silvrsvt Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Uh oh https://jalopnik.com/the-epa-will-accuse-fiat-chrysler-of-installing-softwar-1791115155 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Was just going to post this. Shares Currently down 16%. They cannot survive what VW just went through. This could be the nail in the coffin. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Trading stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) Letter from EPA: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/fca-caa-nov-2017-01-12.pdf Edited January 12, 2017 by Anthony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 What they claim FCA did to circumvent emissions: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 FCA Response: FCA US is disappointed that the EPA has chosen to issue a notice of violation with respect to the emissions control technology employed in the company’s 2014-16 model year light duty 3.0-liter diesel engines. FCA US intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company’s diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements. FCA US diesel engines are equipped with state-of-the-art emission control systems hardware, including selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Every auto manufacturer must employ various strategies to control tailpipe emissions in order to balance EPA’s regulatory requirements for low nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and requirements for engine durability and performance, safety and fuel efficiency. FCA US believes that its emission control systems meet the applicable requirements. FCA US has spent months providing voluminous information in response to requests from EPA and other governmental authorities and has sought to explain its emissions control technology to EPA representatives. FCA US has proposed a number of actions to address EPA’s concerns, including developing extensive software changes to our emissions control strategies that could be implemented in these vehicles immediately to further improve emissions performance. FCA US looks forward to the opportunity to meet with the EPA’s enforcement division and representatives of the new administration to demonstrate that FCA US’s emissions control strategies are properly justified and thus are not “defeat devices” under applicable regulations and to resolve this matter expeditiously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 The letter from the EPA also indicates that they could be a civil penalty of $44,539 per instance. X100k vehicles would be ~ $4.4 billion. That's before public restitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Ouch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Watching this bubble up this morning, my initial reaction mirrored Anthony's: They cannot survive even a fraction of what VW just had. Reading the notice, I don't see how this could be described as anything *other than* a defeat device (or, rather, a series of devices). Get your popcorn, and buckle up. Sergio might just be robbed of his opportunity to ride off into the sunset before the wheels come off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Watching this bubble up this morning, my initial reaction mirrored Anthony's: They cannot survive even a fraction of what VW just had. Reading the notice, I don't see how this could be described as anything *other than* a defeat device (or, rather, a series of devices). Get your popcorn, and buckle up. Sergio might just be robbed of his opportunity to ride off into the sunset before the wheels come off. Does this mean Alfa can't take over the world now??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Welp. Last person out, turn off the lights-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 So this is the VM Motori Engine and not the Cummins that was rumored to be affect...at least they could blame Cummins if that was the case, but they have no one to blame but themselves. Hope Ford and GM have their new Diesels dialed in so they don't get hit by this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 FCA US has proposed a number of actions to address EPA’s concerns, including developing extensive software changes to our emissions control strategies that could be implemented in these vehicles immediately to further improve emissions performance. FCA US looks forward to the opportunity to meet with the EPA’s enforcement division and representatives of the new administration to demonstrate that FCA US’s emissions control strategies are properly justified and thus are not “defeat devices” Translation: We cheated Translation: We hope that Trump is not a publicity loving nut, and that he won't seize this opportunity to 'make an example of us.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Cue Dandy Don....... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Translation: We cheated Translation: We hope that Trump is not a publicity loving nut, and that he won't seize this opportunity to 'make an example of us.' Translation: We hope the new administration will bail us out of this ginormous hole we just dug for ourselves. I wouldn't count on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I wouldn't count on it. I don't think so either. At some point, I expect the gov't will bail out the Chrysler portion of FCA, and that Sergio will be shown the door. Heck, a gov't sponsored merger w/GM post 2020 isn't out of the question, IMO. Of course, it'd be like the PennCentral fiasco in the late 60s/early 70s, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I think it's safe to say that all of this will just go away after January 20th, I wouldn't be too concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I think it's safe to say that all of this will just go away after January 20th, I wouldn't be too concerned. I think it's safe to say you need to keep your political views out of these threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) I think it's safe to say you need to keep your political views out of these threads. No I'm quite serious. This was done last minute for a reason, it will be undone. Edited January 12, 2017 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) I'm having a hard time believing that the outgoing administration would go out of its way to hurt FCA just to put Trump on the spot. The bailout and its prevention of both GM and Chrysler going out of business were heavily touted during the 2012 presidential campaign. At any rate, this doesn't mean that Chrysler is going to vanish completely. The pickup truck, minivan and Jeep segments of the company would still be attractive to another car company. If, for example, Hyundai gets them for cheap, it becomes a full-line manufacturer in the U.S., right up there with GM, Ford and Toyota. Edited January 12, 2017 by grbeck 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 No "full line of Dodge RWD cars, including coupes/convertibles" [from Alfas] coming to "shake up the market". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 No I'm quite serious. This was done last minute for a reason, it will be undone. Sure. And smug assumptions about Trump have proven to be oh so accurate thus far, haven't they? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) If GM is "forced" to merge, they will keep Jeep and junk the rest. But they'll wait till it's a fire sale price. Maybe big trucks will go to Nissan or ? Edited January 12, 2017 by 630land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) Sure. And smug assumptions about Trump have proven to be oh so accurate thus far, haven't they? I'm not being smug, EPA is moving toward pro-busiess leadership under Trump rather than pro-envrionemntalism and regulation. FCA really has nothing to worry about and I think the celebrating in here is kinda silly. I think you'll see a dramatic shift away from regulation under the new administration especially since the entire EPA staff and their researchers are leaving for the private sector. They simply won't have the capability to run the agency from a research and envrionmental activism perspective. The rest will be up to the states and corporate governance. I think the primary goal of the EPA going forward will be to ensure energy independence and stability so completely dismantling it won't make sense from a stability perspective, but the environmental aspects will largely be reduced, especially those that target reduced consumption or increased expenses. Edited January 12, 2017 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Even if the new EPA head backs off regulations, you can't do it retroactively. This isn't going away that easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.