Jump to content
Drew Dowdell

Chrysler News: FCA Pooling Fleet with Tesla in EU for Emissions Requirements

Recommended Posts

FCA is paying Tesla hundreds of millions of dollar to pool their vehicles with Tesla to avoid EU fines over emissions. Tesla put out an invitation to other automakers to use its fleet to lower their emissions totals and FCA took them up on it.  Neither company released financial specifics of the deal, but it is estimated by the Financial Times to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  

Similar to California which allows manufactures with a surplus of ZEV credits to sell them to manufacturers who need them, the EU Commission allows manufacturers to pool together their fleets to avoid paying fines. Tesla makes significant money selling these credits in the US, earning $103.4m in 2018 and $279.7m in 2017. Once set up, the pool in Europe is good for several years.

Vehicles in 2018 are allowed an average CO2 emission of 120.5g per kilometer. That figure will drop to 95g per kilometer next year.  FCA's average for 2018 was 123g per kilometer, one of the largest off the mark of the 13 major manufacturers. FCA is seen to have fallen to near the back of the pack when in comes to reigning in CO2 emissions.

FCA was forecast to be facing fines exceeding €2 billion ($2.25 billion) without pooling with Tesla. 

 


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This tells me that FCA products sold in Europe are far more destructive to the environment than here in the US with the Hellcat. So Fiat, Alfa, Maserati, Ferrari all must pollute way worse than they state. Makes one rethink why would you want such a polluting noisy Ferrari?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Makes one rethink why would you want such a polluting noisy Ferrari?

LOL

Sometimes @dfelt you are something.  What do you mean why would you want a Ferrari? As opposing to what, Tesla, Bolt?  

Noisy?  Ferrari engines have one of the most beautiful sounds in the industry.

Anyway, most this type of cars get to be driven very little to make a difference,  Probably Fiats and Jeeps are the majority of FCA vehicles in Europe, and I doubt they have higher emissions than the rest of European manufacturers.  It just the standards are strict and getting stricter so it makes sense financially to buy credits from Tesla, than to pay fines.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

LOL

Sometimes @dfelt you are something.  What do you mean why would you want a Ferrari? As opposing to what, Tesla, Bolt?  

Noisy?  Ferrari engines have one of the most beautiful sounds in the industry.

Anyway, most this type of cars get to be driven very little to make a difference,  Probably Fiats and Jeeps are the majority of FCA vehicles in Europe, and I doubt they have higher emissions than the rest of European manufacturers.  It just the standards are strict and getting stricter so it makes sense financially to buy credits from Tesla, than to pay fines.

That's the point.. they do have higher emissions per mile... their engines, particularly their diesels, aren't as clean as those from other manufacturers. 

GM would probably have been on that list also, but they mostly pulled out of Europe.  Peugeot was even upset and wanted a refund from GM because their cars were that much further behind in emissions ratings.  Peugeot is hard at work replacing GM engines in the Opel lineup with PSA ones. 

Then there is the issue that a Jeep, just due to its shape, isn't going to be as efficient per mile as an equally powered wagon or hatch. That's a big reason why Europe will be getting the Compass PHEV and Renegade PHEV while we don't. 

But you're right, it is cheaper for FCA to pool with Tesla than it is for them to pay the fine. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ykX said:

LOL

Sometimes @dfelt you are something.  What do you mean why would you want a Ferrari? As opposing to what, Tesla, Bolt?  

Noisy?  Ferrari engines have one of the most beautiful sounds in the industry.

I would take a Tesla or Bolt over Ferrari. My PERSONAL preference. Ferrari is over rated and that engine that you says makes a beautiful sound, NOPE, Corvette has a better deeper sound than the over rated V12 Ferrari engine. High Pitch Cracking that is ear piercing from Ferrari I put into the same bucket of garbage as all of Harley Davidson bikes excluding the awesome LiveWire.

