[HN Gopher] Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality con...
___________________________________________________________________
Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say
Author : rokkitmensch
Score : 111 points
Date : 2023-12-23 20:15 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.usatoday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.usatoday.com)
| causality0 wrote:
| It's sad that the largest ever penalty is still less money than
| the company made off the crime.
| gmane wrote:
| This isn't even the first time Cummins has been hit with the
| largest settlement for emissions controls defeat devices![0]
|
| [0]
| https://web.archive.org/web/20151002043823/http://www2.epa.g...
| chewmieser wrote:
| Wow, and then had the audacity to continue the practice beyond
| that? That fine should be significantly more severe...
| distortionfield wrote:
| It's America, you get a bonus for this behavior, not a fine.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| VW did it
|
| Renault probably did it
|
| These guys probably did
|
| I think there was a point where regulators said "diesel puts out
| lung damaging levels of pollutants killing X people a year. We
| shall either ban diesel engines ... or make manufacturers make
| diesel engines that don't pollute that badly"
|
| So they set a safe level.
|
| And _no_ manufacturer has been able to achieve the technology to
| meet that level.
|
| I know some manufacturers claim they can, but honestly that's
| like a cyclist claiming that they won the Tour De France without
| drugs. After so many cyclists have been caught (about half since
| 1990) it's really hard to take the drug free claim seriously -
| just as it's hard to take the "our diesel engine does it really
| honestly guv"
| chrismartin wrote:
| One more reason it's time to transition away from burning stuff
| to produce energy.
| AmVess wrote:
| Transition to what, exactly? Pixie dust? Unicorn farts?
| There's nothing to transition _to_.
| thomasmg wrote:
| Elon Musk used an image of a farting unicorn to promote
| Tesla.
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| Not to mention that they're often _burning stuff_ behind
| the curtain to power the _non-burning stuff_.
|
| As long as it's out of sight it's okay.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| It's still an improvement if the large place that burns
| stuff extracts more energy than tons of small places
| burning stuff. Not to mention, it's easier to then
| replace the few large places that burn stuff with
| something cleaner than having to replace every single car
| on the road _again_.
| recursive wrote:
| There are lot of parts in the network. No one claimed
| they would all make a step transition overnight. Part of
| that is to replace parts of the network which continue to
| work, while being capable moving the other parts forward.
| Gigachad wrote:
| From my experience, any car at all or even a bicycle could
| replace the majority of trips I see these trucks doing.
| recursive wrote:
| It's probably ok if the burning is happening off-planet,
| like on the sun.
| luma wrote:
| It's actually worse than that - they set goals and then
| manufacturers started lying to meet those goals, which told the
| regulators that those goals were attainable and so they set new
| goals. The entire notion of clean diesel is a farce and has
| been built on lies from the outset.
| FPGAhacker wrote:
| It's a typical corporate effect. Management, with no
| expertise or even competency, creates absurd schedules and
| goals and thinks that somehow, just by fiat and edict, they
| can bend physics and make it so.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Are we talking about the auto manufacturers or the
| government here?
| anticensor wrote:
| Both parties set unattainable targets.
| Retric wrote:
| No, some market participants did so.
|
| However, customers and regulators had different requirements
| so meeting both was difficult without cheating.
| 4wsn wrote:
| I know this is a popular take, but the blindspot is commercial
| engines.
|
| > bypass emissions sensors on 630,000 RAM pickup truck engines
|
| In this case, and in nearly _every report of a scandal_, the
| issue is with passenger vehicle engines, not commercial vehicle
| engines.
|
| Diesel engines can be engineered to meet emissions requirements
| without cheating, they just aren't except for commercial use.
| fragmede wrote:
| Why is that? Are the parts necessary to meet emissions
| requirements extra expensive and so are only worth installing
| on commercial vehicles which are more expensive, vs passenger
| vehicles have a different profit margin, or is it something
| else, like commerical vehicles have lower standards for noise
| or higher standards for maintenance?
| vuln wrote:
| Commercial diesel engines run for millions of miles / tens
| of thousands of hours versus passenger or non commercial is
| measured in hundreds of thousands of miles typically and
| thousands of hours. Commercials idle for far longer
| especially in dense areas like cities, rest stops,
| distribution centers and ports. Maintaining a fleet of
| diesels can be written off as a business expense (OPEX)
| while most non commercial use can't or isn't. Would be my
| guess.
