RAM 1500 Diesel Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I thought Chrysler Ram whatever they call themselfs claim they did nothing wrong and that they basically had to settle because their production line for the coming years was shut down by the strong arm of the Government. Did I miss something?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
731 Posts
I thought Chrysler Ram whatever they call themselfs claim they did nothing wrong and that they basically had to settle because their production line for the coming years was shut down by the strong arm of the Government. Did I miss something?
I've found little "real" information in terms of how much and when the tune was over the EPA limits. FCA claimed it was a mistake when reporting their testing results to the EPA for approval. The EPA and DOJ claim it was intentional and egregious. FCA also stated that it occurs on "certain modes of operation". What all this means is "nobody is talking about the details to the public". If one could figure out a FOIA request, you probably could get the information including detailed measurements of NOx production and which modes it occurred under.

My observation after having the truck AEM for 5 days and about 200 miles. Initial off the line throttle is softened a lot. When cold the engine can stumble badly but all diesels do that to some point. It was just a shocking change from what I have gotten use to in the past. I'm suspicious a lot of this is due to turbo lag and they have tuned it to be worse. I'm still working on some data I collected from my truck before and after the AEM. My first impressions for my routine home-to-work-to-home travels are as follows:

1) Power builds more slowly through 2000 rpm. There is no more lurching starts and I have tried but failed to squawk the tires as easily as before.
2) Turbo boost seems to be controlled more tightly. I need some data to back this up. Max boost seems to be about 18 psi. That's about the same.
3) Top end power is there but it takes longer to reach due to limits on throttle response. Rolling into the throttle (rather than digital on/off) seems to alleviate some of the perception. This is always true on gas and diesels but more noticeable on diesels. The transmission plays a role as well.
4) Particulate matter production is down. My DPF is filling noticeable more slowly. I need some solid data on this before confirmation.
5) EGR appears to be open more and at lower RPMS it appears to be open more and longer. It's like they smoothed out its operation rather than so many quick changes.
6) So far my home-to-work-to-home fuel mileage is up but this is preliminary data. I need a lot more data (3 weeks) to confirm this.
7) It will be a long time before I will get a sense of DEF usage. I will be towing at the end of the month down to Ohio and back so I'll keep an eye on it but day-to-day usage will have to be assessed after September 4th.

To be honest, it all makes sense. In order to meet the excessively low EPA requires on NOx emissions, they reduced early power build up when the combustion temperatures/pressures are higher. They may be starving the engine for air to limit (1) temps. and (2) available N and O for production of NOx. At higher speeds they are relying on the SCR to clean up the EPA's mess. Building engine speed more slowly will control the combustion processes more precisely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,227 Posts
Lord I don't know any more than the next guy. It was my understanding RAM did something they "thought" would be approved without asking or notifying. The powers that be found out and decided they wouldn't approve it, so at that point it is in violation.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,645 Posts
I thought Chrysler Ram whatever they call themselfs claim they did nothing wrong and that they basically had to settle because their production line for the coming years was shut down by the strong arm of the Government. Did I miss something?
1. What is this litigation about?
On January 12, 2017, the EPA and CARB issued notices of violation to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.
and FCA US LLC alleging that certain Ram and Jeep vehicles with 3.0-liter V6 diesel engines in the
United States were equipped with eight Auxiliary Emissions Control Devices (“AECDs”) that were not
disclosed to the EPA, and that the operation of one or more of the AECDs alone or in combination
resulted in excess emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NOx”). January 12, 2017 is sometimes referred to in
this Notice as the “Notice of Violation date” or “NOV date.”
Attorneys representing owners and lessees of these EcoDiesel vehicles, including certain automobile
dealers not affiliated with Fiat Chrysler, filed class action lawsuits against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.,
FCA US LLC, VM Motori, S.p.A., VM North America, Inc., Robert Bosch GmbH, and Robert Bosch LLC,
who are referred to as the “Defendants.” The people who sued are called the “Plaintiffs.”
Plaintiffs allege that the Subject Vehicles were equipped with AECDs that caused the vehicles to emit
significantly more pollutants than consumers reasonably expected, and more pollutants than were
permitted under federal and state clean air laws. Plaintiffs further assert that the Defendants intentionally
misled consumers about the qualities and characteristics of the Subject Vehicles.
In addition to the class action lawsuits, the DOJ filed suit on behalf of the EPA and the State of California
filed suit by and through the California Attorney General and CARB. The lawsuits filed by the DOJ/EPA
and California assert that Fiat Chrysler violated the Clean Air Act and the California Health and Safety
Code.
The case is before Judge Edward Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the “Court”). The case is known as In Re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep EcoDiesel Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:17-md-2777.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top