• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    Tesla Model S Gets Its EPA Rating


    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    June 21, 2012

    The EPA gave its ratings for the Tesla Model S are they are very good. The EPA rates the new Model S at 88 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) in the City, 90 MPGe on the Highway, and 89 MPGe combined. Range is estimated to be 265 Miles, a 12% decrease from Tesla’s original estimate.

    (Note, these EPA ratings are for the the top of the line Model S. We’ll learn what the ratings for the other Model Ss in time.)

    So where does the Model S fall into the EV MPGe ratings? Well it's behind the Honda Fit EV (118 MPGe), Mitsubishi i (112 MPGe), Ford Focus EV (105 MPGe), and Nissan Leaf (99 MPGe). But well ahead of the Coda Sedan (73 MPGe).

    However, the Model S is larger than any of the vehicles listed and can seat up to seven (five + two jump seats).

    Source: Autoblog

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback




    a large car like this that's fairly impressive. im sure some on here would argue otherwise. but a large full electric car getting 265 miles. coupled with recent breakthroughs in quicker charging. its not terrible. not perfect but not bad

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    yea. well you know people are going to nitpick the charge time saying "its not worth it" but like i said the recent breakthrough in charge time a public recharge station can now be as fast as 15 minuets for a full charge.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Checked out a production-ready Model S at the Tesla store in Palo Alto last weekend. Looks awesome, great tech, lots of attention to detail... only complaint I have is that rear headroom is a bit limited with that sloping roof. It's a rather large and imposing vehicle up close, about 4" larger than a 5-series, said the salesperson.

    The cool thing is that there's an integrated charger built into the car, so you don't need a pricey home charger built into your garage. A normal 240-volt dryer socket is all that's needed for Level 2 charging.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Nice looking car but a toy still. This is NOT a GREEN car no matter what anyone says.

    1) The battery pack produces 10 years worth of Green House Gas based on what a basic econo car running gas produces.

    2) Except for the PNW - Pacific Northwest with all it's Hydro power, most of the country use Coal to generate Electricity and this produces mountains of green house gas.

    End result, better to go CNG than Electric!

    Pass on this limited range car with lousy recharge times.

    In time Electric cars will get us there but not yet. Smart Stepping stone is CNG.

    How about you guys do a review of the CNG Bi-Fuel Trucks and Vans from GM! :D

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    its not a toy. the point of a car like this is to remove the direct carbon emission of the car. how it gets its power may change. but getting rid of the carbon emission is key to the auto industry. there are many ways to do this. all of them have their flaws. it just so happens that this version looks nice. gets a good distance for its size. and for someone WANTING electric over a gas or oil car. this is a fine choice. you dont want it? fine don't buy it. but don't look down on them for trying.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    its not a toy. the point of a car like this is to remove the direct carbon emission of the car. how it gets its power may change. but getting rid of the carbon emission is key to the auto industry. there are many ways to do this. all of them have their flaws. it just so happens that this version looks nice. gets a good distance for its size. and for someone WANTING electric over a gas or oil car. this is a fine choice. you dont want it? fine don't buy it. but don't look down on them for trying.

    I am NOT looking down on them. I commend them for what they have done, but I feel they went the wrong direction when there are far better options out there for making Green Cars.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    those options don't have perfect tech either. from what ive seen the alternates are on equal playing fields its just a matter of what you like. all of them have their flaws.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    So except for the distance on this lone car, electric cannot touch CNG for driving. Both do not have power/pumping stations everywhere like Petrol. That is about the only draw back I can see.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    a charging station would be a lot easier to install than a CNG station. not to mention you leave your house fully charged if you plug in every time you pull in your garage. the only drawback i see is the garage itself. those with on street parking are at a disadvantage. unless you have an extension cord out to your car lol.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    im not saying its perfect. my point all along is its what you like. oil cars wont be around forever. and ALL of the alternatives have drawbacks. i like electric because i dont like the idea of an compressed explosive in my trunk. sure cars today have the same danger. but compressed gasses have more boom behind them. this is MY TASTE. thumb me down idc.

    and dont call me son. your not my father. i dont even know you.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    good grammar is for professional papers and formal meetings. this is neither. i know batteries can explode. but i would much rather have a batter strapped to my car then a canister of compressed gas. again this is my personal preference. you may think gas is the better option. well guess what there will be CNG cars. you want a CNG car you buy one. if i want an electric car ill buy one. im just saying why i think the electric car is better.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Maximum range for a CNG Civic is 248 miles, and its trunk is tiny. Model S can go further and has two trunks, one of which is ginormous.

