Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Class-Action Lawsuit Alleges GM's Heavy Duty Trucks Cheated in Emission Tests

      General Motors now finds itself in the diesel crosshairs

    If you thought the pain and suffering against diesel would end anytime soon, think again. 

    Today in Federal Court in Detroit, a class-action lawsuit was filed against General Motors by 705,000 owners of the 2011 to 2016 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra HDs equipped with the Duramax V8 diesel claiming the engine has illegal software to skirt emission tests. The 190-page suit says GM equipped the Duramax V8 with various software programs to pass regulatory emission tests, while spewing two to five times the legal limit when driven under regular conditions. Bloomberg notes the suit has 83 references to Volkswagen and alleges environmental damage caused by these trucks could surpass Volkswagen.

    “GM claimed its engineers had accomplished a remarkable reduction of diesel emissions,” said Steve Berman, a managing partner at Hagens Berman.

    “These GM trucks likely dumped as much excess poisonous emissions into our air as did the cheating Volkswagen passenger cars.”

    It should be noted that Berman has also represented drivers and dealerships against Volkswagen and Fiat Chrysler Automobile for their diesel issues.

    "These claims are baseless and we will vigorously defend ourselves.  The Duramax Diesel Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra comply with all U.S. EPA and CARB emissions regulations," General Motors said in a statement today.

    For those keeping score, this is the sixth automaker either being sued or under investigation for claims of cheating emission tests. Aside from Volkswagen and FCA, Diamler is currently under investigation in Germany for possible fraud charges relating to possible manipulation of emissions. In France, both PSA Group and Renault face their own investigation.

    Source: Bloomberg

    Edited by William Maley

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    OK, first test the trucks and see if cheating software is on them.

    Second, do they really have 705,000 current owners having them represent them in this? NO, so how is this frivolous lawsuit being allowed forward?

    Third, I wonder how GM would have gotten their diesel through testing if they were cheating. Unlike VW lie, GM is using all the various options to clean up the emissions. I really doubt these trucks are cheating.

    I agree that I doubt all 6 have come together to cheat .

    I also agree with the tv interview that this firm is assuming all auto companies that build Diesel auto's are cheating and must pay. Strictly it is a money grab I feel and the looser will be users that have valid needs of diesel for pulling / hauling.

    Interesting, that many news feel this could force everyone to walk away from diesel. I agree with the ending comments that this will make companies think twice. One does have to wonder just how clean can a company make such a dirty fuel.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Good news for electric power.

    Anything that deals with fossil fuels being dirty and the tree huggers just strengthen their love for electrics.

    Coal powered electric farms could be used as an argument...but pictures like these make tree huggers turn a blind eye to it....

    Ironically, the name of this type of action does NOT help the coal powered electric farm argument...

    dbc4f85540387e8888f80d1715cca20f.jpeg

     

    So yeah...how clean is diesel with the big bad black proof that is displayed from the pic above?

     

     

    Edited by oldshurst442
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The diesel heavy duty trucks are way dirtier than the Jetta's and cars like that.  Maybe they have defeat devices too.  Maybe this is just all a witch hunt to get rid of diesel, because it seems like every car maker is under investigation.  And even just the cost of paying all the lawyers, the bad press, etc will make them want to quit making diesels.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    The diesel heavy duty trucks are way dirtier than the Jetta's and cars like that.  Maybe they have defeat devices too.  Maybe this is just all a witch hunt to get rid of diesel, because it seems like every car maker is under investigation.  And even just the cost of paying all the lawyers, the bad press, etc will make them want to quit making diesels.

    I think in this case its a little bit of everything as you stated. A witch hunt to destroy diesels, a cash grab PLUS I too think that GM might have cheated as I too, believe that HD diesel pick-ups are dirtier than small diesel powered cars....

    Yeah...I wont be surprised to hear

    1. Ford being the next target. And the reasons being what you and I just stated.

    2. GM retreats in offering the Cruze Diesel and the Canyon and Colorado diesels too.

    3. All manufacturers just calling it quits on diesels if

    a. GM is found guilty

    b. and/or Ford is announced next on the hit list and especially if they too are found to be guilty.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I meant it as 1:1

    Im sure SMK also meant his statement as 1:1.

