Jeep Garage  - Jeep Forum banner

U.S. preparing to sue Fiat Chrysler over excess diesel emissions

20K views 101 replies 41 participants last post by  Rblnr 
#1 · (Edited)
DOJ could sue FCA if they don't reach an agreement very soon.

Just write me a check to the tune of the VW 3.0L TDI settlement and let's be done with it. Of course, that may bankrupt FCA unlike VW's ability to absorb $25 billion in penalties, compensation, and buybacks. All FCA EcoDiesel owners have suffered a hit to the value of our vehicles. Of course, the EPA is actually the culprit here, but you can't sue the Gov.

U.S. preparing to sue Fiat Chrysler over excess diesel emissions | Reuters

The suit being prepared alleges the company used illegal defeat devices, one of the people said. Such devices — software in computerized systems — improperly disable pollution controls to enhance performance. Volkswagen AG admitted in 2015 to using defeat devices that turned on emissions controls to pass tests but turned them off during driving.

Fiat Chrysler is adamant that its controls weren’t designed to cheat emissions tests like Volkswagen’s. Investigators have said Fiat Chrysler hasn’t been able to fully explain the purpose of all the functions to their satisfaction.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/chrysler/2017/05/17/fca-emissions/101812052/
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
At this point if FCA is denying they used cheating algorithms to pass emissions and they did, they would be the biggest fools on the planet. I seriously doubt anyone in the DOJ is doing jack regardless of what is printed in the 4th Estate. My experience is that this is typical of the gov't to send out little shots like this to put pressure on FCA to settle. EPA is emaciated by the current administration but I do believe that EPA will continue to be provided the resources for helping this situation come to a conclusion. From an EPA perspective they want FCA to admit they cheated and when FCA said they didn't and so far EPA can't prove anything significant I think EPA is looking to settle so that it appears they (EPA) won protected our country from more harmful diesel emissions.

The longer this goes and the more silent EPA is supports FCA claim that they did not cheat. Long drawn out silent periods are indicative of behind the scenes negotiations.

This was not the case with VW. That process was very different. Either VW decided corporately to fess up and FCA doesn't or FCA truly believes that they were not at fault.

This is getting to be like a mystery novel.......
 
#3 · (Edited)
Of course, the EPA is actually the culprit here, but you can't sue the Gov.
This only makes me love my EcoDiesel even more. The evil EPA can pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead hands. I mean, I was planning to drive it until the wheels came off anyway, but it only makes me happier that the EPA hates my vehicle in particular.

I also retrofit my recent-production gas cans to have spouts that actually pour without ironically spilling gas everywhere (because I added a vent too, *gasp*). Similar double win there: a working product to enjoy while simultaneously defying the evil EPA's attempt to control our lives by foisting inferior products on the market via government mandate.
 
#4 ·
DOJ could sue FCA if they don't reach an agreement very soon.

Just write me a check to the tune of the VW 3.0L TDI settlement and let's be done with it. Of course, that may bankrupt FCA unlike VW's ability to absorb $25 billion in penalties, compensation, and buybacks. All FCA EcoDiesel owners have suffered a hit to the value of our vehicles. Of course, the EPA is actually the culprit here, but you can't sue the Gov.

U.S. preparing to sue Fiat Chrysler over excess diesel emissions | Reuters

The suit being prepared alleges the company used illegal defeat devices, one of the people said. Such devices — software in computerized systems — improperly disable pollution controls to enhance performance. Volkswagen AG admitted in 2015 to using defeat devices that turned on emissions controls to pass tests but turned them off during driving.

Fiat Chrysler is adamant that its controls weren’t designed to cheat emissions tests like Volkswagen’s. Investigators have said Fiat Chrysler hasn’t been able to fully explain the purpose of all the functions to their satisfaction.

Justice could sue FCA over diesel emissions

classic, "I blame the cops - the suspect is innocent, but even then I'll be happy to take a settlement at the expense of the innocent party"


if they didn't do it, shouldn't be a problem to win the case. Just like the Prez's troubles .... why worry about a Special Counsel, it will just prove there was nothing improper, right?

