FCA, GM and the EPA - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

rocket403 · 05-30-2017, 04:47 PM

FCA and GM have the EPA up their butts with the Diesel engines that they have in their trucks, software that has been used the EPA says allows the engines to emit more pollution under normal conditions than stated to the EPA. Is this just a witch hunt after the VW dieselgate?

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/gm-fo...ons-tests.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...esel-emissions

FenwickHockey65 · 05-30-2017, 04:48 PM

Well there is a difference...

The FCA and VW lawsuits are from the EPA.

Everyone else is being sued by random law firms.

E. Bryant · 05-30-2017, 07:40 PM

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...postcount=4257

What the EPA is doing is not exactly a "witch hunt", but rather the natural reaction to a violation of the trust that is required for our system of self-certification to function. It does appear that FCA may have behaved incorrectly, but certainly nothing like what VW did. The EPA has not yet publicly accused GM of any wrongdoing.

rocket403 · 05-31-2017, 10:19 AM

FCA is waiting for the EPA to sign off on the 2017 3.0L diesel for all I have heard the 2017 meets all requirements to satisfy the EPA. So why wait so the EPA is upset that FCA is fighting them so holding back the release to sell the 2017 model. If it was that easy to satisfy the EPA then the issues with the 3L was not a huge one.

riozlander · 06-03-2017, 06:35 AM

I personally think that the EPA is out of control. Can they prove that this system pollutes when not being checked, like vw was can the prove that its just spewing out bad stuff when people drive them regularly or use there vehicles under load. Or are they complaining about it has a opening in the current system that allows users to override with ease and spew out coal.
Maybe I'm just being a eco nazi but in California you can't fart without the EPA getting upset.
Diesel engines are one of the few designs that can use 50-70% or higher of the fuel burned to move the vehicle where gas is highly inefficient with yields if 20-40% burned being used for motion the remanding going out the tail pipe.

RLHMARINES · 06-03-2017, 05:40 PM

I remember the skyline in SoCal back in the late '70's and early '80's and it was not pretty by any means or when you had air quality reports on the morning news and it would be a bad haze over the sky from all the pollution.

The EPA serves a purpose just as our military does, to protect us and provide a certain quality of life. I may not agree with them 100% of the time but they have our best interest at heart.

riozlander · 06-04-2017, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLHMARINES

I remember the skyline in SoCal back in the late '70's and early '80's and it was not pretty by any means or when you had air quality reports on the morning news and it would be a bad haze over the sky from all the pollution.

The EPA serves a purpose just as our military does, to protect us and provide a certain quality of life. I may not agree with them 100% of the time but they have our best interest at heart.

yes this is very true as a ex truck driver I can say I have seen a huge improvement in the quality of clean air that comes out of our trucks.

it makes me sad VW did what they did maybe im being a bit to brand loyal
I just remember doing burn efficiency tests in autoshop.
every time diesel came out way ahead.
I just feel they over stretch things some times at the EPA.

in California diesel anything aside from a 300d and 300TD from Mercedes for cooking oil fuel. they get a bad rap but yet on top gear UK I have seen some of these 3 banger diesels get 60 mpg or better.

if GM/chevy are doing something like this that sucks they have come so fare from 2008

05-30-2017, 04:47 PM	#1
rocket403 Drives: 80 Cutlass 403, 2010 FF RT Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Ontario Posts: 921	FCA, GM and the EPA FCA and GM have the EPA up their butts with the Diesel engines that they have in their trucks, software that has been used the EPA says allows the engines to emit more pollution under normal conditions than stated to the EPA. Is this just a witch hunt after the VW dieselgate? http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/gm-fo...ons-tests.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...esel-emissions

05-30-2017, 04:48 PM	#2
FenwickHockey65 General Motors Aficionado Drives: 2023 GMC Canyon, 2023 Expedition Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 37,375 View My Garage	Well there is a difference... The FCA and VW lawsuits are from the EPA. Everyone else is being sued by random law firms. __________________ 2023 GMC Canyon Elevation 2023 Ford Expedition SSV (State-Issued)

05-30-2017, 07:40 PM	#3
E. Bryant Gearhead Drives: 2012 ZL1 Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Michigan Posts: 252	http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...postcount=4257 What the EPA is doing is not exactly a "witch hunt", but rather the natural reaction to a violation of the trust that is required for our system of self-certification to function. It does appear that FCA may have behaved incorrectly, but certainly nothing like what VW did. The EPA has not yet publicly accused GM of any wrongdoing. __________________ 2012 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 M6 - JRE 650 RWHP kit, AFCO heat exchanger, JPSS V4 aero, Z28 wheels for the twisties and Weld big-n-littles for the dragstrip. 11.193@128.13 in 515' DA

06-03-2017, 05:40 PM	#6
RLHMARINES 1st Civ. Div. Drives: Camaroless for now...RIP "Big SexZ" Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Savannah, Ga Posts: 2,729	I remember the skyline in SoCal back in the late '70's and early '80's and it was not pretty by any means or when you had air quality reports on the morning news and it would be a bad haze over the sky from all the pollution. The EPA serves a purpose just as our military does, to protect us and provide a certain quality of life. I may not agree with them 100% of the time but they have our best interest at heart. __________________ Swift....Silent....Deadly

05-31-2017, 10:19 AM	#4
rocket403 Drives: 80 Cutlass 403, 2010 FF RT Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Ontario Posts: 921	FCA is waiting for the EPA to sign off on the 2017 3.0L diesel for all I have heard the 2017 meets all requirements to satisfy the EPA. So why wait so the EPA is upset that FCA is fighting them so holding back the release to sell the 2017 model. If it was that easy to satisfy the EPA then the issues with the 3L was not a huge one.

06-03-2017, 06:35 AM	#5
riozlander that guy <-------- Drives: 2012 camaro V6 LS M6 Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: southern Commiefornia Posts: 730	I personally think that the EPA is out of control. Can they prove that this system pollutes when not being checked, like vw was can the prove that its just spewing out bad stuff when people drive them regularly or use there vehicles under load. Or are they complaining about it has a opening in the current system that allows users to override with ease and spew out coal. Maybe I'm just being a eco nazi but in California you can't fart without the EPA getting upset. Diesel engines are one of the few designs that can use 50-70% or higher of the fuel burned to move the vehicle where gas is highly inefficient with yields if 20-40% burned being used for motion the remanding going out the tail pipe.