     

    Im almost certain when pollution laws are put into place, the laws are meant to be enforced as 1:1 when models are concerned and not as a collective thing...

    OK...carbon credits and overall CAFE totals for a manufacturer are calculated for the entire range of vehicles...but in this case, I think this is about how THE Silverado diesel pollutes.

    I  could be wrong on all accounts.

    Edited by oldshurst442
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    But in a case where potential legal action is there, it's the cumulative that supersedes. Number of violations, plus fine per or cost per to repair, that sort of thing.

    Put it another way; there wouldn't be any legal action if VW only built 5 cars that cheated emissions.

    Edited by balthazar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    20 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    But in a case where potential legal action is there, it's the cumulative that supersedes. Number of violations, plus fine per or cost per to repair, that sort of thing.

    I fully understand that.

    But...its what THE single model does in pollution that triggers an investigation in the first place, non?

    If a brand sells a gazillion of these models then yes, its only logical that all fines would be cumultative...

    Yes....11 million TDi VW and Audis have polluted a lot more than the 700 000 Silverados even though the Duramax pollutes more, the sheer number of TDi sold is greater, therefore the as a Company, VAG has polluted  more and hence the cumultative damages are calculated and dealt with accordingly.

    Like I said, I understand that.

    But...all that does not change the fact that a Duramax (probably) pollutes more than a TDi..

    Does this mean that GM (IF IN FACT GUILTY because its all speculation and possibly a witch hunt/cash grab at this point in time) is less guilty and should be less accounted for because they sold less Duramaxes than VAG sold TDis?

    Fined less for pollution damage...yes!

    Being less guilty...NO!

    Having a fine that is EQUIVALENT AND PROPORTIONAL to VAG's fine...DAMNED RIGHT!!!

     

     

     

     

    Edited by oldshurst442
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

    Good news for electric power.

    Anything that deals with fossil fuels being dirty and the tree huggers just strengthen their love for electrics.

    Coal powered electric farms could be used as an argument...but pictures like these make tree huggers turn a blind eye to it....

    Ironically, the name of this type of action does NOT help the coal powered electric farm argument...

    dbc4f85540387e8888f80d1715cca20f.jpeg

     

    So yeah...how clean is diesel with the big bad black proof that is displayed from the pic above?

     

     

    Thinking about this picture, it does make me look around and while I see allot of Ford, Chevy, GMC and RAM diesels, older ones being 7 or more years old I see some black, but nothing like this on any of the newer trucks. They are clear other than the heat. 

    Yet with that said, I have noticed trucks like this that come out of the 4 wheel parts place and the Diesel Dynamics place and blow a ton of black so I am thinking more 3rd party performance applications where they dump a ton more diesel into the motor to produce power and the end result is this black soot.

    I am going to say this witch hunt is just that, a witch hunt and that I really doubt GM and Ford are using defeat devices. Hopefully who ever actually takes each model year and retests and checks for alternative programming also is aware enough to look for if the trucks have 3rd party performance add ons as that will skew things greatly.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, balthazar said:

    Pretty hard to believe 700K diesel trucks could out-pollute 11 million VWs.
    1:1 I could see; the DuraMax is 6.6L. But collectively?

    My hunch is that the law firm is basing this on the number of Volkswagen TDIs sold in the U.S. which I think is over 600,000 if you add both the 2.0L four and 3.0 V6.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I would just like to point out that NONE of those photos above show 2011-2016 GM trucks.  That chevy that's blowing smoke is '07 at the very latest.  And not 100% sure about the other makes, but most of those look older, too.  What I've seen of newer diesels across all makes is very clean tailpipes.  I'm calling a 90% chance this is a witch hunt.  VW put blood in the water, and now the sharks are circling.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, roadwarrior said:

    I would just like to point out that NONE of those photos above show 2011-2016 GM trucks.  That chevy that's blowing smoke is '07 at the very latest.  And not 100% sure about the other makes, but most of those look older, too.

    a7e157ca454e112710356ddce3bde19b.jpg

     

    Would that be more to your liking?

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    19 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

    a7e157ca454e112710356ddce3bde19b.jpg

     

    Would that be more to your liking?

    We'll we can see aftermarket lift kit, I have to assume aftermarket performance parts too.

