel passenger cars (sedan, compact, hatchback, etc) is useless to me and my entire point because they are not available in the market being discussed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There were probably idiots like you back in the 70s complaining about the original cat converters while people were literally choking in smog in places like LA. "That emissions crap" isn't there to personally piss you off, it has a valid purpose which morons like you are too arrogant to care about.
The EPA rules which went into effect in 1974 did very little to end smog. If you look at the measurements for smog in LA they started to drop dramatically in the mid to late 90's.
Annual Air Quality Los Angeles County [slashdot.org]
If you consider the average age of vehicles at the time was just under 10 years you want to look at what happened in the mid 80's. That's an easy one. It's when semiconductors became cheap and good enough to start using wide scale in automotive. Electronic fuel injection is what we should b
Re: (Score:3)
After doing the DPF delete and the EGR bypass, my truck went from 11 mpg to 18 mpg... I just wanted better fuel mileage.
I'll try not to judge you too hard, as I don't know your situation. Maybe you don't live in a city, and maybe you researched it and found that the better mileage actually makes it better for the environment. But is not, you should know that there is a very clear correlation between air pollution and heart conditions, brain problems, and deaths. It's hard to attribute blame for such a spread out action, but it's not really any different to knowingly spreading a disease or throwing cigarettes into nature with
Re: (Score:2)
Cut the sanctimonious crap!
Everything we do has a cost. he has lowered his carbon emissions by burning less fuel. its a choice, he made one.
Everything you do is perfect right? You don't ever buy stuff in disposable plastic containers do you? I mean how many seconds of healthy life have you deprived someone of due to the micro plastics you produced?
The guy isnt being intentionally wasteful or acting carelessly. You'd have an argument if he was doing it because 'its fun to roll coal' but this kinda finger
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yes, that fashionable modern belief that one wrong negates another wrong, and that nobody who isn't a saint can criticize anybody else about anything.
That said, your post was rude so we won't continue this conversation.
Re: (Score:1)
Better gas mileage doesn't automatically mean lowered carbon, or other, emissions. Knowingly disabling these things is acting carelessly, and selfishly.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you need a different and better vehicle completely. Otherwise, don't complain about your abysmal gas mileage and put your shit back on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
After doing the DPF delete and the EGR bypass, my truck went from 11 mpg to 18 mpg.
Do you actually haul things in your "truck", or are you like the 99%+ of pickup truck owners I see on the road who never carry anything in their truck, but drive them due to some stupid macho thing?
Re: (Score:2)
You can’t haul much of anything in a modern truck. The bed is shorter than an 80s Honda station wagon. Don’t want to scratch that expensive bed liner. Actual trade people drive box or sprinter vans that can hold full sized sheets of plywood.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don’t be a cunt
I forgot (Score:2)
Software? (Score:2)
The software in those trucks
This is why I'm hanging on to my old truck [pinimg.com] for as long as possible.
Wave when you see me in your rear view mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as long as it isn't the war rig [wp.com].
This sort of stuff is why I don't buy diesels... (Score:2)
With all the complex subsystems that are prone to failing, be it a DPF plugging and being a $5000 repair, or the pee can getting urea crystals, causing a no-start condition, might as well just use a gasoline engine where the worst issue with it, is someone ripping off the cats. For larger machinery, there is no getting around it, a diesel is a must, but maybe for some tasks, even an electric motor with a ICE engine burning fuel can do the job, similar to how modern locomotives do power.
For example, anythin
Re: (Score:3)
Our T1N's HPFP failed because THE SCREWS CAME OUT OF IT (thanks, Bosch, you incompetent fucks) and the resulting chaos caused the boss on the intermediate gear that drives the HPFP "drive" piece (which in turn drives the HPFP) to break.
Knowing what I know now I would go back and buy a fucking Chevy Express 1500 AWD and never have fucked with a Mercedes. I knew better.
Re: (Score:2)
The T1N also had turbo resonator issues as well. However, in general, if I were going for a van in the US, I'd go for the Express line, just because they have not had any major changes, for better or worse, in decades, and parts are everywhere. If I wanted a Euro-van, a Ford Transit, just because parts are not cheap... but can be gotten.