Since I play Trumpet and Piano, I guess my ear is just more accustomed to a tuned sound than loud noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've ever heard somebody dislike the flat plane crank V8 of a Ferrari. But, if there was going to be one it would of course come from a full on EV fanboy... ironically driving two of the least efficient vehicles on the road... 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I don't think I've ever heard somebody dislike the flat plane crank V8 of a Ferrari. But, if there was going to be one it would of course come from a full on EV fanboy... ironically driving two of the least efficient vehicles on the road... 

Like I said...

You do nothing but try to pick fights with people...

You are a troll...

Why dont you contribute to the phoquing thread instead of trying to be an internet social warrior?

Who the phoque cares what Dfelt says about Ferrari?

Your first contribution to this thread is to try to stick it to DFELT.

Have a conversation with him. But NO!  You want to stick it to him!

What are you gonna do?

Get @Drew Dowdell to make me stop harassing you? 

PHOQUE YOU!

Downvote this post to if you wanna. I dont care.

But Im gonnna expose your troll ass today though! 

 

 

Edited by oldshurst442

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I would take a Tesla or Bolt over Ferrari. My PERSONAL preference. Ferrari is over rated and that engine that you says makes a beautiful sound, NOPE, Corvette has a better deeper sound than the over rated V12 Ferrari engine. High Pitch Cracking that is ear piercing from Ferrari I put into the same bucket of garbage as all of Harley Davidson bikes excluding the awesome LiveWire.

Since I play Trumpet and Piano, I guess my ear is just more accustomed to a tuned sound than loud noise.

Personal opinion is personal, but even if you read Corvette forums, a lot of owners themselves dislike the Vette engine sound.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I don't think I've ever heard somebody dislike the flat plane crank V8 of a Ferrari. But, if there was going to be one it would of course come from a full on EV fanboy... ironically driving two of the least efficient vehicles on the road... 

I have from day one always said the DOHC High Horsepower low torque engines put into the ultra pricey toys from Italy were garbage and even the move by all auto companies to that form of engine over a traditional pushrod V8 are still garbage.

We have discussed how GM has built many excellent engines that had plenty of torque to get you moving and up to speed yet had them destroyed by TROLL Auto magazines as it did not match the Asian or European DOHC engine garbage.

Maybe the high pitch sound does not bother you, but to me, it is unrefined, noisy and not impressive to have 600HP / 3XX LB-TQ. compared to a solid 400 hp / 410 lb-ft of torque V8 with a proper tuned exhaust so you have a nice deep mellow but distinct sound..

I agree to disagree with you on the Tone of one auto over another as this is the preference we both like. I am happy for you that you like the Italian auto's, for me, I will stick with my Tuned American V8 on a Borla OEM Exhaust for my TB till I get the full size Truck / SUV EV. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No @Drew Dowdell

I wont let it go!

The Mexico thread really ticked me off with @ccap41's fake , trolly,   righteousness.

And here he goes again doing the same shyte! 

You knew Drew, you banned me for a week for being less abusive to @Paolino last year than what @ccap41 is doing here today with TWO posters...me and @dfelt.

Send him a phoquing message to STOP trolling! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I have from day one always said the DOHC High Horsepower low torque engines put into the ultra pricey toys from Italy were garbage and even the move by all auto companies to that form of engine over a traditional pushrod V8 are still garbage.

We have discussed how GM has built many excellent engines that had plenty of torque to get you moving and up to speed yet had them destroyed by TROLL Auto magazines as it did not match the Asian or European DOHC engine garbage.

Maybe the high pitch sound does not bother you, but to me, it is unrefined, noisy and not impressive to have 600HP / 3XX LB-TQ. compared to a solid 400 hp / 410 lb-ft of torque V8 with a proper tuned exhaust so you have a nice deep mellow but distinct sound..

