Fiat-Chrysler Diesels Following in VWs Footsteps?

[blahargoue]

This news story caught my eye this morning and may be of interest to anyone owning a diesel powered light duty RAM (1500) or Jeep vehicles. It was of interest to me because I own a '13 VW Passat the VW has agreed to buyback (at full price including tax and license) as part of their settlement with the government. It will interesting to see if Fiat Chrysler ends up in the same predicament as VW:

(Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday will accuse Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV of using software that allowed excess diesel emissions in just over 100,000 U.S. trucks and SUVs sold since 2014, two sources briefed on the matter said.
The EPA told the automaker it believes its auxiliary emissions control software allowed vehicles to generate excess pollution in violation of the law. Fiat Chrysler declined to comment.
A person briefed on the matter said Fiat Chrysler does not agree with the EPA's assessment. An automaker can use an auxiliary emissions control device in limited circumstances to protect the engine from damage, but it must be declared to regulators.
Fiat Chrysler's U.S.-listed shares and Milan-listed shares were each down 14 percent on the news.
The EPA will announce the findings at an 11 a.m. ET conference call. It comes amid rising scrutiny by EPA of automaker emissions after Volkswagen AG admitted to cheating diesel emissions tests in 580,000 U.S. vehicles.
The EPA has for months declined to certify Fiat Chrysler's 2017 diesel vehicles for sale in the United States, but the automaker has continued to sell 2016 diesel models.
In September 2015, EPA said it would review all U.S. diesel vehicles following an admission from Volkswagen that it installed software in cars allowing them to emit up to 40 times legally permissible level of pollution.
On Wednesday, VW agreed to pay $4.3 billion in criminal and civil fines and plead guilty to three felonies for misleading regulators and selling polluting vehicles.
The EPA has extensively investigated the vehicles and Fiat Chrysler has turned over significant documents as part of the probe, two people briefed on the matter said.
Fiat Chrysler could face fines of up to $37,500 per vehicle if it is proven that it violated emissions rules.
The probe covers Fiat Chrysler diesel trucks and SUVs from the 2014-2016 model years.
(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Nick Zieminski)

Bruce LaHargoue
Arnold, CA

[n2916s]

I think VW brought a common practice into the limelight and the EPA is now aware of how the manufacturers can spoof the system.

That being said, the new head of the EPA may well call off the dogs or substantially reduce any penalties. It's a whole new ballgame and it will be a while before the changes are apparent.

Really tough to forecast the future right now.

[rostam]

I'm sure there are many cheaters among gas powered vehicles as well, but diesels seem to be the easy target.

[Hareynolds]

I have a 2016 Eco ("spaghetti") Diesel with less than 6000 miles, about 75% pulling a 2016 23D.

This little kerfuffle certainly may explain why the mileage on these critters is so good.

My plan WAS to use this combo until retirement, then consider upgrade to 2500 w/Cummins and a 27FB. That WAS going to be about 2 years away (subject to the vagaries of the oil business, which mean that I am not in complete control of my retirement timing). Depending on how this plays-out, my schedule may have just abruptly changed.

Anybody know if VW offers good trade-ins for OTHER VWs?
Just curious.

[Mike S.]

Just thinking out loud, and not meaning to hijack a thread. It would be interesting to see what the maximum efficiency could be achieved on a diesel motor without having the emission restrictions, and to compare that to what we are dealing with currently. Would the mileage increase be enough to offset any increase in pollutants? If you use half (random number) the amount of fuel to go the same distance, are the pollutants equal? Just wondering. Mike

[AWCHIEF]

Personally I hate the older stinking noisy diesels. Modern diesels are not near as offensive as in the past. It would suit me fine if they even clamped down harder on the manufacturers.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by AWCHIEF

Personally I hate the older stinking noisy diesels. Modern diesels are not near as offensive as in the past. It would suit me fine if they even clamped down harder on the manufacturers.