    I doubt these trucks are cheating until aftermarket performance mods are done.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    22 minutes ago, roadwarrior said:

    There ya go.  

    also been modified... if jacked up, why wouldn't they modify the ECM code to allow this to happen?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    56 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

    OK...

    What did that do in terms of what I was saying in my post?

     

    What exactly was the argument?  Diesel can be dirty, so can gas.  Beyond that, maybe it's my ignorance of certain elements, but all the stuff you posted above the picture didn't seem to contain a cohesive argument, per se.  But I haven't witnessed black plumes off of late-model diesels with my own eyes, nor any kind of stink from them.  It's always 10+ year old trucks that spew, in my experience.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just now, roadwarrior said:

    What exactly was the argument?  Diesel can be dirty, so can gas.  Beyond that, maybe it's my ignorance of certain elements, but all the stuff you posted above the picture didn't seem to contain a cohesive argument, per se.

     

    Sure....whatever you say....

     

     

     

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Even though diesel trucks do not suffer this rolling coal problem unless heavily modified, I find this rolling coal problem highly noxious and annoying.  Why anyone would essentially sabotage emissions equipment just to anger Prius owners is beyond me.  It is fundamentally childish and is terrible for all concerned.

    As for the class action lawsuit, I do not think that it has real merit.  It is one thing for the EPA to enforce existing laws; it is quite another to sue GM when the EPA is busy trying to enforce the laws we currently have.  Now, if the EPA and CARB did NOTHING about this, then a class action suit can and should go forward.  This feels like a pile-on to me.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a9942689/general-motors-accused-of-rigging-diesel-pickup-truck-emissions/

     

    from the link above:

    Quote

    A class-action lawsuit accuses General Motors of rigging emission-control systems on 2011–2016 Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD pickups with GM’s Duramax turbo-diesel 6.6-liter V-8 engine. If the allegations are proved true, the environmental damage from these 705,000 trucks, which the lawsuit said emit two to five times the legal limit of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in typical driving conditions, could easily exceed that of Volkswagen’s emission-test-cheating TDI engines.

     

    And although my rolling coal pic was just showing how no matter what the news is regarding ANY fossil fuel POLLUTING makes tree huggers clamour to EVs....as proven by some posters wanting to hang me by me just posting a bloody rolling  coal pic and telling me my argument is incoherent yet he never realizing that HE HIMSELF MADE THAT CORRELATION and I NEVER said ANYTHING of that sort just stating that:

    Good news for electric power.

    Anything that deals with fossil fuels being dirty and the tree huggers just strengthen their love for electrics.

    Coal powered electric farms could be used as an argument...but pictures like these make tree huggers turn a blind eye to it....

    Ironically, the name of this type of action does NOT help the coal powered electric farm argument...

     

    The pic of the rolling coal Chevy was throwing IRONY into the  mix...

     

    The above link just stipulates that if this is true....700 000 GM diesel trucks SURPASSES VW TDi pollution....

    1:1 or cumulative....if true....does it really matter at this point?

     

     

    Edited by oldshurst442
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    From the link:
     

    Quote

     

