Jump to content
  • Greetings Guest!

    CheersandGears.com was founded in 2001 and is one of the oldest continuously operating automotive forums out there.  Come see why we have users who visit nearly every day for the past 16+ years. Signup is fast and free, or you can opt for a premium subscription to view the site ad-free.

William Maley

Fiat News: EPA Alleges FCA Violated Diesel Emission Standards

Recommended Posts


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sergio is hoping trump will kill the EPA and he can get away unlike VW with Polluting and hurting humans as he steals the profits for his own pocket.

FCA needs to be broken up and killed. Time for Fiat / Alfa to die for good.

Course this would also cause pain for Ram, Jeep, Dodge and Chrysler. Wonder how Frump would deal with it. Break it up and sell it off, consolidate and allow it to be taken as one piece?

2017, the year of business taking money and change at the expense of the consumer.  H'mmmmmmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FCA cheats its sales numbers so cheating emissions is unsurprising. 

shame FCA can't cheat up a reliable car. 

also, who the hell's going to buy a diesel passenger vehicle anymore? it's just a crapshoot now. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:facepalm:

:duh:

:roflmao:

:deathwatch:

1 minute ago, FAPTurbo said:

also, who the hell's going to buy a diesel passenger vehicle anymore? it's just a crapshoot now. 

Somebody trying to drive a vehicle for free for a couple of years, get a settlement check, or a new car on the cheaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ +1 Totally agree that FCA cheating will really hurt Diesel future here in America. I question if GM will bother to keep diesels in their lineup much past a few years out other than the full size trucks.

I bet a Hybrid truck could give you the same performance as a diesel if done with that focus in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, if this isn't just fuck ing rich.

Wonder what all the people bemoaning VW and crying for their heads will have to say about this one. Wonder what the penalties will look like.

I'm not even going to criticize them. They, like everyone else, knows how unrealistic our diesel regs are, and figured out a way around them. VW was just the first in a line to get caught. There will be more. And probably not just diesels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VW got themselves burned by selling diesels without urea treatment. The only magic way around that was cheating. The ecodiesels and cummins trucks have all the required equipment to be legal. I think the final verdict will be much less dramatic than the initial report implies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

Oh, if this isn't just fuck ing rich.

Wonder what all the people bemoaning VW and crying for their heads will have to say about this one. Wonder what the penalties will look like.

I'm not even going to criticize them. They, like everyone else, knows how unrealistic our diesel regs are, and figured out a way around them. VW was just the first in a line to get caught. There will be more. And probably not just diesels. 

We already know that CARB has discovered that Audi Gas auto's have cheat code. So this is going to be interesting to see what all comes out of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

They, like everyone else, knows how unrealistic our diesel regs are, and figured out a way around them.

So don't make a diesel vehicle if you can't follow the laws put in place. Nobody is forcing VW or FCA to produce a diesel Ram 1500 or Golf with a TDI engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at FCA's record over the past couple years:

500k faulty vehicle buy back - previous repairs have been unsuccessful, so Fiat Chrysler agreed to the buyback, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Record ( at the time ) civil fine of $105 million - auto company’s lax attitude toward addressing safety issues in millions of its vehicles. NHTSA said it was concerned about slow completion rates on recalls the automaker announced, slow or inadequate notifications to consumers, faulty approaches to fixing the safety issues and improper actions by dealers

Owners of more than a million older Jeeps with vulnerable rear-mounted gas tanks will be able to trade them in or be paid by Chrysler to have the vehicles repaired.

Falsifying Sales Data.

Lawsuit between FCA, Cummins and customers over emissions.

And now this....