(btw, still love my ED)
 
#5 ·
classic, "I blame the cops - the suspect is innocent, but even then I'll be happy to take a settlement at the expense of the innocent party"


if they didn't do it, shouldn't be a problem to win the case. Just like the Prez's troubles .... why worry about a Special Counsel, it will just prove there was nothing improper, right?

(btw, still love my ED)
When the EPA filed their notice against FCA the last week of the former Administration, they lowered the value of all of our EcoDiesel powered vehicles. The EPA drew figures out of thin air that they couldn't even measure themselves, and expected VW and everybody else to comply with it. VW did that, per the test that the EPA devised. Quite frankly and even preferably, the former EPA execs and the previous Admin ought to be sued for the loss of value to our EcoDiesel powered vehicles.

Special Counsel's are not appointed to look for ethical violations, they are looking for criminal behavior, which considered that the FBI/NSA had been tapping the Admin ever since they got the nomination last June, have found absolutely nothing to bring anyone up on criminal charges. This EPA witch-hunt on FCA looks and smells much like this Special Counsel appointment.
 
#6 ·
put your foil hat on, and all will be well


any value loss is theoretical until you go to sell it ... and I doubt there is a real loss given how many people want these rigs. I bought mine well before this issue and had to have it shipped from a dealer 1000 miles away. Unless there is a finding the engine is less reliable or otherwise more prone to failure they'll maintain their value, there are always going to be diesel jeep aficionados willing to pay up
 
#12 ·
Well it's already happening. Because of all the BS around our vehicles I considered trading my 2014 Summit for a new GMC 2500HD Duramax- 445hp, 910 lb-ft- 2 weeks ago. The GMC/Buick dealer wanted nothing to do with my diesel, said they were afraid they'd get stuck with it because of the EPA lawsuit.Their used car manager called 2 area Jeep dealers to see if either of them would put a number on it as a trade and they both said no
 
  • Like
Reactions: splinterz88
#8 ·
I'm well familiar with how the VW diesel saga has affected vehicle values, my folks have both a Passat TDI 2.0L and a Touareg TDI 3.0L. Sure, VW rolled over like a limp doll to what at that time was a very aggressive and overbearing EPA (and Administration,) but that same EPA attempted to the same thing with the FCA notice the last week the previous Admin was in office. Whether we like it or not, until this is all cleared up and settled, and or IF FCA is able to sell the remaining ED vehicles as is, our value is diminished. How much loss is debatable, but used ED's are going for the same or less as comparable V8's, but the ED's only cost more up front.

Under this new Administration, many of the top EPA execs have already been shown the door but apparently, there is enough to keep the story going as it has.
 
#9 ·
To clear the air here. VW purposely and willfully programed their cars to cheat emissions tests by determining if they were on a dyno. Once the vehicle determined this it then ran an optional program to run with low emissions to pass the EPA's test. FCA did not do this. FCA had 8 software programs (the 8 aux devices) added to their vehicles from 2014 - 2017 to protect the engine / transmission from damage which in effect increased emissions - which was allowed by EPA rules. FCA's issue with the EPA was NOT REPORTING these software devices to the EPA. VW scandal was much, much worse in it's behavior bordering on criminal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dsears00
#10 ·
That is what you and the former Administration's EPA says, but I look at the VW TDI issue differently. I see the EPA throwing darts onto the ceiling when they lowered the NOx levels as they did, and VW simply devised their vehicles to meet those chimerical levels per the way the EPA devised their test for these vehicles. Only when WVU students started testing the vehicles in real-world conditions did the EPA sanctimoniously cry foul. Not a single TDI owner was ever disappointed by the fuel economy, torque, and/or reliability of their turbocharged direct-injected diesels.

The DOJ says they still have holes in FCA's responses to their initial findings, and if those issues were so indefensible, FCA would be selling EcoDiesels today.
 
#14 · (Edited)
Here is all i picked up, and if you have ever been in a lawsuit, it should ring for you.

"A federal judge in California has set a May 24 hearing on a series of lawsuits filed by owners of vehicles against Fiat Chrysler and the Justice Department is expected to file its action by then if no agreement is reached."

That sounds like "leveraging" for a forced settlement. If they can defend their position, I'm sure they will.

