It doesn't sound as blatantly misleading as VW's shenanigans. Rather, as vaguely obscure. In other words, if I don't tell someone to wear a seat-belt in my car, and they die - when they fly thru the windshield - do I get sued for a wrongful death? So choice should have some liability, No?

 

Actually, yes, you would get sued. The driver has the responsibility...

 

People can accuse people of anything.

 

The problem "lies" with those that believe accusations without substance or proof..... including those that created the accusation.

 

I'm seeing postings from law offices on facebook like this, in fact one was for Ram "Cummins EcoDiesel" engines on the 3500, 2500 AND 1500. I think they are fishing for any disgruntled owners they can find with an excuse for a class action suit where the law firm is the only one getting any money.

 

In this case, if FCA & Cummins knew the emissions and performance did not match advertisements, then it opens up further investigation and digging.

If FCA & Cummins did not know the engines did not match advertisements, then it is not so bad.

It seems like most can be pinned on Daimler and Cummins for this............is this the source of the FCA-Cummins dispute?

 

The glaring issue I see is that the people that launched this lawsuit do not seem to be understanding the difference between the controlled EPA driving cycle and everyday driving based on the comments in the lawsuit.

My understanding is that they used a 2007 Ram 2500 with 70,000 miles and that the truck did not meet regulation under while "city driving". The EPA driving cycle is controlled environment test that has mixed driving and has a specific regime. They do not specify that they actually spent the money to have a certifed test that specifically matched/mimicked the EPA test.

Issues:

1. Was the vehicle in proper working order with no modifications done to it?
2. Were all the emissions systems operating as originally designed with no service/fault codes or other issues?
3. Has the vehicle been properly maintained per manufacturer suggested plan in the vehicle owners manual?
4. Was an actual closed EPA driving cycle test performed on the vehicle by a certified testing company?
5. The vehicle tested is no longer covered by the original 8 year manufacturer warranty for emissions control components.

I find this lawsuit to be a bit questionable and I will take it with a rather large grain of salt because the 2007 Ram 2500 diesel has met both EPA and CARB regulation.

CARB Data:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2007/dcco_mdev_a0090802_6d7_2d2-0d01_diesel.pdf
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2007/cummins_mdv_a0210416_6d7_u2_diesel.pdf

Mike

 

I wonder if anyone complaining used tuners to 'roll coal' and messed their own engines up and are now trying to blame it on the manufacturers.

 

You lost me at MSN.

 

Sounds like a troll trying to make money off of other manufacturer's malfeasance. Ginn up enough noise and they might get lucky and force FCA to settle out of court to make it go away quietly.

 

Exactly. Give it time and every manufacturer will have a lawsuit pending, regarding this issue, via trolls.

 

Today’s heavy-duty Ram trucks have run the same cast-iron, 6.7-liter six-cylinder Cummins diesel engine option since 2007.

Time for an update of the old tech?

 

Again, the Cummins engine has continuously been improved and has passed both Federal and State emissions standards... further, the Cummins diesel has already met the stricter 2017 GHG standards while improving fuel efficiency.

Mike

 

I have seen Cummins with heavy carbon soot build up that turns on the 'ck eng' light. Usually an EGR fault code is stored.
There is a tutorial on DealerConnect for de-carboning the EGR plumbing. The M-B Bluetec V6 had the same carbon build-up issue.
Part of the problem is variable ULSD fuel quality. Agricultural-duty Rams may get farm diesel. We can tell by the dye added to the fuel.
10 years ago we were seeing bio-diesel with unknown blend ratios. Some looked homemade, like moonshine or fryer grease.
Carbon build-up also can affect the turbocharger flow.
De-carboning at the dealer has almost become a maintenance service.
I also see Cummins with varying degrees of Banks modifications. There should be a voided warranty with that.

 

I agree with Mike. I see nothing alleging these vehicles did not meet EPA and CARB tests when new.

Using a 2012 truck with 70,000 miles on it, driving it in unknown rooad conditions is not sufficient to me to see a problem here.

Had the plaintiff's attorneys duplicated the EPA and CARB test procedure, then they are building a case.

They have offered nothing to indicate the vehicles could not be certified using the legal standards.

 

We have an article on this coming up. It takes longer to get the story right.

 

Dave if you need links to CARB testing data I can look it up for you.

Mike

 

FCA - Cummins dispute is different since should be about the SCR deactivation if moisture in the system (where ? ) goes over a certain level => more NOx => recall.
Cummins sources to FCA the engine and exhaust treatment systems.

If one takes a look at California A.R.B. executive orders one can see that, at least for RAM 2500 and 3500, the executive orders are iussed to Cummins Inc., not to FCA. So is very likely that could be the reason why FCA wants partial compensation for the recall.

 

Who is doing the electronics for the engine?

 

The article does very little to explain what the problem is, just makes broad sweeping accusations and comparisons with VW.

