Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

epa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#111

Post by schwarrrtz »

avn2109 wrote: post #105
blakeyrat wrote: post #11

Note: they mean exceeding in the bad direction, not the good direction. At first I thought this was some kind of spoof article, or Chrysler marketing effort. It should probably read "exceeding limits" not "exceeding standards". EDIT: actually the press release doesn't even say that really. It says Fiat Chrysler installed software that could impact emissions testing but didn't tell the EPA about it, which is considere…

For automotive scandals like e.g this one and Dieselgate it's always surprising how much outrage people muster. If an automaker sells N cars exceeding some emissions limit by 100%, people get out the pitchforks. But if that same automaker sells 2N conforming cars, it's widely heralded as a Good Thing. However, to a first approximation, the environmental impact is equivalent in each case (or arguably worse in the latt…

I think the outrage is justified; how can we possibly coordinate an effort to reduce our environmental impact without respecting the relevant regulations? To extend your example, suppose new regulations are introduced that reduce emissions limits by 50%. An automaker that respects the regulations would likely modify their products in order to remain in compliance, thereby reducing their environmental impact by 50%. On the other hand, an automaker that disregards the regulations would likely take no action and the environmental damage would continue.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#112

Post by bischofs »

We tested their engine back in 2013, it had an offset and a timer for the coolant temperature. So if you waited long enough between the test cycles the timer would run out and the actual coolant would be relayed to the ECU which would then run a different calibration. Its a joke but diesels unless they have major after-treatment systems just cant run that clean - as they become hotter (read: more efficient) they produce more NOx.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#113

Post by enraged_camel »

wcunning wrote: post #87
enraged_camel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The standards escalated way too fast though. Um, no. The EPA didn't pull the numbers out of their asses. They worked with the auto industry to come up with requirements that were stringent but realistic. Government agencies are commonly criticized for regulating industries that they have no expertise in. In reality though, things don't work that way. Either the regulators themselves have industry experience (what i…

The 2025 CAFE standards seem to be a dramatic rise in requirement in a short time period wherein the industry attempted to provide alternative advise and was soundly rebuffed, even outright ignored. The EPA may have once listened, but they don't seem to anymore.

If you can provide hard evidence that support your perception, I'd be interested in looking at it.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#114

Post by fattire »

avn2109 wrote: post #105
blakeyrat wrote: post #11

Note: they mean exceeding in the bad direction, not the good direction. At first I thought this was some kind of spoof article, or Chrysler marketing effort. It should probably read "exceeding limits" not "exceeding standards". EDIT: actually the press release doesn't even say that really. It says Fiat Chrysler installed software that could impact emissions testing but didn't tell the EPA about it, which is considere…

For automotive scandals like e.g this one and Dieselgate it's always surprising how much outrage people muster. If an automaker sells N cars exceeding some emissions limit by 100%, people get out the pitchforks. But if that same automaker sells 2N conforming cars, it's widely heralded as a Good Thing. However, to a first approximation, the environmental impact is equivalent in each case (or arguably worse in the latt…

schwarrrtz is right on. But also, you have to consider that the new, conforming cars are very likely to be replacing cars that were much more harmful in terms of pollution.

You can argue about the balance of increased energy and materials consumption of a new car vs continued operation of a more polluting older car, but given the march of time, the older car's replacement is inevitable. So then it's a question of WHICH new car is going to replace the shitty old one-- is it going to be an (a) efficient, compliant vehicle, (b) a gas-guzzler and pollutant emitter, or (c) a car that pretends to be compliant but is a horrible emitter.

The outrage comes when people think they're replacing their crappy old car with (a) but end up with (c).

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#115

Post by _yosefk »

avn2109 wrote: post #105
blakeyrat wrote: post #11

Note: they mean exceeding in the bad direction, not the good direction. At first I thought this was some kind of spoof article, or Chrysler marketing effort. It should probably read "exceeding limits" not "exceeding standards". EDIT: actually the press release doesn't even say that really. It says Fiat Chrysler installed software that could impact emissions testing but didn't tell the EPA about it, which is considere…

For automotive scandals like e.g this one and Dieselgate it's always surprising how much outrage people muster. If an automaker sells N cars exceeding some emissions limit by 100%, people get out the pitchforks. But if that same automaker sells 2N conforming cars, it's widely heralded as a Good Thing. However, to a first approximation, the environmental impact is equivalent in each case (or arguably worse in the latt…

But... but! If you sell N cars exceeding the limit, someone else will sell the other N cars of the 2N in your "2N conforming cars" in the other possibility, and they'd emit, too! Or does selling N cars exceeding the limit somehow eliminates the demand for the other N?

I mean you can say that the limit is too low, but I don't understand this N/2N argument at all.

Also, I dunno about pitchforks, but if I park illegally, I'll get a ticket, even though maybe the parking restrictions are wrong in some important sense, and I'd sorta like it if law applied to corporations. If that's a pitchfork then it's a pitchfork to fine me for how I park my car.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#116

Post by JumpCrisscross »

btilly wrote: post #66
yuhong wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally don't think that jail for simply emitting NOx above limits is worth it

An estimated 60 people have died because of these excess emissions. What penalty would you consider appropriate for someone breaking the law, resulting in 60 deaths? Should it matter what law was broken, or how those deaths were caused?

> Should it matter what law was broken, or how those deaths were caused?

Yes, always. We don't jail people for doing immoral things. We jail them for doing illegal things. This is a big part of rule of law.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#117

Post by stevehawk »

TylerE wrote: post #53
woofyman wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The urea injected Diesel engines meet the standards.

No, they don't. I own one that's about to get bought back.

which one is that?

(serious question because I feel like the one thing I've noticed is that the companies getting nailed are the ones not using DEF)

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#118

Post by stevehawk »

Reason077 wrote: post #45
benjarrell wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diesels are required to have a particulate filter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter Which is usually used with exhaust fluid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid

DEF (AdBlue) can significantly reduce NOx emissions. It's now standard in modern heavy diesel trucks, busses, etc. However, it's very rare to find it in light diesels such as cars and SUVs which often have real-world NOx emissions far in excess of what emissions standards allow. DPFs remove visible soot from diesel emissions, but their actual benefit for health is less clear. They don't trap the ultra-fine, PM2.5 inv…

DEF isn't that rare in passenger vehicles anymore. Ford's new line of diesels tend to use it, BMW and Mercedes use it, and I feel a couple of other 'new' small diesels are using it as well. It used to be rare, but I think enough people realized they can't meet standards without it and now they are all moving towards it.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#119

Post by TylerE »

stevehawk wrote: post #117
TylerE wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they don't. I own one that's about to get bought back.

which one is that? (serious question because I feel like the one thing I've noticed is that the companies getting nailed are the ones not using DEF)

2015 Golf TDI.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#120

Post by Gibbon1 »

bit_logic wrote: post #74
wonder_er wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there'd be no incentive to lie if the EPA wasn't forcing these "standards" on them. Now, there's no reason to innovate because someone spends big bucks to actually do what everyone else is lying about. This isn't damming of private industry - it's damming of the regulation. (Er, to me. Obviously you might come to a different conclusion. Just wanted to throw in how this article can be read both ways.)

The technology to meet and even exceed EPA regulations already exists: hybrid cars. At this point there should not be a single gas only new car on the market, all models and all trim levels should be hybrid as a starting point. If they did this, mass production would reduce the current extra hybrid cost to nothing. Instead they are lying on emissions tests and want to maximize profit off hybrids. EPA must punish such…

Yep, no one talks about this but hybrids are far less polluting than non hybrids. It isn't even close.
Post reply on HN