Most folks I know modify their diesels and throw away all the emissions crap as soon as it's out of warranty anyway.

[Larry C]

Originally Posted by Mike S.

Just thinking out loud, and not meaning to hijack a thread. It would be interesting to see what the maximum efficiency could be achieved on a diesel motor without having the emission restrictions, and to compare that to what we are dealing with currently. Would the mileage increase be enough to offset any increase in pollutants? If you use half (random number) the amount of fuel to go the same distance, are the pollutants equal? Just wondering. Mike

Mike, for whatever it's worth, I think you are "right on" with your thought. The problem is that most people don't think like politicians and the environmental nut cases. Our ideas are too simple, example, use half the fuel, and you also half the emissions......nah, it'll never work, it's gotta be complicated to the point where it will support the legal system and the environmental nut cases...

Larry

[jtwind]

I have a Ram ecodiesel. I wondered when the Volkswagen stuff came out if there was any of that goings on with the Ram? I figured it couldn't be so bad as at least the eco diesel has a DEF tank. Never understood how VW could get by without one. In any case, we'll see. It's a great truck, drives nice, pulls great, is comfortable etc. And of course the mileage was a bonus. If it pans out I can live with a 15-20 % bite in mileage. Have to wonder how these companies think they can get away with this stuff??

[franklyfrank]

Originally Posted by AWCHIEF

Personally I hate the older stinking noisy diesels. Modern diesels are not near as offensive as in the past. It would suit me fine if they even clamped down harder on the manufacturers.

The fact that the modern diesels are quieter has nothing to do with the emission control system. Emission control rules just like the cafe standards are way overdone as it is.

[MelGoddard]

I don' t have a diesel, never have; but when I see a diesel going down the road with gobs of black smoke out the pipe, ("rolling coal"), I see a great waste of unburned fuel being ejected.��
If the mixture is set at stoiciometric, all the fuel is burned by all the air, and that's the most efficient use of it. ��
(It says here in fine print anyway!)��

[Packard]

All of the VW diesels since about 2012 have a def tank. I own a 2015 Passat and it for sure has one

As to what can be done with a diesel if EPA got out of the way, my 2006 Dodge cummins has 600 lbs of torque and 325 hp. Reprogramming the computer can have it put out 1200 lbs of torque and over 600 hp, without changing anything else on the engine! A modest 200 lbs of torque increase will also deliver better fuel economy. Check out Smarty Programmers.

I don't believe one can recoup the cost of the Smarty with the fuel savings, witch is why I don't own one. But if I needed more power---

[tjdonahoe]

Originally Posted by Packard

All of the VW diesels since about 2012 have a def tank. I own a 2015 Passat and it for sure has one

As to what can be done with a diesel if EPA got out of the way, my 2006 Dodge cummins has 600 lbs of torque and 325 hp. Reprogramming the computer can have it put out 1200 lbs of torque and over 600 hp, without changing anything else on the engine! A modest 200 lbs of torque increase will also deliver better fuel economy. Check out Smarty Programmers.

I don't believe one can recoup the cost of the Smarty with the fuel savings, witch is why I don't own one. But if I needed more power---

The whole idea is for clean air....... the air we breathe, my 07 6.7 did fine, my 17 with a 6.7 isn't going to be changed either....

[jimfa440]

I love my Ram ECO Diesel. Do you suppose the government will make them change it so I no longer get 15.5 mpg towing and 30+ highway empty? Will I be forced to have it fixed? Just wondering.

[Wazbro]

Originally Posted by Packard

All of the VW diesels since about 2012 have a def tank. I own a 2015 Passat and it for sure has one

As to what can be done with a diesel if EPA got out of the way, my 2006 Dodge cummins has 600 lbs of torque and 325 hp. Reprogramming the computer can have it put out 1200 lbs of torque and over 600 hp, without changing anything else on the engine! A modest 200 lbs of torque increase will also deliver better fuel economy. Check out Smarty Programmers.