FCA - I can think of a few fitting acronyms for this company.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did some further research and this is all quite premature.  it is only in the investigation stage right now and FCA IS going to meet with the EPA to review and explain their emissions equipment.  Always looking at the negative and jumping to conclusions............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FordCosworth said:

Look at FCA's record over the past couple years:

500k faulty vehicle buy back - previous repairs have been unsuccessful, so Fiat Chrysler agreed to the buyback, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Record ( at the time ) civil fine of $105 million - auto company’s lax attitude toward addressing safety issues in millions of its vehicles. NHTSA said it was concerned about slow completion rates on recalls the automaker announced, slow or inadequate notifications to consumers, faulty approaches to fixing the safety issues and improper actions by dealers

Owners of more than a million older Jeeps with vulnerable rear-mounted gas tanks will be able to trade them in or be paid by Chrysler to have the vehicles repaired.

Falsifying Sales Data.

Lawsuit between FCA, Cummins and customers over emissions.

And now this....

FCA - I can think of a few fitting acronyms for this company.

 

You and I are in agreement here.

The F part of FCA is f@#k ing douchey

The C part of FCA is crappy.

But since Marchionne is in charge of all this shyte and his company that he runs is based in Europe somewhere and not Auburn Hills, USA, than I absolve all wrong doing done only on the Chrysler part. The FIAT part could just suck it!

 Image result for suck it wwe

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stew said:

Did some further research and this is all quite premature.  it is only in the investigation stage right now and FCA IS going to meet with the EPA to review and explain their emissions equipment.  Always looking at the negative and jumping to conclusions............

it's the perception - VW's own marketing and hubris had them bear the cross for 'clean diesels,' and they were rightfully crucified for their malfeasance and dishonesty. if no one can trust the standard-bearer, why would anyone trust FCA, GM, Ford, etc.

FCA's issue may not be nearly as serious but it's just an extra nail being pounded into diesel's rapidly descending coffin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FAPTurbo said:

it's the perception - VW's own marketing and hubris had them bear the cross for 'clean diesels,' and they were rightfully crucified for their malfeasance and dishonesty. if no one can trust the standard-bearer, why would anyone trust FCA, GM, Ford, etc.

FCA's issue may not be nearly as serious but it's just an extra nail being pounded into diesel's rapidly descending coffin. 

It is just a matter of time before the GM twin diesels come under the spotlight and from what I hear it is starting to heat up for Nissan's Cummins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Stew said:

It is just a matter of time before the GM twin diesels come under the spotlight and from what I hear it is starting to heat up for Nissan's Cummins. 

The 2.8L Duramax was already under the spotlight...before the engine was even released.

" The pickup's engine features NOx-reducing tech like exhaust gas recirculation, and the EPA and California Air Resources Board recently chose the truck to take the additional step of real-world emissions tests. The 2.8-liter Duramax four-cylinder with 181 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque had no problems with the more stringent evaluation, and "the agency expressed no issues or concerns," according to the company's statement. "


Read More

 

" The effects of Volkswagen's long-running diesel emissions evasion are starting to spill over to other automakers, but General Motors is taking things in stride. The 2.8-liter, four-cylinder Duramax in the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon is the first engine to get extra scrutiny by the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, Automotive News reports. Rather than just the usual in-lab test, it's also being checked on the road. However, the extra evaluation shouldn't have any impact on when the trucks with his mill hit dealers later this fall "

Read More

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FordCosworth said:

The 2.8L Duramax was already under the spotlight...before the engine was even released.

" The pickup's engine features NOx-reducing tech like exhaust gas recirculation, and the EPA and California Air Resources Board recently chose the truck to take the additional step of real-world emissions tests. The 2.8-liter Duramax four-cylinder with 181 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque had no problems with the more stringent evaluation, and "the agency expressed no issues or concerns," according to the company's statement. "


Read More

 

" The effects of Volkswagen's long-running diesel emissions evasion are starting to spill over to other automakers, but General Motors is taking things in stride. The 2.8-liter, four-cylinder Duramax in the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon is the first engine to get extra scrutiny by the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, Automotive News reports. Rather than just the usual in-lab test, it's also being checked on the road. However, the extra evaluation shouldn't have any impact on when the trucks with his mill hit dealers later this fall "

Read More

You realize it will only take one complaint and they will be back up GM's rear, right?  My point was, as mentioned above, every dishonest tom dick and harry is going to try and get their fair share of the diesel money pie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. GM went through extra certification tests on the 2.8 Duramax before they even released it. 