I agree to disagree with you on the Tone of one auto over another as this is the preference we both like. I am happy for you that you like the Italian auto's, for me, I will stick with my Tuned American V8 on a Borla OEM Exhaust for my TB till I get the full size Truck / SUV EV. :) 

Definitely agree to disagree and I think the application make a huge difference to me. A strictly track-like toy is a fantastic place for a high revving engine as you rarely spend any time in the bottom of the rev range anyway but if it was a daily driver or just a cruiser, I would absolutely prefer the low end of a push rod or larger displacement engine. 

Also, too much instant torque can overwhelm the tires pulling out of a corner. A high revver with little bottom end actually has an advantage doing certain things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add me to the list of people who don't find a flat plane V8 sounding attractive.  It may not have as much power or rev as high, but an LT1 or Hemi at full tilt still sounds like my ideal regardless of the actual numbers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some parts of this discussion made me think of this song.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, ykX said:

 

Anyway, most this type of cars get to be driven very little to make a difference,  Probably Fiats and Jeeps are the majority of FCA vehicles in Europe, and I doubt they have higher emissions than the rest of European manufacturers. .

Jeeps are mostly diesels in Europe also...that is probably the big issue.   Anyway, this seems like a very strange approach to meeting emissions standards. 

Edited by Robert Hall
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Jeeps are mostly diesels in Europe also...that is probably the big issue.   Anyway, this seems like a very strange approach to meeting emissions standards. 

What is strange about it? It's the same thing in concept as buying/selling emissions credits in California. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Jeeps are mostly diesels in Europe also...that is probably the big issue.   Anyway, this seems like a very strange approach to meeting emissions standards. 

Most of the cars are diesels in the Europe.  I guess the Fiats and Jeeps are more polluting than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

What is strange about it? It's the same thing in concept as buying/selling emissions credits in California. 

Which is also strange and fake, IMO.  Credits are just artificial nonsense in lieu of building cleaner products.

Edited by Robert Hall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some one has to use the Tesla emission credits since they do not need them, might as well make some money on it. Good business sense here. Keeps us in the Hellcat game while also supporting green tech auto's. :P 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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
Reply to this topic...

×   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.


  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 69 Guests (See full list)



  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      SMART just recently announced they will be leaving the U.S. and reorienting towards China.  Could Fiat be throwing in the towel in the U.S.?   It could be if the signal of investment location is the tea leaf to be read. While the Fiat brand has nearly disappeared in China and rapidly fading in the US, they are targeting the Brazilian market, Europe, and emerging markets in their new 5-year plan. 
      Fiat has been struggling in the U.S. for year, and in spite of fielding 4 models, Fiat moved just 15,521 vehicles in the U.S. in 2018, a decline of 41% over 2017. Sales continue to fall in 2019, down another 42% YTD as of April 2019. 
      According to a report in Bloomberg, Fiat is investing $4 billion in South America to expand and build two new SUVs for the South American market. The money will go towards expanding capacity at a Jeep factory in Pernambuco to 350,000 from 250,000 per year as well as building a new factory to build engines.  Fiat plans to release 15 new, refreshed, or special series vehicles in Latin America by 2024.  Jeep and Ram will get an additional 10. 
      Latin America is the only region other than North America where FCA made money in first quarter 2019, however Fiat's market share has been falling from first place in 2015 to third place today. At the same time, Jeep has been expanding in South America from near 0% share as recently as 2014.  Fiat brand is most popular in Brazil. 
      While the 5-year plan does not yet signal an exit from the U.S. market, the reorientation of resources to markets other than the U.S. could be a signal that the end could be near for Fiat brand in the U.S. 

