Jump to content

The EPA Will Accuse Fiat Chrysler Of Using Software That Allowed Excess Diesel Pollution: Report


silvrsvt

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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 by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...