Analyzing FCA’s diesel woes
Issue more non-disclosure than cheating
Just when you thought it was all right to go out and buy another diesel ….
Another automaker has — shades of Volkswagen’s Dieselgate scandal — been found to be flouting American emissions regulations. This time it’s Fiat Chrysler Automobiles raising t he Environmental Protection Agency’s hackles, the once sleepy security guard of tailpipe emissions saying that as many as 104,000 2014- to- 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Ram 1500 pickups in the United States ( and 39,000 more in the Great White Frozen North) are emitting beyond their permit. And, yes, they’re all diesels, more specifically the 3.0-litre V6 from VM Motori that FCA has been marketing — quite successfully, it seems, given the numbers — under its EcoDiesel brand.
More specifically, t he problem is that FCA was found pumping out more nitrogen oxide — the same pollutant that has caused Volkswagen so much consternation — than allowed by American statute. The EPA even used the words “defeat device,” the same two words that have, so far, cost the VW Group in the neighbourhood of US$ 23billion in penalties and compensation.
Making t he headlines even more dramatic, the EPA posited that FCA “could be” on the hook for as much US$ 44,539 per truck or, given the number of vehicles involved, a whopping US$4.6-billion in penalties.
Officially, the EPA is investigating whether those EcoDiesels are using Volkswagen- style defeat devices, software designed to deliberately circumvent emissions testing.
Unofficially, however, this seems to be more about an EPA still angry at being exposed as derelict in its duties and wanting to show its political masters, not to mention the environmental lobby, that it is more vigilant than ever.
Remember, it wasn’t the EPA that exposed Volkswagen’s wrongdoings; it was researchers at West Virginia University.
In the case of FCA’s Jeeps and trucks, what the EPA has reportedly f ound is something called an auxi l i ary emissions control device ( AECD). In fact, it found no fewer than eight of them.
In other words, the afflicted Jeeps and Rams have no fewer that eight different software programs that either shut down or greatly diminish the engine’s emis- sions reduction. Truly, this would seem to be Dieselgate déjà vu all over again. Not quite. Firstly, understand that AECDs are not, in and of themselves, illegal, as long as they are disclosed when the automaker applies for the vehicle’s certificate of compliance. And, unlike Volkswagen’s defeat devices, FCA’s trickery wasn’t designed to circ umvent emissions testing but a way to protect the engines and catalytic converters from damage under high- l oad conditions, such as during sustained high speed or trailer towing, for instance.
Now, having eight AECDs on board ostensibly for reliability purposes begs the question: If other diesel manufacturers can meet reliability standards — and they can — without switching off their emissions controls, why can’t FCA? It’s fair comment. But even more curious is, if these software protocols are l egal, why didn’t FCA merely inform the EPA about their existence?
Comb through the information the EPA has released so far and you can’t help but feel that the real reason the EPA is in such high dudgeon is not the actual presence of the AECDs so much as FCA’s lack of disclosure.
Truth be told, FCA would appear to have little defence for this condemnation. Trying, in the wake of the Dieselgate scandal, to hide emissions- tricking software is simply incomprehensible. Though FCA chief executive Sergio Marchionne protests “there’s not a guy in this ( company) who would try something as stupid as ( cheating on diesel tests)” and that anyone comparing FCA’s problems with Volkswagen’s malfeasance must be “smoking illegal material,” any company not fully disclosing such software in a diesel engine needs to give its head a shake.
Given that everyone in the automotive business knows the EPA is specifically scrutinizing diesel engines, it’s simply unfathomable that an automaker, especially one relying so heavily on diesel technology to comply with its Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements, would not disclose all its emissions system-bypassing software.
Indeed, it will be j ust such stupidity t hat will undermine diesel’s future in North America.
Call it oversight, negligence or simply hubris ( depending on your view of car companies and/or FCA in particular), diesel’s ascension to the mainstream has been stopped dead in its tracks.
Already there are fewer diesels available in North America than many would have predicted just a few years ago.
In some cases, it’s an enforced retreat: Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche diesels are, of course, banned, and unlikely to return to Canada or the United States. In some cases, it is simply the heightened scrutiny that l i mits the availability of diesel engines.
Mercedes- Benz Canada is currently selling leftover 2016 GLE and GLS diesels only; it may take until the fall before it gets approval for a wider range of its BlueTEC oil burners.
BMW, once part of the European entente to push diesels in North America, is now limiting the power plant to just three models: the 328d, 330d and the X5 35d.
Only Jaguar, with it new lineup of 2.0-L four-cylinder engines, is pushing “clean” diesels.
The launch of the company’s new Ingenium 2.0- L turbodiesels coincided with the Dieselgate scandal, and one can’t help but suspect that, given different timing, it might not be as adamant in its commitment to oil burners.
Jaguar’s c ommitment notwithstanding, diesel’s future in North America looks bleak.
The one caveat in this prediction — as it is with any decision emanating from the United States these days — is the new president. President Donald Trump’s appointee to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, is, if not an outright climate-change denier, at least a friend of the internal combustion engine, especially if said engine happens to be powering a big, old, constituent- f riendly pickup built in the United States.
Will the EPA’s guard- dog tactics be reined in? If so, then perhaps oversights like the FCA’s will not make the headlines and diesels will live to pollute another day.
On the other hand, the former Oklahoma attorney general, who has reportedly sued the EPA no fewer than 14 times, might just scrap Obama’s entire 54.5- mileper- gallon mandate, muting the need for diesels in the first place.
Like so many things these days, the future of diesel engines in North America may depend on a tweet from The Donald.
DIESEL’S ASCENSION TO THE MAINSTREAM HAS BEEN STOPPED DEAD IN ITS TRACKS.