 

To be clear, what VW did and what FCA did in this case are (so far) quite different.  FCA didn't disclose the entire design of the emissions control system which is indeed a violation of the law, but that is not the same as VW taking direct actions to try and cheat the test.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stew said:

You realize it will only take one complaint and they will be back up GM's rear, right?  My point was, as mentioned above, every dishonest tom dick and harry is going to try and get their fair share of the diesel money pie. 

You realize the EPA and CARB made sure the 2.8L was emission compliant, right? In the case of this engine, due to VW's dishonesty, the EPA and CARB didn't rely on the mfg's word about emission compliancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I wonder how long it will take before FCA denies designing this engine.... it is actually designed and built by a 3rd party called VM Motori...so I wonder how long before Serg throws VM under a diesel powered bus.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FordCosworth said:

You realize the EPA and CARB made sure the 2.8L was emission compliant, right? In the case of this engine, due to VW's dishonesty, the EPA and CARB didn't rely on the mfg's word about emission compliancy.

That is great,  there is still the previous gen Cruze diesel and that was just an example anyway, you take it way to serious and do everything you can to try and drag out an argument

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Also, I wonder how long it will take before FCA denies designing this engine.... it is actually designed and built by a 3rd party called VM Motori...so I wonder how long before Serg throws VM under a diesel powered bus.

That is a good point and this whole diesel thing is turning into a massive mess. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stew said:

That is great,  there is still the previous gen Cruze diesel and that was just an example anyway, you take it way to serious and do everything you can to try and drag out an argument

That is a good point and this whole diesel thing is turning into a massive mess. 

The first gen Cruze Diesel was a VM motor design also, though in that case was built by GM. 

Irony of ironies, the new GM 1.6 diesel is actually a product of GM's partnership with Fiat.  It was developed in Turin Italy.  However as part of the breakup between GM and FIAT, they do not get access to this engine.   It is supposed to be very clean for a diesel and GM has a whole bunch of patents just on the emissions controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The first gen Cruze Diesel was a VM motor design also, though in that case was built by GM. 

Irony of ironies, the new GM 1.6 diesel is actually a product of GM's partnership with Fiat.  It was developed in Turin Italy.  However as part of the breakup between GM and FIAT, they do not get access to this engine.   It is supposed to be very clean for a diesel and GM has a whole bunch of patents just on the emissions controls.

Wow  this is all pretty nuts haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stew said:

That is great,  there is still the previous gen Cruze diesel and that was just an example anyway, you take it way to serious and do everything you can to try and drag out an argument

That is a good point and this whole diesel thing is turning into a massive mess. 

I'm not the one making stuff up on the fly - ie GM 2.8L going to be under the spotlight.

So when one knows better, and the length GM/EPA/CARB went too to make sure this engine was emission good, you're damn right I'll take it seriously and counter with "facts ".

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FordCosworth said:

I'm not the one making stuff up on the fly - ie GM 2.8L going to be under the spotlight.

So when one knows better, and the length GM/EPA/CARB went too to make sure this engine was emission good, you're damn right I'll take it seriously and counter with "facts ".

 

 

 

 

 

Ther have been a number of times when the EPA or even the NHTSA has said something is ok and then change heir mind in a few years.  I never said it would, I said it is possible that a customer will complain and it will be put back under the microscope.  Never say never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 29 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online



