GM's turn for emissions violations lawsuit.

[fordmantpw]

Not from the government though (yet): http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-lawsuit-idUSKBN18L25Y

Lawsuit accuses GM of rigging diesel truck emissions

General Motors Co was accused in a lawsuit on Thursday of rigging hundreds of thousands of diesel trucks with devices similar to those used by Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE), to ensure they pass required emissions tests.

The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Detroit on behalf of people who own or lease more than 705,000 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks fitted with "Duramax" engines from 2011 to 2016 model years.

It said GM used at least three "defeat devices" to ensure that the trucks would meet federal and state emission standards, even if they generated more pollution in real-world driving.

 

 

 

[chucky2]

LOL

[rperez817]

Steve Berman's law firm filed this class action suit. They are the firm that sued Apple in 2006 because iPods could cause hearing loss for people who turn up the volume too high.

 

The documentation they sent to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan is here. https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/silverado_sierra/hagens-berman-2017-05-25gmemissionsclassactioncomplaint.pdf

 

I think GM and Bosch Corporation will prevail. Or the court will toss out the lawsuit.

[fordmantpw]

I can't stand lawyers that pull that crap!

[silvrsvt]

Steve Berman's law firm filed this class action suit. They are the firm that sued Apple in 2006 because iPods could cause hearing loss for people who turn up the volume too high.

 

 

Huh? What did you say?!

[fuzzymoomoo]

So when is it ford's turn to have some ambulance chaser go after them?

[Anbevo]

Looks like a money grab to me, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were in fact cheating. GM has no integrity, e.g., ignition switch cover up and no accountability for any malfeasance whatsoever associated with the "Old GM" etc. etc. etc.

[akirby]

So when is it ford's turn to have some ambulance chaser go after them?

 

Been happening for years. One guy was driving drunk with no seatbelt, left the road, rolled his explorer, ejected him and his passengers (also drunk and not wearing seatbelts). Family sued and won millions because Ford didn't use laminated glass in the doors. Stupid juries.

[Bryan1]

I wouldn't be surprised if this allows GM to pull upsets against Ford in the diesel truck shootouts. Just like Ram said they had the best fuel economy for years but forgot to mention the engine was illegal. There's a whole lot of scamming going on with trucks.

[jpd80]

Not a chance of getting up unless the Feds show a genuine interest in perusing an investigation.

 

and if they don't win, those owners could be up for a whole bunch of costs.

[fordmantpw]

Not a chance of getting up unless the Feds show a genuine interest in perusing an investigation.

 

and if they don't win, those owners could be up for a whole bunch of costs.

 

You know, that's a good point. If they win, and this turns into a government investigation, it will likely cost them (the truck owners) more in lost value of their vehicles than they will net in a class action settlement.

[RichardJensen]

I'll be curious to see what comes out of this. If there is indeed software that alters the emissions profile when conditions fall outside of test parameters, they're up as stinky a creek as VW.

 

The allegations are curious.

 

At the same time (IANAL disclaimer), I am having a terrible time figuring out what the tort is here.

 

Apparently, it's that GM lied to them, but they haven't suffered materially from the lie. And, to the contrary, they stand to take a serious hit if GM is forced to remediate these engines and sap their power/resale/fuel efficiency.

[fordmantpw]

...but they haven't suffered materially from the lie.

 

Oh, sure they have! They wouldn't have paid as much for their vehicles if they knew they didn't meet emissions standards! {roll eyes}

[jpd80]

I'll be curious to see what comes out of this. If there is indeed software that alters the emissions profile when conditions fall outside of test parameters, they're up as stinky a creek as VW.

 

The allegations are curious.

 

At the same time (IANAL disclaimer), I am having a terrible time figuring out what the tort is here.

 

Apparently, it's that GM lied to them, but they haven't suffered materially from the lie. And, to the contrary, they stand to take a serious hit if GM is forced to remediate these engines and sap their power/resale/fuel efficiency.

 

It's kite flying , look at the explanation and at first glance, they're confusing test protocols.

They talk about testing on highway cycle but that applies to 1500 and below for city/highway test cycles.

HD trucks don't do the same tests, theirs in fact quite different and performed under light load and

 

 

LINK EMISSIONS CHEATING EXPLAINED

According to our investigation, GM intentionally installed multiple emissions-cheating devices in affected Chevy Silverado trucks, in violation of federal requirements. We believe GM was motivated by its desire to increase sales and profits and without cheating emissions, the Silverado trucks could not achieve the fuel economy, range, towing power or performance that GM promised its customers. The emissions-cheating devices engage emissions controls at temperatures within which emissions tests must be done, but outside that temperature range emissions controls are turned down or “de-rated.” Another defeat device de-rates emissions controls after 5 to 10 minutes of steady (i.e., highway) driving, which never happens during an emissions test. These devices combine to allow the trucks to pass emissions tests while masking the vehicle's true output of NOx during actual on-road driving.

 

 

 

 

For Heavy Duty trucks, the emissions limits are very different to the regular EPA tests carried out on light vehicles.

 

 

 

LINK Model Year 2007 and Later

On December 21, 2000 the US EPA signed emission standards for model year 2007 and later heavy-duty highway engines [1044]. The California ARB adopted virtually identical 2007 heavy-duty engine standards in October 2001. The rule included two components: (1) emission standards, and (2) diesel fuel regulations.