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      SMART just recently announced they will be leaving the U.S. and reorienting towards China.  Could Fiat be throwing in the towel in the U.S.?   It could be if the signal of investment location is the tea leaf to be read. While the Fiat brand has nearly disappeared in China and rapidly fading in the US, they are targeting the Brazilian market, Europe, and emerging markets in their new 5-year plan. 
      Fiat has been struggling in the U.S. for year, and in spite of fielding 4 models, Fiat moved just 15,521 vehicles in the U.S. in 2018, a decline of 41% over 2017. Sales continue to fall in 2019, down another 42% YTD as of April 2019. 
      According to a report in Bloomberg, Fiat is investing $4 billion in South America to expand and build two new SUVs for the South American market. The money will go towards expanding capacity at a Jeep factory in Pernambuco to 350,000 from 250,000 per year as well as building a new factory to build engines.  Fiat plans to release 15 new, refreshed, or special series vehicles in Latin America by 2024.  Jeep and Ram will get an additional 10. 
      Latin America is the only region other than North America where FCA made money in first quarter 2019, however Fiat's market share has been falling from first place in 2015 to third place today. At the same time, Jeep has been expanding in South America from near 0% share as recently as 2014.  Fiat brand is most popular in Brazil. 
      While the 5-year plan does not yet signal an exit from the U.S. market, the reorientation of resources to markets other than the U.S. could be a signal that the end could be near for Fiat brand in the U.S. 
    • By Drew Dowdell
      After much speculation, it has come to light that Apple did propose to bid on Tesla back in 2013 for $240 a share, higher than the sub-$200 a share Tesla is trading at today, according to CNBC. Analyst Craig Irwin told CNBC that there was a serious bid from Apple and says that multiple credible sources have told him so.  
      Tesla is down more than 46% from its high in August 2018 when CEO Musk tweeted that he had funding secured to take Tesla private at $420 a share via a Saudi Soverign Wealth Fund, but that tweet turned out to be false, Tesla reversed course, and got Musk and Tesla in trouble with the SEC and further cost Musk the Chairmanship of the company. 
      Now that Tesla stock is trading in the sub-$200 range, it becomes a substantially more attractive acquisition target, not only for Apple, but for other companies as well.  The question remains what to do with Tesla's CEO Elon Musk.  Apple's insistence on Musk's departure was apparently what killed the deal back in 2013. 
      Reports are that Apple is working on its own car technology, but acquiring Tesla would substantially boost their progress. 

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      After much speculation, it has come to light that Apple did propose to bid on Tesla back in 2013 for $240 a share, higher than the sub-$200 a share Tesla is trading at today, according to CNBC. Analyst Craig Irwin told CNBC that there was a serious bid from Apple and says that multiple credible sources have told him so.  
      Tesla is down more than 46% from its high in August 2018 when CEO Musk tweeted that he had funding secured to take Tesla private at $420 a share via a Saudi Soverign Wealth Fund, but that tweet turned out to be false, Tesla reversed course, and got Musk and Tesla in trouble with the SEC and further cost Musk the Chairmanship of the company. 
      Now that Tesla stock is trading in the sub-$200 range, it becomes a substantially more attractive acquisition target, not only for Apple, but for other companies as well.  The question remains what to do with Tesla's CEO Elon Musk.  Apple's insistence on Musk's departure was apparently what killed the deal back in 2013. 
      Reports are that Apple is working on its own car technology, but acquiring Tesla would substantially boost their progress. 
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Tesla's stock opened under $200 at $197.75 on Tuesday, a substantial decrease from the $332.80 it was trading for in December 2018. In April, Tesla posted a $722M loss for the first quarter of 2019.  Tesla has faced terrible delivery reports over the last two quarters while also trying to get the new Tesla Model Y production online and a Gigafactory in Shanghai operational. 
      The Los Angeles Times reports that Wedbush Securities Analyst Dan Ives has cut the price target of Tesla from $275 a share to $230 a share citing an escalating trade war between the U.S. and China.  Another analyst cuts Telsa's forecast Chinese sales in half and sees the company being forced to take on new partners to make ends meet. 
      Tesla recently raised $2.7 billion in a stock and bond sale, an amount that Tesla head Elon Musk says will give the company about 10 months of cash.

      View full article
  • My Clubs

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...