    Model S can be charged anywhere there is a plug, whereas with a CNG car, you must go out of your way to find a fueling station. Best of all, you can recharge Model S at home and never waste time at a gas station.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    There are PLENTY of drawbacks to pure electrics, son.

    Plenty of advantages as well:

    Lower center of gravity

    Battery provides for additional structural rigidity

    More space for passengers and cargo (no exhaust, driveshaft, bulky engine and transmission, etc.)

    Instant torque

    Lower NVH

    Zero tailpipe emissions

    Greater efficiency

    Less maintenance

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

    On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

    Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

    What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

    On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

    Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

    What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

    what i dont think you are looking at is that is such a small part of emissions. to make one car the mining of materials only create a fraction of what a normal car would produce in its lifetime. also to get that CNG the process is the same. i don't know what the fear is of batteries. what do you think starts your car in the morning?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    When an entire car can be powered by a battery the size of the one in my Patriot, your argument will be valid. Until then, pfffft.

    -3

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

    On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

    Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

    What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

    Model S is RWD; the motor (AC induction, so no rare-earth materials) rests between the rear wheels. Very compact.

    The 85-kWh battery on the top model is 4" thick, and it's a flat slab mounted as part of the floor, making the chassis very stiff. It also lowers the center of gravity to that of a Ford GT's (the chassis, incidentally, was done by the same person who engineered that supercar). The flat battery, along with other aero tricks, gives Model S the lowest drag coefficient of any production vehicle on sale.

    Only 15% of a BEV's life-cycle environmental harm comes from the battery. It's the operation, whether gasoline or electric, that makes up the majority of a vehicle's impact: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es903729a

    Oh, and did I mention in Performance trim, it does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds?

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    ocnblu, on , said:

    Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

    On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

    Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

    What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

    Model S is RWD; the motor (AC induction, so no rare-earth materials) rests between the rear wheels. Very compact.

    The 85-kWh battery on the top model is 4" thick, and it's a flat slab mounted as part of the floor, making the chassis very stiff. It also lowers the center of gravity to that of a Ford GT's (the chassis, incidentally, was done by the same person who engineered that supercar). The flat battery, along with other aero tricks, gives Model S the lowest drag coefficient of any production vehicle on sale.

    Only 15% of a BEV's life-cycle environmental harm comes from the battery. It's the operation, whether gasoline or electric, that makes up the majority of a vehicle's impact: http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/es903729a

    Oh, and did I mention in Performance trim, it does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds?

    woah i didnt know that thats amazing. though that does bring out some other good things about EV. they dont have to work as hard to pick up speed. no mechanical engine chugging to push the car. so the mechanical friction is reduced as well. making them very impressive when it comes to speed.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Kills the range though, drag racing. And air conditioning on a hot day. And heat and defrost on a cold day. And going up hill. And stop-n-go city traffic, and on and on. But we won't talk about those, will we?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

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

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. svz-07
      svz-07
      (37 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Last May, Joshua Brown was killed in a crash when his Tesla Model S in Autopilot collided with a tractor-trailer. After an investigation that took over half of a year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released their findings today. 
      In a report, NHTSA said they didn't find any evidence of defects with the Autopilot system. The agency also stated that they would not ask Tesla to perform a recall on models equipped with Autopilot.
      In a statement, Tesla said "the safety of our customers comes first, and we appreciate the thoroughness of NHTSA’s report and its conclusion."
       
      NHTSA's report revealed that neither Autopilot nor Brown applied the brakes to prevent or lessen the impact of the crash. However, NHTSA cleared the Automatic Emergency Braking system as it's “designed to avoid or mitigate rear end collisions” but that “braking for crossing path collisions, such as that present in the Florida fatal crash, are outside the expected performance capabilities of the system.” 
      Speaking of Brown, NHTSA's report said that he did not any action with steering or anything else to prevent this. The last recorded action in the vehicle was the cruise control being set to 74 mph. NHTSA notes that in their reconstruction of the crash, Brown had seven seconds to from seeing the tractor trailer to the moment of the impact, giving him possible chance to take some sort of action.
      This brings up a very serious concern of how much confidence owners give the Autopilot system. Despite Tesla having statements such as that Autopilot “is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times," and that "you need to maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle” while using it," various videos showing Model Ss narrowly avoiding crashes have caused people to think that Autopilot was fully autonomous - which it isn't.
      “Although perhaps not as specific as it could be, Tesla has provided information about system limitations in the owner’s manuals, user interface and associated warnings/alerts, as well as a driver monitoring system that is intended to aid the driver in remaining engaged in the driving task at all times. Drivers should read all instructions and warnings provided in owner’s manuals for ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems) technologies and be aware of system limitations,” said NHTSA.
      Tesla, to its credit, has been updating Autopilot to make drivers pay attention when using it. These include increasing the warnings for a driver to intervene when needed, and turning off the system if a driver doesn't respond to repeated requests.
      Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Report in PDF), Tesla