| hattmall wrote:
| There's also no real competitive force. Gasoline isn't a
| viable alternative in most cases.
| 4wsn wrote:
| A combination of factors; cost, customer expectations, and
| convenience.
|
| It's easy to produce a lot of power, it's not easy to do so
| reliably and within emissions specs. That's where the cost
| comes in, and where customer expectations come in. If VW is
| going to be offering a 110 kW 2.0 liter engine, well,
| Mercedes-Benz can't come in and offer a 90 kW 2.0 liter
| engine just to meet specs. At the end of the day, margins
| are fairly thin and regulators are compliant. It's cheaper
| to just cheat the emissions than make the engine meet
| emissions specs.
|
| The convenience factor is diesel exhaust fluid (AdBlue);
| the stuff really does work very well. However, dispensing
| it at the most effective rate in regards to emissions would
| mean it has to be topped up between service intervals; very
| inconvenient. Increasing the tank size is a non-starter
| because packaging space in modern vehicles is at a premium.
| So the dirty secret (at least for Mercedes-Benz, confirmed
| by one of their engineers) is that they calibrate it to
| last service intervals; not to meet emissions. It's only in
| rare cases where the owner has to refill the tank
| themselves.
|
| In regards to the AdBlue situation, if you're in Europe
| where there are a lot of diesel passenger vehicles and also
| a lot of diesel trucks and buses, next time you're in the
| city or on the highway, pay attention to the characteristic
| diesel stink, either as a pedestrian or a driver. You're
| never going to smell it from a truck; it'll always be a
| passenger vehicle. :)
| dan12ha wrote:
| I'm in the UK. We have AdBlu pumps in the gas station.
| Just fill up fuel and AdBlu at the same time, it's really
| easy.
| sottol wrote:
| Used to be known as emissions cheating before VW, now it's
| emission fraud.
|
| Imo every manufacturer does/did it for gas and diesel engines.
| I've heard of gas cars in the 90s assuming that they're on a
| test stand if you rolled down the window shortly after starting
| and kept it down and reduced power output. And stories like
| that.
| avidiax wrote:
| > And no manufacturer has been able to achieve the technology
| to meet that level.
|
| Urea-injection seems to work (that's what Mercedes does). But
| it requires another tank and special equipment.
|
| And VW _could_ meet the emissions requirements. That was the
| cheat. When they detected that they were being tested, they
| tuned the engine to meet emissions requirements. During normal
| use, the engine would make better power or efficiency but
| higher emissions.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| It is wild to me that OEM's can straight up include tech to
| defeat emissions testing and be allowed to continue building
| engines after that is found. Like, all regulators should
| operate from the assumption that the entities they're
| regulating are working in good faith: but once it's been
| demonstrated they are not, how can you ever trust a product
| they produce again? They and every other company found to be
| doing this should be barred from producing engines for good.
| Or at the very fucking least, be subject to an INCREDIBLE
| level of scrutiny regarding their software for a solid many
| years to follow. Like, every single line audited for
| compliance.
| treyd wrote:
| Yet another reason the software running on these automotive
| systems should be free and open source. It would be great
| to see the control logic and _know_ that it 's doing the
| right thing.
| spacecadet wrote:
| This right here. The hardware and software should be open
| to public scrutiny, so that experienced practitioners can
| explore and weigh in.
| Cockbrand wrote:
| Well, German politicians for one sure _love_ their
| automotive industry, and it 's traditionally more important
| to them than mostly everything else.
| mh- wrote:
| I believe it needed the efficiency gains to meet MPG
| (L/100km) requirements.
|
| So it really _couldn 't_ meet both. At least not at the same
| time.
| anticensor wrote:
| It can meet the fuel consumption requirements, but then it
| would lose at marketing due to the derating required.
| jmvoodoo wrote:
| I owned a Dodge ram diesel model that had one of these
| engines. It had urea injection, and I had to maintain the 2nd
| tank.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > I had to maintain the 2nd tank
|
| "Hold up, I need to get a large soda--the urea tank is
| getting low."
