rmc523 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 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. I don't have a hard time believing they would do that. But that's the last political-related comment I'll make. No, I don't think any of us mean that all the FCA brands will disappear, just that FCA in its current form will cease to exist, and it very well may mean there will be some casualties as part of it (Chrysler as a brand and Dodge, namely), with the rest of it being sold off. I imagine the Agnelli family would rather dump the American brands in order to retain ownership of their brands and use the proceeds to pay for the damages that could come from this announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I have no doubt that EPA regulations might be relaxed going forward, but I do not for one minute believe they would allow a mfr to cheat on emissions testing and do nothing about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I have no doubt that EPA regulations might be relaxed going forward, but I do not for one minute believe they would allow a mfr to cheat on emissions testing and do nothing about it. ...especially in the immediate aftermath of the severe punishment handed down to VW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) I'm not being smug. You need to buy a dictionary. And I AM being smug. And as has been pointed out above: we're not talking about relaxing CAFE requirements going forward, we're talking about lying to the government. That's lese majeste, and if you think the view of that is going to get soft-pedaled going forward................ Edited January 12, 2017 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) Uh oh https://jalopnik.com/the-epa-will-accuse-fiat-chrysler-of-installing-softwar-1791115155 Edited January 13, 2017 by Bryan1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 It sounds like this has been going on for months with lots of back and forth, so I doubt that this is a last minute decision at all and to the contrary, I suspect the EPA has been wanting to resolve this rather than prosecute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) Nice write up by Jalopnik of all places on how this differs from the VW incindent. http://jalo.ps/A1DzqQh Edited January 13, 2017 by Anthony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) Still, the EPA is asking FCA to explain itself regarding the use of auxiliary emission control devices (also software), switching these off and on is only permitted if there is a legitimate reason to do so. he fact that FCA failed to notify the EPA that it was using so many "strategies" in addition to the main program is what's at bottom of this, FCA still needed to have the EPA approve and sign them off as acceptable. VW was asked repeatedly to explain itself, just as FCA has been asked to explain these workaround strategies. If FCA cannot sustain those arguments and make the science stick, they could be facing public embarrassment. Edited January 13, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Nice write up by Jalopnik of all places on how this differs from the VW incindent. http://jalo.ps/A1DzqQh The differences are semantics if you ask me. It seems they're in violation of the defeat device law since it clearly references normal reasonable operating conditions so they're not just limited to the EPA test procedure parameters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) I think there's some difference here. The Jalopnik article does a good job explaining what's being alleged here, but here's what you've got: Unlike the VW system, the software in the FCA devices isn't prima facie illegal. However, there are two aspects to this that are, in combination, very suspicious: Software that 1) triggers during 'normal' operating conditions and 2) was not disclosed to the EPA. That certainly looks like an attempt to conceal--evidence of a guilty mind. On the one hand, the very existence of the VW software was sufficient to violate the law; on the other, FCA has a very very tenuous argument that what they did was legal--but it certainly doesn't smell right. Edited January 13, 2017 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Detroit Free Press has a similar article to Jalopnik http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/chrysler/2017/01/12/how-fiat-chryslers-diesel-woes-differ-massive-vw-scandal/96508140/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 EPA and FCA have been back and forth with this issue for the past year, it's clear that the EPA still hasn't received a satisfactory exploitation - that has to be ringing alarm bells. Say what you like about semantics, FCA has been given plenty of time to explain this and give full technical details and any supporting data to prove their case, the fact that the EPA has lost patience could be due to a time limit placed on FCA to put up or get fined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Software that 1) triggers during 'normal' operating conditions and 2) was not disclosed to the EPA. and 3) cannot be sufficiently explained as to why it was done (in the context of normal operating conditions) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 the EPA has lost patience I think that's a fair characterization. I'm sure they were told that they had one more chance to explain their actions to the satisfaction of the gov't, and didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blwnsmoke Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 So what are the chances that... "FCA Confirms Grand Wagoneer & Pickup with $1b in Plant Retools to add 2k jobs in US" has been put on hold lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat501 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 So what are the chances that... "FCA Confirms Grand Wagoneer & Pickup with $1b in Plant Retools to add 2k jobs in US" has been put on hold lol. So what are the chances that part of FCA's decision to announce US expansion plans was to some degree motivated to curry favor with the incoming administration to "assist" in a more favorable resolution to this matter??? I mean FCA has known about this EPA issue for months and seemingly has delayed until the EPA finally lost patience. Delayed for 1 of 3 reasons 1) they don't have a reasonable response or 2) waiting for a new EPA chief & administration less environment oriented or 3) both 1 & 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 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.