Re: This sort of stuff is why I don't buy diesels. (Score:2)
Turbo resonator is easily replaced with a $30 aluminum pipe. Makes the turbo a little louder, which is cool by me, sounds like a horde of crickets.
The intermediate gear requires valve cover removal and if you don't want to play fancy tricks, also HEAD REMOVAL. I choose to be tricky of course. Supposedly I can just disconnect the neighboring sprocket and get it and the chain out of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the best cure is to go for a Ford Transit or RAM ProMaster. They may not ride as smoothly, but parts are a lot easier to find, and, IMHO, gassers are a lot easier to deal with than diesels.
Re: This sort of stuff is why I don't buy diesels (Score:2)
I'm going to have to fix it to get something out of the investment. At that point I will definitely not consider either of those vehicles. I've worked on a few transits (did RV stuff to them including a really sweet solar install on one) and some pro masters and both are pretty crap.
Chevy made an Express 1500 with a LS V8 and AWD, if we get another van I think that's what it will be.
Re: (Score:1)
Add it to the VW fine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Blame a couple of rogue software writers :] (Score:2)
How much did they make? (Score:2)
While it's great it is a large amount, we need to know how much profit they made from the trucks. If the fine is less than the profit they made from the trucks that were sold illegally, it is not enough. At that point, it is just a cost of doing business because if they do it and don't get caught their profits rise and if they do get caught, their profits are just somewhat lower, but still profitable. If I sell something illegal, I am going to jail and abt revenue (not profit but revenue) would be seized. T
Everyone is doing it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a false equivalence, there is a world of difference between designing a system for the test and having it behave the same on the road, and designing a system to identify the test and changing the system's behaviour while being tested.
We all know controlled tests cannot be perfectly representative, and (hopefully) they're continually improved to better represent the real world.
What are the specifics? (Score:2)
Neither linked article had any specific details. Just generalities
Hmmmmm..... (Score:3)
In a statement, Cummins said that it had "seen no evidence that anyone acted in bad faith and does not admit wrongdoing."
So, if corporations are people, where does one sign up for the "just pay a fee and this all goes away" treatment from law enforcement?
"Oh! Was I doing 130mph in that school zone? Again? Lulz! Silly me! Here, take this $2.17 and go away, won't you? There's a good chap. "
I'm absolutely positive that this will eliminate the need for most of the legal system. It works so well for our Corporate "citizens" and folks with that terrible Affluenza. Isn't one of the guiding ideas behind the justice system the concept of equal protection? Just treat us like you do them! What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
"just the cost of doing business" (Score:2)
If it's "legal, for a price", then it's not illegal - it's just a "cost of doing business".
Either make the fines MUCH larger, like "this could put us out of business" large, or throw the board in JAIL.
This BS of fines that they just shrug, pay, and move along, all it means is what they did isn't really illegal, it's just a cost of doing business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It feels more to me like "the general public wants this to be illegal, but my generous donors want to keep doing it, so we'll just pass laws that make it LOOK illegal, so the public thinks I'm doing my job", and "all the while they can keep doing it as long as they pay a small fine and I'll keep receiving my legal bribes". It's a win-win for the politicians and corporations. And the public loses.
Re: (Score:1)
If it's "legal, for a price", then it's not illegal - it's just a "cost of doing business".
Either make the fines MUCH larger, like "this could put us out of business" large, or throw the board in JAIL.
This BS of fines that they just shrug, pay, and move along, all it means is what they did isn't really illegal, it's just a cost of doing business.
On a smaller scale since pot is still not legal in my area, one of the cities made it a minor offense like paying a $25 parking ticket. Now you can't walk more than a block without smelling it. Not saying that like it's a bad thing, I think it's bullshit to take any action against it but point is the pot users are essentially on a much smaller scale behaving like the business here. Ehhh, it's just a $25 fine so it's OK to break the law and just pay the fine. Of course the business's image will be tarnished
Nothing new (Score:1)
The truth about Rolling Coal (Score:2)
is that a lot of drivers believe that if there's no smoke, they're losing horsepower. And many others just think it's really cool.
https://dieseliq.com/truth-abo... [dieseliq.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Go back to testing the tailpipe - ignore the ECU (Score:1)