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Last May, Joshua Brown was killed in a crash when his Tesla Model S in Autopilot collided with a tractor-trailer. After an investigation that took over half of a year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released their findings today. 
      In a report, NHTSA said they didn't find any evidence of defects with the Autopilot system. The agency also stated that they would not ask Tesla to perform a recall on models equipped with Autopilot.
      In a statement, Tesla said "the safety of our customers comes first, and we appreciate the thoroughness of NHTSA’s report and its conclusion."
       
      NHTSA's report revealed that neither Autopilot nor Brown applied the brakes to prevent or lessen the impact of the crash. However, NHTSA cleared the Automatic Emergency Braking system as it's “designed to avoid or mitigate rear end collisions” but that “braking for crossing path collisions, such as that present in the Florida fatal crash, are outside the expected performance capabilities of the system.” 
      Speaking of Brown, NHTSA's report said that he did not any action with steering or anything else to prevent this. The last recorded action in the vehicle was the cruise control being set to 74 mph. NHTSA notes that in their reconstruction of the crash, Brown had seven seconds to from seeing the tractor trailer to the moment of the impact, giving him possible chance to take some sort of action.
      This brings up a very serious concern of how much confidence owners give the Autopilot system. Despite Tesla having statements such as that Autopilot “is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times," and that "you need to maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle” while using it," various videos showing Model Ss narrowly avoiding crashes have caused people to think that Autopilot was fully autonomous - which it isn't.
      “Although perhaps not as specific as it could be, Tesla has provided information about system limitations in the owner’s manuals, user interface and associated warnings/alerts, as well as a driver monitoring system that is intended to aid the driver in remaining engaged in the driving task at all times. Drivers should read all instructions and warnings provided in owner’s manuals for ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems) technologies and be aware of system limitations,” said NHTSA.
      Tesla, to its credit, has been updating Autopilot to make drivers pay attention when using it. These include increasing the warnings for a driver to intervene when needed, and turning off the system if a driver doesn't respond to repeated requests.
      Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Report in PDF), Tesla
    • By William Maley
      Fiat Chrysler Automobiles finds itself in hot water, this time with the EPA. During a conference call this morning, the agency accused FCA of violating diesel emission standards on 104,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models equipped with the 3.0L EcoDiesel from 2014 to 2016. They are also accused of failing to disclose eight different software programs. The EPA alleges the software used on these models allowed them to produce excess pollution. At the moment, the EPA isn't calling the software a defeat device as FCA haven't explained the purpose of this software.
      “Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe. We continue to investigate the nature and impact of these devices,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in a statement. 
      In lab tests done by the EPA, the 3.0L EcoDiesel meet emission standards. But at high speeds or driving for extended periods, the effectiveness of the emission's system was reduced by the software.
      This possibly explains why the 2017 Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 EcoDiesel haven't been given the ok by the EPA as we reported last year.
      The EPA says there is no immediate action for owners to take as the vehicles are safe and legal to drive while the investigation continues. FCA could be fined as much $44,539 per vehicle if they are found to be violating the Clean Air Act (about $4.6 billion).
      In a statement obtained by Bloomberg, FCA said it “intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company's diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements."
      FCA's stock price dropped 16 percent to $9.30 after the news broke. Soon after, trading on the stock was halted.
      We'll be watching this and update this story as more information comes in.
      Source: Reuters, Bloomberg , USA Today , EPA, FCA
      Press Releases are on Page 2


      EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations
      FCA allegedly installed and failed to disclose software that increases air pollution from vehicles WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued a notice of violation to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC (collectively FCA) for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act for installing and failing to disclose engine management software in light-duty model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0 liter diesel engines sold in the United States. The undisclosed software results in increased emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the vehicles. The allegations cover roughly 104,000 vehicles. EPA is working in coordination with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which has also issued a notice of violation to FCA. EPA and CARB have both initiated investigations based on FCA’s alleged actions.
      “Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe,” said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “We continue to investigate the nature and impact of these devices. All automakers must play by the same rules, and we will continue to hold companies accountable that gain an unfair and illegal competitive advantage.”