    It’s important to note that, so far, these are consumer statements. There’s not yet any accusation from regulators or any federal investigation announced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Edited by oldshurst442
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Lawsuit is totally baseless. Even though I love the performance of Diesel, we all know it is the dirtiest fuel around and I hate the black smoke and soot as much as most others. Never understood the stupid idiots that love to blow black toxic plums.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • How did their engineers find a way to offer both with great space? It is a large 'engine bay'.  At this point, even if I said that 2 cu.ft is nonexistent, if the Audi could offer a frunk that size, Cadillac should have done the same.  I have realized that  people associate EVs with frunks and this is why you and I (and I think @David too) might criticize Cadillac for a missed opportunity with the Lyric.    Forget about Silverados and Hummers, they gave the mid-engine Corvette a trunk and frunk when a mid-engined supercar, even as a Corvette, could have forgone a frunk, but they KNEW it would benefit Corvette because people EXPECT storage space in a Corvette.    GM missed the part that people ALSO expect frunks in EVs...  ESPECIALLY in the market that the Lyriq resides in.  yeah......that would be the proper wording. Its not a big deal by ANY means.  Just disappointing. 
    • Thanks for the information. The Model X seems to have an abundance of space, everywhere.  The Lyriq just seems to have such a large "engine bay" that could/should still be able to have at least 2 cubic feet of space available. It isn't like their rear cargo space is THAT much larger than what they chose to compare it to.  It's a perfectly fine vehicle and the lack of a small frunk wouldn't stop me, it's just a little disappointing it doesn't have one when I feel like they could have engineered one in and still had a large boot. 
    • At 2.12 and 0.95 cu.ft for the Audi and Jag's frunk respectfully is a non-issue for the Lyriq not having a frunk. Maximizing the back trunk space as what the GM guys are saying for the Lyriq and the reason why they did it that way by-passing the need for a frunk sounds like marketing BS, until you realize that Audi and Jag's frunk space is nonexistent...   To which GM's words then kinda make sense as the Lyriq does in fact offer more room back there.   Frunk space is kinda expected though, for EVs, so there is that... Tesla Model X for a comparison as Tesla is the benchmark....   https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modelx/en_us/GUID-91E5877F-3CD2-4B3B-B2B8-B5DB4A6C0A05.html     Cargo Volume Table 1. 5-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,410 85.1 Behind second row 1,050 37.1 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,593 91.6 Maximum total cargo volume with 5 passengers 1,233 43.5 Table 2. 6-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row in max cargo position, third row folded flat 2,431 85.8 Behind second row, third row folded flat 935 33 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,614 92.3 Maximum total cargo volume with 6 passengers 608 21.5 Table 3. 7-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,314 81.7 Behind second row, third row folded flat 957 33.8 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,497 88.2 Maximum total cargo volume with 7 passengers 608 21.5       The Lyriq's cargo space is plentiful and it would seem like an engineering choice to favour rear space over the use of a frunk.  Is it a sound engineering choice? Possibly yes as the powertrain bits need not be crammed.   Is it a sound MARKETING choice? Time will tell as many folk really dont understand engineering choices all to well...   Nor do they seem to care.  If they want a frunk, they WANT a phoquing frunk... 
    • Lyriq Chief Engineer, Jamie Brewer, recently explained to GM Authority that the team decided to prioritize rear cargo space over two separate cargo areas. Thus, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq will have a larger traditional rear storage area. In fact, according to Brewer, that enables the Lyriq to boast the “largest cargo volume in its competitive set.” That made us wonder what, exactly, is the Lyriq’s competitive set. According to Cadillac spokesperson, Katie Minter, it consists of the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace. “Lyriq is aimed at customers that are looking for a luxury SUV with outstanding styling, ride and handling and seamlessly integrated technology. In this instance, we’re looking at vehicles such as the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace,” Minter told GM Authority in an emailed statement. So then, Lyriq has a maximum cargo volume of 60.8 cubic feet behind the first row seats and 28.0 cubic feet behind the second row. When compared to the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-Pace, the Lyriq does offer more space in the back. 2023 Cadillac Lyriq Cargo vs. e-tron I-Pace   Cadillac Lyriq Audi e-tron Jaguar I-Pace Rear cargo volume behind second row (cu. ft.) 28.0 28.5 25.3 Rear cargo volume behind first row (cu. ft.) 60.8 56.5 51.0 Frunk cargo volume (cu. ft.) N/A 2.12 0.95 Total front & rear cargo volume (cu. ft.)* 28.0 30.62 26.25 * With second row seats upright However, both the e-tron and the I-Pace feature frunks (2.12 cubic feet in the e-tron, 0.95 cubic feet in the I-Pace respectively), allowing the e-tron to have slightly more total cargo volume (combined frunk and rear cargo area). https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/05/heres-why-the-2023-cadillac-lyriq-doesnt-have-a-frunk/  
    • That's probably a better worded way to put it. It's a missed opportunity.  They're all liquid cooled at this point and I can't imagine Ford and Tesla are having battery cooling issues, at least I haven't heard of any yet and I've watched a fair amount on the Mach-E and know somebody with a pair of Teslas in Nevada.  I don't believe lack of cooling has ever been a factor in an EV catching fire. It's always something shorting and sparking with poor connection(s) somewhere.  I'd also like to learn why. They have to have a good justification, I know they're not a bunch of idiots who "didn't think of it".  I just don't want the press release answer of "we needed the space for packaging". 
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bobo
      bobo
      (54 years old)
    2. loki
      loki
      (39 years old)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...