I'd buy a 2017 or 2018 ED rig today, at whatever price was on it.
 
#17 · (Edited)
Mine was a lease too and I wound up buying mine last month ('14 diesel limited 4x4 with OR2, Lux and Nav - basically an Overland without all the extra niceties and cost). The buyout from the contract was lower than KBB for retail and private party and the dealer had two other '14 ED Overlands on the lot for $10k more than mine. Didn't make sense to turn it in. I also had 1k more miles over that I'd have to pay a penalty on. I bought a Mopar 5 year / 100k bumper 2 bumper extended warranty as well. So any issues I have full coverage with $100 deductible and towing / roadside assistance.
 
#16 ·
I would recommend buying the Jeep if you like and want it long term and or giving it back to the dealer if you don't.

I'm not sure if you are able to negotiate a different residual value based on the current suit status. Worth an ask.

Could be wrong, but Jeep has been indicating there will an update to software and no hardware changes. By buying it, you will be in the same boat as the rest of us... waiting for the software change (if mandated) and potentially a cash settlement...
 
#19 ·
Do we think this will have any effect on the certification of the 17s? I'm still trying to decide if I should wait it out or jump on the Hemi....argh.
 
#20 ·
What is the point of doing this by the DOJ when FCA has applied for certification on the 17 model for CARB and EPA and retrofit for 14-16 models?

Put more pressure on FCA to settle?
Fines for the 14-16 models?

I think my days of buying diesel are quickly coming to a close...
 
#22 ·
What is the point of doing this by the DOJ when FCA has applied for certification on the 17 model for CARB and EPA and retrofit for 14-16 models?
It makes sense, and 2017 CRDs may surface if approved in time. Behind doors I'm sure they have discussed the fine details regarding the "lack of disclosure" of the AECDs and what has been done "wrong" in the past. That should paint a clear picture of how to certify 2017s and if it truly is simply software, boom, 2017 should pass. 2014-2016 would be contested in court.
 
#21 ·
It would appear that FCA wanted to make it seem that the Feds/Carb had agreed to a fix and therefore would approve the 2017s and 2014-2016 fix they applied for. Maybe it was an "in your face" move. The government's move could be seen as a pretty quick rebut to that. Not a positive sign for we owners.
 
#24 ·
There are 2 things that I am wondering about:
1. What effect will this "fix" have on performance, drivability, reliability, and engine life.


2. I want the GDE tune, but am afraid that I will be forced to get a dealer ECM flash. I finally got the "safety recall" flash done at my last service; now I have to wait for this? Getting frustrated.
 
#25 ·
yeah I waited to buy the GDE for about 4 months between making the decision to tune and actually getting it ... mainly was hoping someone would have a handheld tuner like the sct X4 (iirc) i had on my tuned 2012 f150 5.0.

loved the ability to change features, upload/download the tune files, return it to stock, anytime i wanted to.

that said, the GDE tune is worth it ... just not ideal having an umbilical attaching you to them anytime the ecm gets a dealer flash (and $100+ extra charge to get back what you already bought...)
 
#26 ·
deadspin-quote-carrot-aligned-w-bgr-2

Another view on the subject. Carefully worded by FCA in the article, "does not anticipate any impact on performance or fuel efficiency" CYA for sure.

The only way to see is when the 2017 is certified and if the MPG rating has to be recertified also.

I plan on keeping my ECO for a long time, but to think this will not have an impact on vehicle value once this issue is resolved is not being realistic.

Time will tell. JMO
 
#27 · (Edited)
"FCA’s suit appears to differ from VW’s scandal in that VW’s defeat device actually sensed when the vehicle was being tested by the government on a dyno, and turned up emissions controls accordingly. FCA, on the other hand, appears to have optimized its emissions controls software to the EPA’s drive cycles too narrowly, and not focused on keeping emissions down in off-cycle, normal on-road conditions."

Extracted from the article wireman posted.
The real issue is
Auxiliary Emissions Control Device, or AECD
DOJ says FCA didn't disclose these software programs and it is speculated that FCA forgot to disclosure them. I actually think FCA was reluctant to disclose them to protect intellectual properties. Those programs reveal how FCA AECD interfaces with the entire engine system and would be very valuable to any other diesel company. Yes EPA has to sign non discloser agreements with all auto companies but things have a way of leaking out. Not disclosing them protects those properties.