      “Once again, a major automaker made the business decision to skirt the rules and got caught,” said CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols. “CARB and U.S. EPA made a commitment to enhanced testing as the Volkswagen case developed, and this is a result of that collaboration.”

      The Clean Air Act requires vehicle manufacturers to demonstrate to EPA through a certification process that their products meet applicable federal emission standards to control air pollution. As part of the certification process, automakers are required to disclose and explain any software, known as auxiliary emission control devices, that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution. FCA did not disclose the existence of certain auxiliary emission control devices to EPA in its applications for certificates of conformity for model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks, despite being aware that such a disclosure was mandatory. By failing to disclose this software and then selling vehicles that contained it, FCA violated important provisions of the Clean Air Act. 
      FCA may be liable for civil penalties and injunctive relief for the violations alleged in the NOV. EPA is also investigating whether the auxiliary emission control devices constitute “defeat devices,” which are illegal.

      In September 2015, EPA instituted an expanded testing program to screen for defeat devices on light duty vehicles. This testing revealed that the FCA vehicle models in question produce increased NOx emissions under conditions that would be encountered in normal operation and use. As part of the investigation, EPA has found at least eight undisclosed pieces of software that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution.
      FCA US Response to EPA

      January 12, 2017 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - FCA US is disappointed that the EPA has chosen to issue a notice of violation with respect to the emissions control technology employed in the company’s 2014-16 model year light duty 3.0-liter diesel engines.
      FCA US intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company’s diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements.
      FCA US diesel engines are equipped with state-of-the-art emission control systems hardware, including selective catalytic reduction (SCR).  Every auto manufacturer must employ various strategies to control tailpipe emissions in order to balance EPA’s regulatory requirements for low nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and requirements for engine durability and performance, safety and fuel efficiency. FCA US believes that its emission control systems meet the applicable requirements.
      FCA US has spent months providing voluminous information in response to requests from EPA  and other governmental authorities and has sought to explain its emissions control technology to EPA representatives.  FCA US has proposed a number of actions to address EPA’s concerns, including developing extensive software changes to our emissions control strategies that could be implemented in these vehicles immediately to further improve emissions performance.
      FCA US looks forward to the opportunity to meet with the EPA’s enforcement division and representatives of the new administration to demonstrate that FCA US’s emissions control strategies are properly justified and thus are not “defeat devices” under applicable regulations and to resolve this matter expeditiously.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Fiat Chrysler Automobiles finds itself in hot water, this time with the EPA. During a conference call this morning, the agency accused FCA of violating diesel emission standards on 104,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models equipped with the 3.0L EcoDiesel from 2014 to 2016. They are also accused of failing to disclose eight different software programs. The EPA alleges the software used on these models allowed them to produce excess pollution. At the moment, the EPA isn't calling the software a defeat device as FCA haven't explained the purpose of this software.
      “Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe. We continue to investigate the nature and impact of these devices,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in a statement. 
      In lab tests done by the EPA, the 3.0L EcoDiesel meet emission standards. But at high speeds or driving for extended periods, the effectiveness of the emission's system was reduced by the software.
      This possibly explains why the 2017 Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 EcoDiesel haven't been given the ok by the EPA as we reported last year.
      The EPA says there is no immediate action for owners to take as the vehicles are safe and legal to drive while the investigation continues. FCA could be fined as much $44,539 per vehicle if they are found to be violating the Clean Air Act (about $4.6 billion).
      In a statement obtained by Bloomberg, FCA said it “intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company's diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements."
      FCA's stock price dropped 16 percent to $9.30 after the news broke. Soon after, trading on the stock was halted.
      We'll be watching this and update this story as more information comes in.
      Source: Reuters, Bloomberg , USA Today , EPA, FCA
      Press Releases are on Page 2


      EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations
      FCA allegedly installed and failed to disclose software that increases air pollution from vehicles WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued a notice of violation to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC (collectively FCA) for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act for installing and failing to disclose engine management software in light-duty model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0 liter diesel engines sold in the United States. The undisclosed software results in increased emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the vehicles. The allegations cover roughly 104,000 vehicles. EPA is working in coordination with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which has also issued a notice of violation to FCA. EPA and CARB have both initiated investigations based on FCA’s alleged actions.
      “Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe,” said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “We continue to investigate the nature and impact of these devices. All automakers must play by the same rules, and we will continue to hold companies accountable that gain an unfair and illegal competitive advantage.”

