FCA gets its own diesel lawsuit

[fuzzymoomoo]

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/11/14/fca-ram-cummins-diesel-emissions-class-action-lawsuit/

[jpd80]

Enema time for FCA if it has been screwing around but is this anything more than

ambulance chasers smelling money and convincing thousands to sign up?

 

 

As an underlying motive, the filing mentions a 2001 change in EPA emissions standards. Announced to become effective in 2010, the EPA requirements drove Chrysler and Cummins to try and reach those already by 2007. However, the NAC system is said to have fallen short of these goals, and the filing claims that Chrysler and Cummins chose to "rig" the engines instead.

This predates the requirement for Selective catalytic reduction (Urea injection) before about 2010.

The question to be asked was whether Dodge deliberately set out to conceal facts or did they

simply build to the regulations of the day while they perfected a better NOX emission solution.

 

(late edit to correct grammar, spelling)

Edited November 15, 2016 by jpd80

[akirby]

Sure sounds like ambulance chasing.

[RichardJensen]

If the action caused excess wear of the cat-con, then they've got a legit case under the same 'merchantability' and/or 'fitness of purpose' doctrine mentioned on the Toyota frame rust thread.

[jpd80]

By design, the NAC captures and stores NOx emissions, converting them to nitrogen and oxygen through a catalytic process.

The lawsuit claims the Cummins engine's system has a limited capacity to store the emissions, and as a result the pollutants

escape, increasing emissions, worsening fuel consumption and wearing down the catalytic converter.

So now I'm wondering if this NOX trap was insufficient for the amount of NOX it had to process,

we know form the diesel experience that this system was chosen as being cheaper but only

works on a cycle of regen where the engine runs rich to catalyse the trapped NOX with extra fuel.

 

The thing here is for the team to prove that the trucks

- didn't live up to the claimed fuel economy

- released more pollutants than they were supposed to under the law

- shortened the life of the life of the catalytic converter...or was that NOX trap.

 

This could get very interesting...

Edited November 15, 2016 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

I don't think the customers are concerned about the vehicles failing to meet existing EPA regs unless they subsequently failed state emissions checks despite being in good working order, something which the lawsuit apparently doesn't mention.

[jpd80]

I don't think the customers are concerned about the vehicles failing to meet existing EPA regs unless they subsequently failed state emissions checks despite being in good working order, something which the lawsuit apparently doesn't mention.

In other releases, the lawyers have stated the emissions often exceeded the specified limits,

some reports say twice as much, some say up to ten times as much...

No doubt the lawyers will make this look as bad as possible....

 

Also, FCA and Cummins have been at war recently over another recall on 42,000 later trucks

over SCR emissions. FCA did the recall and then tired to charge Cummins $60 Million for it.

 

There's a bit of form behind this and I wouldn't be surprised if mistakes were made on the earlier trucks..

[atomcat68]

I don't think the customers are concerned about the vehicles failing to meet existing EPA regs unless they subsequently failed state emissions checks despite being in good working order, something which the lawsuit apparently doesn't mention.

 

Agreed. The difference with the VW case seems to be VW actively placed a device in the cars to cheat. VW's case was an intentional attempt to deceive customers and regulators and not a failure of technology to live up to claims.

[RichardJensen]

Right--and the damage to customers is due to the vehicles requiring retrofitting that will affect fuel economy and resale. That is not, as far as I know, being alleged with these Ram pickups.

 

But it is interesting that Cummins is having difficulty with SCR, or at least has been, vis a vis the PowerStroke/Cummins discussion in MD trucks.

[J-150]

In other releases, the lawyers have stated the emissions often exceeded the specified limits,

some reports say twice as much, some say up to ten times as much...

No doubt the lawyers will make this look as bad as possible....

 

Also, FCA and Cummins have been at war recently over another recall on 42,000 later trucks

over SCR emissions. FCA did the recall and then tired to charge Cummins $60 Million for it.

 

There's a bit of form behind this and I wouldn't be surprised if mistakes were made on the earlier trucks..

 

Good luck with that FCA. Lose the Cummins and watch Ram HD sales fall to zero.

[jpd80]

Good luck with that FCA. Lose the Cummins and watch Ram HD sales fall to zero.

The scuttlebutt from the Cummins side is that FCA wasn't willing to pay for any of the recall issue with SCR

on the later trucks, that they were cheap and trying to lay all the costs onto Cummins by suing them for $60 million.

 

I wonder if Cummins is right, that a lot of this recall pain is because FCA dragged its feet with both of these recalls

and getting on top of issues when they arise.. we're back to how you treat customers.