I don't believe one can recoup the cost of the Smarty with the fuel savings, witch is why I don't own one. But if I needed more power---

My mothers 2015 Jetta does NOT have a DEF tank.

[n2916s]

The emission control regs actually work. Sure, they require additional complexity and expense and, obviously, there is a mileage penalty but ask any pilot you know what the daytime visibility is now over any major city in the United States compared to 10, 20 or 30 years ago...

Don't know that the air is any safer to breathe but it sure is easier to see through.

Some folks don't think the cost/benefit ratio is appropriate but I do.

[jtwind]

Originally Posted by Packard

All of the VW diesels since about 2012 have a def tank. I own a 2015 Passat and it for sure has one

As to what can be done with a diesel if EPA got out of the way, my 2006 Dodge cummins has 600 lbs of torque and 325 hp. Reprogramming the computer can have it put out 1200 lbs of torque and over 600 hp, without changing anything else on the engine! A modest 200 lbs of torque increase will also deliver better fuel economy. Check out Smarty Programmers.

I don't believe one can recoup the cost of the Smarty with the fuel savings, witch is why I don't own one. But if I needed more power---

Wasn't aware that they added them! Have friends with two Passats and a Jetta and no Def tank in any of them.

[ijustlee]

In the late 70's I bought a 2.3L Ford engine and transmission from a classified ad and it had some cool weird fittings here and there on the smog system. I asked about this and the guy selling me the engine told me about a study he was involved with that was paid for by the EPA involving the effectiveness of smog systems for gasoline engines. This guy was an engineer at Lawrence Berkley Labs and after spending 3 million dollars of tax money his group had come to the conclusion that smog law equipment actually made the air worse because when any little thing was out of wack the emissions went went way up past what an engine in good tune without smog equipment produced. The conclusion of the 3 year study was that the air would be cleaner if there was a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline and the auto makers were allowed to make engines as efficient as they could. The driving public would pay attention when performance and mileage dropped off and get their engines serviced. This makes sense to me as smog controlled engines burn fuel to run the emission systems. If burning fuel makes dirty air why does burning more fuel make it cleaner? Yes, I'm a simple minded person but I've worked on a lot of different machines and simple is usually better! It does seem like most of the problems with modern Diesels is with the emission systems, sometimes a malfunction destroys the engine. People who think "rolling coal" is cool are just being silly. All engines should be designed to get the most out of the fuel consumed and drivers should be taught to pay attention to maintenance so as to not waste fuel. Clean air is very important and I wonder if the emission laws were designed by good engineers or good lawyers?

[Grosspoluter]

Ok just by my username alone you can guess how I feel about the Environmental Pollution Agency
In the late 80s I lost a good paying job to EPA
Here in northern Illinois we have to have our cars tested.
used to be they sniffed your tailpipe now they just hook up a computer
technicians kept wrecking cars when they actually had to hook up hoses and put the cars up on their cheap Dyno machines.
I experience this first hand when the technician put my 84 Buick on there Dyno machine it rolled off the rollers and when the technician realize what it happened he ran inside the car and threw it in park (never touch the brake) just threw it in park, ya the wheel on the other side and the transmission were still rotating at the equivalent of 20 miles an hour😡
This being said, I don't think Fiat Chrysler is as much trouble as VW was / is. VW knowingly hid the information, Chrysler did not.
I don't see Chrysler buying back their products, and with Trump coming in office... well, I think he's going to pull the knife out of the economies back and swiftly use it to lop off the EPA's evil head
If I were Fiat I'd wait and try to talk / negotiate with the EPA after Trump is in office... if there even is a EPA P.T (post Trump)
I admit to not being a fan of Chrysler, but today as soon as I heard the news and saw the stock plummet I bought 240 shares I won't hold them long, and as soon as they rebound I'll drop the company faster then Daimler did🤑

[AWCHIEF]

My gosh! Sure glad not everybody feels that way about environment and the air we breathe.