      “Once again, a major automaker made the business decision to skirt the rules and got caught,” said CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols. “CARB and U.S. EPA made a commitment to enhanced testing as the Volkswagen case developed, and this is a result of that collaboration.”

      The Clean Air Act requires vehicle manufacturers to demonstrate to EPA through a certification process that their products meet applicable federal emission standards to control air pollution. As part of the certification process, automakers are required to disclose and explain any software, known as auxiliary emission control devices, that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution. FCA did not disclose the existence of certain auxiliary emission control devices to EPA in its applications for certificates of conformity for model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks, despite being aware that such a disclosure was mandatory. By failing to disclose this software and then selling vehicles that contained it, FCA violated important provisions of the Clean Air Act. 
      FCA may be liable for civil penalties and injunctive relief for the violations alleged in the NOV. EPA is also investigating whether the auxiliary emission control devices constitute “defeat devices,” which are illegal.

      In September 2015, EPA instituted an expanded testing program to screen for defeat devices on light duty vehicles. This testing revealed that the FCA vehicle models in question produce increased NOx emissions under conditions that would be encountered in normal operation and use. As part of the investigation, EPA has found at least eight undisclosed pieces of software that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution.
      FCA US Response to EPA

      January 12, 2017 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - FCA US is disappointed that the EPA has chosen to issue a notice of violation with respect to the emissions control technology employed in the company’s 2014-16 model year light duty 3.0-liter diesel engines.
      FCA US intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company’s diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements.
      FCA US diesel engines are equipped with state-of-the-art emission control systems hardware, including selective catalytic reduction (SCR).  Every auto manufacturer must employ various strategies to control tailpipe emissions in order to balance EPA’s regulatory requirements for low nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and requirements for engine durability and performance, safety and fuel efficiency. FCA US believes that its emission control systems meet the applicable requirements.
      FCA US has spent months providing voluminous information in response to requests from EPA  and other governmental authorities and has sought to explain its emissions control technology to EPA representatives.  FCA US has proposed a number of actions to address EPA’s concerns, including developing extensive software changes to our emissions control strategies that could be implemented in these vehicles immediately to further improve emissions performance.
      FCA US looks forward to the opportunity to meet with the EPA’s enforcement division and representatives of the new administration to demonstrate that FCA US’s emissions control strategies are properly justified and thus are not “defeat devices” under applicable regulations and to resolve this matter expeditiously.
    • By William Maley
      The Environmental Protection Agency has today proposed to keep its vehicle emission targets through 2025, shocking a lot of people and possibly setting up a major fight between regulators and the automotive industry. 
      According to Automotive News, the proposal will now enter a 30-day comment period. After this period, the EPA administrator could finalize this proposal and begin enforcing these standards a bit quicker. By 2025, automakers will need to increase their  to 54.5 miles per gallon corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) numbers to 54.5 miles per gallon.
      Why move the proposal up now? A proposal was expected next year with a final decision in 2018. The EPA said in a statement their “extensive technical analysis” has shown no reason as to why the timeframe or standards should be changed. Also, automakers will be able to achieve those 2025 standards at “similar or even a lower cost”.
      “Due to the industry’s rapid technological advancement, the technical record could arguably support strengthening the 2022-2025 standards. However, the administrator’s judgment is [that] now is not the time to introduce uncertainty by changing the standards. The industry has made huge investments in fuel efficiency and low emissions technologies based on these standards, and any changes now may disrupt those plans,” said Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation on a conference call.
      That analysis started back in July and is used to determine whether or not the EPA needs to make adjustments to the regulations or schedule.
      But there might be another reason. With President Obama leaving the White House on January 20th and President-elect Donald Trump, there are concerns that Trump's administration could challenge the regulations. By doing this now, it would make the process of undoing these regulations more complicated - notice and comment requirements, possible court battle with environmental groups, etc. McCabe denied this, saying the decision was based on analysis and a “rigorous technical record,”
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
      Pic Credit: William Maley for Cheers & Gears

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)