  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg
    • By William Maley
      It seems like ages since Mazda announced plans to bring over a diesel engine. Many things have transpired since then with various delays and the Volkswagen diesel emission scandal. While the company said the diesel engine was still in the cards, we started to think it was as real as bigfoot or the loch ness monster. But the engine is one step closer to reality as the EPA has posted the fuel economy figures for the CX-5 diesel.
      For the front-wheel variant, the CX-5 diesel will return 28 City/31 Highway/29 Combined. All-wheel drive see a slight drop to 27/30/28. Major improvement over gas model, right? Not really. The FWD gas model does trail the diesel in the city by three, but there is only a one mpg difference in the highway and the combined figure is the same. The AWD gas model is pretty much the same story; three mpg difference in the city, two mpg difference on the highway, and the same figure for combined.
      It gets even worse if we compare it to the Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain Diesel. In FWD guise, EPA figures stand at 28 City/39 Highway/32 Combined. AWD models return 28/38/32.
      We're guessing that new emissions equipment and harder testing likely affected CX-5 diesel's fuel economy figure. Mazda might sell the diesel engine as a performance upgrade - the 2.2L turbodiesel produces 170 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque. 
      No timeframe has been given on when the CX-5 diesel will finally go on sale.
      Source: EPA

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      It seems like ages since Mazda announced plans to bring over a diesel engine. Many things have transpired since then with various delays and the Volkswagen diesel emission scandal. While the company said the diesel engine was still in the cards, we started to think it was as real as bigfoot or the loch ness monster. But the engine is one step closer to reality as the EPA has posted the fuel economy figures for the CX-5 diesel.
      For the front-wheel variant, the CX-5 diesel will return 28 City/31 Highway/29 Combined. All-wheel drive see a slight drop to 27/30/28. Major improvement over gas model, right? Not really. The FWD gas model does trail the diesel in the city by three, but there is only a one mpg difference in the highway and the combined figure is the same. The AWD gas model is pretty much the same story; three mpg difference in the city, two mpg difference on the highway, and the same figure for combined.
      It gets even worse if we compare it to the Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain Diesel. In FWD guise, EPA figures stand at 28 City/39 Highway/32 Combined. AWD models return 28/38/32.
      We're guessing that new emissions equipment and harder testing likely affected CX-5 diesel's fuel economy figure. Mazda might sell the diesel engine as a performance upgrade - the 2.2L turbodiesel produces 170 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque. 
      No timeframe has been given on when the CX-5 diesel will finally go on sale.
      Source: EPA
    • By William Maley
      Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is none too pleased with the Indian automaker Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd as they're planning to sell an off-road vehicle that looks very much like the original Willys Jeep.
      Bloomberg obtained a complaint filed by FCA to the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 1st. The document claims that Mahindra's Roxor infringes key characteristics of Jeep's signature design - namely the “boxy body shape with flat-appearing vertical sides and rear body ending at about the same height as the hood.”
      “They are a nearly identical copy of the iconic Jeep design. In fact, the accused product was ‘modeled after the original Willys Jeep."
      The Roxor is a small, two-seat off-road vehicle. There is a lot of resemblance to original Jeep design and there is a reason for that. Beginning in 1947, Mahindra got a license to build the Willys CJ3 for the Asian market. They would do so until 2010. At this point, Mahindra introduced an updated model known as the Thar that meets India's road going passenger vehicle standards and looks like a 1990's Wrangler.
      Now the Roxor isn't being sold as road-legal vehicle. Instead, Mahindra is selling this as a side-by-side off-road utility. That means its not road legal. Which brings us to the next key part of FCA's complaint. The company is arguing that Roxor imports "threaten it with substantial injury as they are underselling Jeeps." This is due to Mahindra manufacturing the parts and creating a knock-down kit, which is then shipped to a plant in the Detroit area for final assembly. We're not sure about this partly due to the arena the Roxor competes in, but also the price. The model begins at just under $15,500. Comparable models from Polaris and Honda begin at under $10,000.
      While Mahindra has had some success in the U.S. with tractors, they haven't had the same when it comes to automobiles. Previously, the company was planning to offer a diesel pickup through a distributor. But plans were scrapped and Mahindra would find itself in a lengthy court battle. The Roxor is the next attempt at possible entry for Mahindra to enter the automotive market. They have spent almost a quarter-billion dollars for a new assembly plant where they currently employ around 300 people. Last November, the company announced a $600 investment and plans to employ as many as 670 workers by 2020.
      Source: Bloomberg

      View full article
  • My Clubs

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.