Cummins fined 1.67 billion dollars!!!!!

[rfuerst911sc]

It is the largest fine to date for a violation of the clean air act . Wow that's a lot of $$$$$$ .

https://www.thedrive.com/news/cummins-fined-1-67-billion-for-diesel-defeat-devices-in-630000-ram-pickups

[stevej37]

Is this connected to the 'coal rollers'?

[speeder]

Originally Posted by stevej37

Is this connected to the 'coal rollers'?

Ahhh, no….it would be connected to showroom stock trucks that were sold.

Anyhow, that’s gonna leave a mark.

[rfuerst911sc]

Originally Posted by stevej37

Is this connected to the 'coal rollers'?

No , this implies Cummins provided engines that would not meet diesel emissions standards . Rolling coal is a separate issue .

[stevej37]

The reason I thought it might be....a guy told me once that it's easy to do it without modding the engine.

[Arizona_928]

https://www.thedrive.com/news/cummins-fined-1-67-billion-for-diesel-defeat-devices-in-630000-ram-pickups


Half a year of profit that can be taken off their taxes. Kudos leftists.


I’ll still buy a cp3 Cummins over a duramax and power stroke…

[Arizona_928]

Originally Posted by rfuerst911sc

No , this implies Cummins provided engines that would not meet diesel emissions standards . Rolling coal is a separate issue .

How?

Vw defeat was simple… I’m curious if Cummins did the same software manipulation …

[Arizona_928]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/cummins-inc-agrees-pay-21-million-penalty-diesel-engine-clean-air-act-violations

Fascists

[Alan A]

Gotta say it makes me want one…

[Arizona_928]

My 6.7 Cummins is deleted with a 5 inch straight pipe from the turbo back.

AZ only does opacity tests. No smoke = clean

[look 171]

I like to know where does that money go? I bet it fattens up the EPA upper managements

[jyl]

“The United States and the state of California have reached an agreement in principle with the truck engine manufacturer Cummins on a $1.6 billion penalty to settle claims that the company violated the Clean Air Act by installing devices to defeat emissions controls on hundreds of thousands of engines, the Justice Department announced on Friday.

The penalty would be the largest ever under the Clean Air Act and the second largest ever environmental penalty in the United States.

Defeat devices are parts or software that bypass, defeat or render inoperative emissions controls like pollution sensors and onboard computers. They allow vehicles to pass emissions inspections while still emitting high levels of smog-causing pollutants such as nitrogen oxide, which is linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

The Justice Department has accused the company of installing defeat devices on 630,000 model year 2013 to 2019 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines. The company is also alleged to have secretly installed auxiliary emission control devices on 330,000 model year 2019 to 2023 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines.”

(From NYT article)

Cummings obviously did it, since you don’t pay $1.4 BN if you didn’t. And what it did certainly seems worthy of a heckva fine.

Diesels pollute, a lot, so making sure they meet pollution rules is important. Cheating to fake the results and get an advantage over other engine makers is a no-no.

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by look 171

I like to know where does that money go? I bet it fattens up the EPA upper managements

Bingo...I fail to see how these fines help the citizens at all. What? You expect them to reduce your taxes?

[john70t]

What about container ships?

https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10757/does-1-container-ship-really-pollute-as-much-as-50-000-000-cars
Cargo ships use some of the dirtiest fuels available: bunker fuel is basically what's left over after you refine all the good stuff out of crude oil. It's got all sorts of contaminants that something like gasoline or jet fuel doesn't have. On top of that, there are basically no regulations on emissions by cargo ships. This results in very high emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, while cars emit almost none -- a ratio of 50 million to 1 is not unreasonable.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by john70t

What about container ships?

https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10757/does-1-container-ship-really-pollute-as-much-as-50-000-000-cars
Cargo ships use some of the dirtiest fuels available: bunker fuel is basically what's left over after you refine all the good stuff out of crude oil. It's got all sorts of contaminants that something like gasoline or jet fuel doesn't have. On top of that, there are basically no regulations on emissions by cargo ships. This results in very high emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, while cars emit almost none -- a ratio of 50 million to 1 is not unreasonable.

They are a problem. They also aren’t polluting right in the middle of your neihborhood.

[jcommin]

Navistar had a similar problem many years ago.

https://www.trucknews.com/equipment/navistar-solved-egr-problems/1003063689/

They had a design issue that couldn't be solved. Their sales went into the dumper. Cummins had the better design their sales jumped during that period. Navistar, I believe paid a royalty to Cummins to use their design. IMO, Navistar never fully recovered.

[hcoles]

Ships are required to change to low sulfur fuel within 200 nautical miles for the north American coasts. The more pressing and complicated issue is obtaining the power for hotel loads while docked. Many ports now provide shore power allowing the ships to shut down their generators that run on diesel or low sulfur fuel.

[greglepore]

Interestingly, their violation seems to be that they allowed unencrypted access to the ecu's emissions functions. They were all functional when the vehicle was delivered but Cummins was aware of and didn't prevent end users from getting in and turning stuff off, even unsanctioned. GM and others heavily encrypt these functions.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by john70t

What about container ships?

https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10757/does-1-container-ship-really-pollute-as-much-as-50-000-000-cars
Cargo ships use some of the dirtiest fuels available: bunker fuel is basically what's left over after you refine all the good stuff out of crude oil. It's got all sorts of contaminants that something like gasoline or jet fuel doesn't have. On top of that, there are basically no regulations on emissions by cargo ships. This results in very high emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, while cars emit almost none -- a ratio of 50 million to 1 is not unreasonable.

I saw a program on this. Those ships carry different fuels and they can switch when they come close to certain nations that requires them to burn cleaner

Funny how they don't complain about the military or go protest in Russia. Everyone is hell bent on a few pick up engines that spill less pollution in its life span then one trip across the ocean or fly across the Pacific

[Arizona_928]

Originally Posted by greglepore

Interestingly, their violation seems to be that they allowed unencrypted access to the ecu's emissions functions. They were all functional when the vehicle was delivered but Cummins was aware of and didn't prevent end users from getting in and turning stuff off, even unsanctioned. GM and others heavily encrypt these functions.

That’s bs. You can turn off the same functions on gm vehicles with the correct tuners… when “they” can’t sue the end user for modifications that are legal within individual states…. Go after the cash cow.


Just like when they were sued in 2009 for not shipping catalytic converters with the engines to auto plants.