This is the closest it got to describe what is wrong.....
"....Cummins’s engines had limited capacity to store or dispose of the NOx. Instead of NOx being broken down in a process called regeneration, the pollutant had a tendency to escape from the vehicle, sometimes nearly doubling emissions and reducing the vehicle’s fuel efficiency as much as 4 percent, according to the complaint.

The process concealed the true emissions output and wore down the car’s catalytic converter, which could cost as much as $5,000 to replace...."

How does a engine store NOx? Is it stored in a special catalytic converter?

Soot and particulate matter, I can see with an exhaust trap, that later burns down the soot/particulate matter down to just gases.

But NOx being trapped?

And Mike V. touched on it, the regulatory agencies in the U.S. and most nations went with a pragmatic approach of certifying a design to meet the goal, with built in tests to warn if the design was suffering malfunctions that would cause it to fail to meet the goal. The agencies knew full well, the certified designs wouldn't meet the goals 100% of the time, but settled for the pragmatic solution of them meeting the goals for majority of the time, which would still make a big improvement in overall emissions. Now the media is acting like passing the certification isn't good enough, if the vehicle can't stay in the standard 100% of the time for all conditions and every vehicle can be driven for 70,000 miles with out ever suffering a malfunction, the manufacturer conspired to cheat the system.

Its really sounding like the media is saying, at worse Cummings knew their design wouldn't be as reliable and trouble free as some other manufacturers and went ahead and put it into production, therefore its the same as installing certification cheat software like VW did. Huh?

 

Its really sounding like the media is saying,

By “media” you mean “the plaintiffs”?

 

I doubt many diesel engines remain under the "limits" while in real world use.

Such use is unpredictable. The test is a known procedure that can be targeted.

Think of it like standardized testing for students......you teach to pass the test.

 

A law firm, flush with cash is feeling its oats, so it looks for cracks it can drive a wedge into.

I think that the "plaintiffs", and the law firm are not really expecting to win much, if anything at all.

I honestly suspect this is a low budget way to test the legal system, and arguements for larger cases down the road, in the fairly new field of suing manufacturers for knowingly putting vehicles on the market that don't meet the customers expectations regarding pollution.

It is not whether or not it passed the test, it did. It's about the customer expecting that they bought a car that was not going to polute. They are arguing that Dodge and Cummins knowingly put a poluter on the market.

Honestly, this case sounds like a legal team sharpening its swords for a bigger fight coming up, and they are not really expecting to win much here.

 

They did not even test another brand diesel or gasoline for comparison.

 

You mean the plaintiffs or Chrysler?

 

Ah, I see. Lawyer-logic. As for changing the fuel brand — it SHOULD work with any legal fuel, but if the fuel fails federal specs, it is the fuel supplier’s fault.

 

think anyone accusing Cummins of doing the same thing as VW doesn't understand exactly what VW did.

 

So true... So true.

 

Hmmm, I have seen more than a few Honda's and one Domestic FWD stationary on the road with one tire/wheel out of the wheel well with the only attached at the tie rod and one point instead of the designed two. Luckily for all I've seen it was during heavy traffic, if they had been at highway speeds, life might have been shorter for them.

I live in Maryland, no state inspection, except when you purchase the car. So, when you say people will ignore a problem with their car until the wheel falls off, that is literal in this state.

 

Dad drove his '68 corvair monza spider like a bat-otta-you-know-where and always raved about its fantastic handling. Perhaps its suspension was better worked out then the standard swing arm...

 

2nd generation was a much better design.

1966 Chevrolet Corvair Yenko Stinger Stage III SCCA Road Racer

 

The 2nd gen Corvair was a direct result of the book. There are all kinds of unsafe designs from that, and previous eras. The book calls out the Corvair directly, but it was not about the Corvair. It is about the auto industries practices of the time.

The Corvair was unsafe, and poorly designed, as said, when measured against its peers. It was one of the very worst.

Yes, Volks Beetles also had their design issues (ever been rear ended in one?]

 

Redirect,

The lawsuit, as I see it, is about the customers expectations about how much the vehicle pollutes. Yes, the vehicles passed the EPA tests, but should the customers expectations be allowed to (leagally speaking), exceed the requirements of the test?

Note: I am not agreeing with them, I am just stating what I believe the case is rally about.

I still say it is just a law firm trying to wedge open a very narrow crack, and I also think they are using this as a "tune up" case.

 

Guys, the Corvair ended production 47 years ago, can we please get on topic

Thanks,

Mike

 

More threads are being derailed by "nostalgia" nonsense than by Jeeps!!!

 

Allpars article News | FCA, Cummins in NOx lawsuit

 

Allpars article News | FCA, Cummins in NOx lawsuit

I go back to my original statement... the plaintiffs in this lawsuit do not seem to understand how these trucks are certified by the EPA and CARB.

Frivolous at best.

Mike