I think FCA has a strong arguement there as well as what is "normal driving" and acknowledgement by EPA that emissions will be exceeded under certain conditions.

I fail to see the value of the DOJ lawsuit unless it is to pressure negotiations or to win and access fines against the existing models out there 14-16...

I kind of think that if the lawsuit presses ahead it will be settled well past the fixes that FCA implements.

Going to be interesting that is for sure.....
 
#29 · (Edited)
I just read the entire complaint which by the way provided zero data to support exceeding the emissions.
To me this extract from the complaint gives FCA some reasonable wiggle room.
"A “defeat device” is an AECD that “reduces the effectiveness of the
emission control system under conditions which may reasonably be expected to be
encountered in normal vehicle operation and use, unless: (1) Such conditions are
substantially included in the Federal emission test procedure; (2) The need for the
AECD is justified in terms of protecting the vehicle against damage or accident; (3)
The AECD does not go beyond the requirements of engine starting; or (4) The
AECD applies only for emergency vehicles . . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 86.1803-01. "

But the Aux devices can be construed to be one of 3 possible things:
No way will FCA reveal the devices operation to protect intellectual properties
Deliberate omission of the devices
FCA delegated to Bosch the programming of the aux devices.

It was not clear before if Bosch just turned over the aux devices for programming by the manufacturer but now is clear that Bosch did program for the manufacturer based on direction from the manufacturer. Who is at fault here? Is the subcontractor at fault for following the direction of the manufacturer?

That is going to be interesting hearing Bosch and FCA explain this relationship and who is at fault. Didn't DOJ also sue Bosch and VW? I have not heard if Bosch was held accountable.

I am still waiting for DOJ or anyone else to produce the emission results. The loop hole that allows the engine to produce more emissions on selected conditions seems open to interpretation.

GM is next on the list for EPA/ DOJ now that too should be interesting.....

I just saw that Bosch settled for $1.55B with DOJ so I think it reasonable that they will be tagged on this suit too...
 
#31 ·
Here is the actual suit filed by the DOJ. Interesting.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/0...lawsuits-over-emissions-hit-gm-fiat-chrysler/

The US government filed a complaint on Tuesday (PDF) claiming that FCA asked Bosch—the same German auto parts supplier that VW Group got its engine software from—to “customize” the engine control system software that FCA used in its diesels.

The complaint details how each of the eight so-called defeat devices found across the 103,828 vehicles in question worked. One program, found in 2014 diesel Ram 1500s and Jeep Grand Cherokees, completely turned off the Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system as soon as the car got up to highway speeds. Another, found on 2015 and 2016 Rams and Jeeps, reduced the effectiveness of the EGR system as speeds increased. (The US emissions test, which takes place in a lab, occurs at an average speed of 21.2 mph.) Another program disabled the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system, which sprays urea into exhaust to reduce NOx to nitrogen and water. Another delayed refilling the SCR catalyst with ammonia at certain intervals to keep the system working normally.

“The magnitude of the emissions increase depends on, among other things, the type of Subject Vehicle and the driving conditions,” the complaint notes.
 
#32 ·
From page 23/24 from Complaint, which is linked PDF in article:

106. The following eight AECDs, when engaged individually or in
combination with one or more of the other eight AECDs, impact the emission
control system of the Subject Vehicles:
a. AECD #1 (full EGR shut-off at highway speed);
b. AECD #2 (reduced EGR with increasing vehicle speed);
c. AECD #3 (EGR shut-off for exhaust valve cleaning);
d. AECD #4 (DEF dosing disablement during SCR adaptation);
e. AECD #5 (EGR reduction due to modeled engine temperature);
f. AECD #6 (SCR catalyst warm-up disablement);
g. AECD #7 (alternative SCR dosing modes); and
h. AECD #8 (use of load governor to delay ammonia refill of SCR
catalyst).
Freaking incredible, 38 pages of dribble and that is all the information provided about the routines at least that I saw. That is not even enough to information to begin to understand if these routines are reasonable or not. No wonder lawyers are so expensive, most of it is useless process!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top