The FCA is now staring down the barrel another dieselgate scandal after the United States Justice Department dragged them to court for apparently using defeat devices on their cars. The Civil Law Suit which has been filed against the FCA for violating the Clean Air Act by installing “defeat devices’ on their 3.0-litre diesel motors. And while this may seem like a case of blatant misdemeanour from another manufacturing giant, there is some nuance to the matter starting with the software itself. Now technically, the AECD or Auxiliary Emissions Control Device is perfectly legal. That is, ofcourse under the condition that you declare all the features of the software. The EPA or Environmental protection agency is deputed to check these devices when brought to them, if everything is above water, the EPA then issues a Certificate of Conformity which allows the cars to go to retail. Basically, the Automaker in question needs to justify why the AECDs they are using is legal and aren’t designed to cheat an emissions test. The AECD must be, in the words of the EPA:
“An auxiliary emission control device (AECD) that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use.”
Now, this is where Fiat Chrysler have found themselves in hot water, with the Dodge Ram and the Jeep Grand Cherokee both of which use the FCA’s massive output 3.0-litre diesel. According to the Justice Departments lawsuit, the FCA will-fully withheld information on eight Auxiliary Emissions Control Devices that change the way two crucial emission control features work that is Selective Catalytic Reduction and Exhaust gas recirculation.
The eight AECDs are listed below:
AECD #1 (full Exhaust gas recirculation shut-off at highway speed);
AECD #2 (reduced Exhaust gas recirculation with increasing vehicle speed);
AECD #3 ( Exhaust gas recirculation shut-off for exhaust valve cleaning);
AECD #4 (DEF dosing disablement during Selective Catalytic Reduction adaptation);
AECD #5 ( Exhaust gas recirculation reduction due to modelled engine temperature);
AECD #6 (Selective Catalytic Reduction catalyst warm-up disablement);
AECD #7 (alternative Selective Catalytic Reduction dosing modes);
AECD #8 (use of load governor to delay ammonia refill of Selective Catalytic Reduction catalyst).
Naturally, the FCA has vehemently denied the allegations saying that they would argue their innocence, stating that their devices were just designed to the EPAs spec. Which seems innocent enough. Until you notice the common denominator between the Volkswagen Dieselgate and this one is Bosch, the true manufacturers of the AECDs.
Now if you still have dieselgate on your mind, you will remember that it was Bosch that supplied the defeat devices on the sordid 2.0-litre diesel motor. Although in their defence, Bosch had also issued a warning to VW against using the software in production, non-development vehicles. The same thing applies with the FCA, although the Justice Department’s lawsuit claims that Bosch was also involved with Fiat Chrysler’s 3.0-liter diesel development, saying Fiat Chrysler obtained its engine control modules from the German supplier. Bosch, not wanting to comment on an ongoing litigation said “As is usual in the automotive supply industry, Bosch supplies these components to the automaker’s specifications. It is always each automaker’s responsibility to calibrate and integrate components into the overall vehicle system, as well as to obtain approval from the local registration authorities.’
We will bring you more as the case goes to trial, but in the spirit of the innocent until proven guilty, there are two ways this case can go. For one, the FCA could be proven innocent, with the AECDs being installed to protect the vehicles and just missing to inform the EPA of some of the functions. Or the DOJ could be right and those eight AECDs were designed to pull a fast one on the EPA. Either way, the FCA looks like it’s staring down the barrel of all the wrong attention.