The emission standards included new, very stringent limits for PM (0.01 g/bhp·hr) and NOx (0.20 g/bhp·hr). The PM emission standard took full effect in 2007. The NO_x standard was phased-in for diesel engines between 2007 and 2010. The phase-in was defined on a percent-of-sales basis: 50% from 2007 to 2009 and 100% in 2010 (gasoline engines are subject to these standards based on a phase-in requiring 50% compliance in 2008 and 100% compliance in 2009). In practice, very few engines meeting the 0.20 g/bhp·hr NOx limit actually appeared before 2010. In the 2007-2009 period, most manufacturers opted to meet a NOx family emission limit (FEL) of around 1.2 g/bhp·hr for most of their engines. Because of this compliance path during the NOx limit phase-in period, engines produced during 2007-2009 were technologically very different from those required to comply in 2010 and later when all engines needed to comply with the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx limit. While it is common to refer to “2010 standards” in a way that implies they are different from “2007 standards”, legally, there was not a standard for 2010 that differed from 2007.

 

Starting in 2007, manufacturers could choose to chassis certify complete heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDV) with GVWR of 14,000 lb or less as an option to engine certification. The emission limits applicable to Otto cycle heavy-duty vehicles with the same GVWR applied. Diesel engines optionally certified as complete vehicles were not allowed to be included in any averaging, banking, or trading program for criteria emissions. However, they were included in the phase-in calculations that required 50% of engines to comply with the final 2010 NOx limit.

 

Diesel engines thus certified were considered to be legally equivalent to a 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOx engine provided they met the 2008 Otto-cycle HDV limits (0.2 g/mile NOx and 0.02 g/mile PM for 8500 lb < GVWR ≤ 10000 lb and 0.4 g/mile NOx and 0.02 g/mile PM for 10000 lb < G.VWR ≤ 14000 lb)

 

After 2011, all manufacturers of complete HDVs with GVWR ≤ 14000 lb (primarily heavy pick-ups and utility vans) adopted this optional chassis certification approach because of the heavy-duty vehicle GHG regulations coming into effect for MY 2014.

In addition to the FTP testing, emission certification requirements include:

• SET test, with limits equal to the FTP standards, and
• NTE limits of 1.5 × FTP standards (or 1.25 × FTP for engines with NOx FEL > 1.5 g/bhp·hr).

The diesel fuel regulation limited the sulfur content in on-highway diesel fuel to 15 ppm (wt.), down from the previous 500 ppm. Refiners were required to start producing the 15 ppm S ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel beginning from June 2006. The ULSD fuel has been introduced as a “technology enabler” to pave the way for sulfur-intolerant exhaust emission control technologies, such as catalytic diesel particulate filters and NO_x catalysts that have been widely introduced to meet the 2007/2010 emission requirements.

Other Provisions. The 2007 emission standards and later amendments introduced a number of additional provisions:

• Crankcase Ventilation—Effective from 2007, the regulation maintains the earlier crankcase emission control exception for turbocharged heavy-duty diesel fueled engines but requires that if the emissions are discharged into the atmosphere, they be added to the exhaust emissions during all testing. In this case, the deterioration of crankcase emissions must also be accounted for in exhaust deterioration factors..
• DEF Refill Interval—For SCR-equipped heavy-duty diesel engines, a minimum DEF (urea solution) refill interval is defined as at least as far (in miles or hours) as the vehicle’s fuel capacity [3408].
• Emergency Vehicles—Heavy-duty engines in fire trucks, ambulances and other types of emergency vehicles can be equipped with an AECD to override performance inducements related to the emission control system—for example, to allow engine operation without urea in the SCR system [3408].

California Optional Low NOx Standards. On October 21, 2014, California ARB adopted Optional Low NOx Standards for heavy-duty engines [3130]. Under the program, manufacturers may choose to certify their engines to three optional NOx emission standards: 0.10, 0.05 or 0.02 g/bhp·hr. Other pollutants must meet the conventional emission standards (Table 1).

Engine families certified to the optional NOx standards cannot be included in the ABT program for NOx. Instead, credits may be generated by an alternative mechanism proposed by the engine manufacturer and approved by the ARB.

 

 

 

I think the Lawyers have a hard uphill battle to prove any wrong doing but what

they will in fact do is put a very bad spotlight on diesel powered HD trucks.

Edited May 27, 2017 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

 

For Heavy Duty trucks, the emissions limits are very different to the regular EPA tests carried out on light vehicles.

 

Kind of.

 

The test protocol is different; it's a 20 minute test that is run once when hot and once when cold, but at the same time, the parameters of the test are such that a defeat device could be programmed to identify operating conditions that are outside of the test parameters.

 

Frankly, GM did do something a bit unconventional with how they setup the Duramax diesels, and--as with Navistar and VW, they may have discovered that compliance was impossible after they committed to that design.

 

I'm not saying these lawyers are doing anything other than looking after their own wallets, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't stumble across a legitimate bit of subterfuge.

[jpd80]

I'll be curious to see how much traction this gets and whether the lawyers have discovered

some undeclared Auxiliary Emission control devices that have not been officially approved.

GM does have a nasty habit of shooting itself in the foot every few years or so..

 

another question is whether someone will eventually take a swing at Ford (6.7 Powerstroke diesel) as well..

 

And is it likely that a SCR equipped engine would be emitting the kind of emissions this legal action alleges,

this is a very different situation to the VW case where incorrect and inadequate emission equipment was used.

Edited May 28, 2017 by jpd80