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| Is this a side effect of impossible regulations put in place by
| bureaucrats with no technical background whatsoever?
|
| The same ones that declared everyone will be driving EVs by
| 2030.
| kadoban wrote:
| The regulations are very possible, proven by the "meet the
| emisions regulations" mode that then gets turned off during
| normal operation.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| I think everyone was doing it. After VW got caught, literally
| every other foreign car maker pulled all diesel models out of
| the US market. The only manufacturers still selling diesel here
| are domestic (and maybe MB's Sprinter?), and that's only
| because 10,000 lb GVWR diesel vehicles are allowed to bypass
| emissions.
| Syonyk wrote:
| Is there any detailed information anyone can find on what they
| allegedly _did,_ at a technical level? "Defeat device" is such a
| broad category of term that it's useless for understanding the
| details of what it's claimed they did.
|
| The Justice.gov writeup [0] isn't any better.
|
| > _The company allegedly installed defeat devices on 630,000
| model year 2013 to 2019 RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines.
| The company also allegedly installed undisclosed auxiliary
| emission control devices on 330,000 model year 2019 to 2023 RAM
| 2500 and 3500 pickup truck engines._
|
| I'd be interested in reading technical details on what, exactly,
| they did or didn't supposedly do.
|
| [0]: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-
| me...
| kotaKat wrote:
| Best I have off hand is one of the example recall notices which
| just says "software update" for the emissions calibration:
|
| https://www.chrysler.com/universal/webselfservice/pdf/VB6.pd...
| Guvante wrote:
| IIRC other manufacturers would detect the usage pattern of
| tests and run cleaner as a form of bypass.
|
| Similarly you could lie on the OC2 response.
| Syonyk wrote:
| Sure, I know what _other manufacturers_ did.
|
| I want to know the technical details of what Cummins
| allegedly did "enough that they're not arguing a massive
| fine, while claiming they didn't do it on purpose."
|
| Claiming they "installed defeat devices" isn't nearly enough
| detail. How did it alter either the engine combustion cycle
| or the emissions control system behavior?
| oooyay wrote:
| I'm guessing they're doing it during state emissions
| certification. When they do those tests they hook up to your
| OBD2 port [1] and generally a tube goes onto your exhaust. It'd
| be pretty trivial to detect, "Cable is hooked up, exhaust has
| more back pressure. Tune engine to X mode."
|
| 1: https://www.progressive.com/answers/what-is-car-emissions-
| te...
| spacecadet wrote:
| Engine computers can easily be reprogrammed to make the engine
| run at all sorts of different operating bands. You could easily
| detect state emissions equipment, since it must pull
| information from the ECU. To me- these devices are either pre-
| programmed operating modes that produce clean emissions but the
| vehicle would not operate under this tune (emissions testing is
| often not under load) and so once back on the road, returns to
| the original operating mode. OR, entirely fake modules created
| to trick emissions systems without altering the operating mode.
| throwup238 wrote:
| What's so much worse is that this isn't the first time they've
| been caught doing this shit:
| https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/cummins-engine-company-diese...
|
| That enforcement action is from 1998. There was even a consent
| decree but they've been doing this bullshit for a quarter
| century. It isn't a small isolated incident, it's literally built
| into the culture of the company. We need a corporate death
| penalty for repeat offenders like this.
| stefan_ wrote:
| US company so a penalty that is less than the profit, "no
| wrongdoing admitted" (its a defeat device!), no criminal
| investigation (there would be precedent), press release goes out
| on the Friday before Christmas.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| companies are voting blocs, so , you know, democracy inaction.
| sottol wrote:
| Interesting that it's called systematic tricking when Cummins
| does it, with VW it's just criminal fraud?
| AmVess wrote:
| Harder for VW to cut checks to the people who matter.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I'm already going to wager that they're not going to be shat on
| quite as hard as Volkswagen was, just like Fiat-Chrysler wasn't.
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| > _The company does not admit wrongdoing and says no one in the
| company acted in bad faith_
|
| Fuck me, though, right? I know the government can't do it, but
| this kind of statement itself should merit some kind of
| additional punishment.
| peyton wrote:
| I mean, we don't have any details yet. What if the "defeat
| device" is something like "if $SENSOR is reading a little high,
| turn on service light and operate as normal otherwise" As a
| customer I'd be pissed if my truck wouldn't run.
| e28eta wrote:
| Not going to pass an emissions test with a service light on.
| But I agree that more details are necessary before we can
| know that the statement is false.
| JoshTko wrote:
| It's about time these offenses are considered crimes against
| humanity and have mandatory criminal prosecution at executive
| levels.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Until we send the executives to jail, the fraud will continue.
| gnabgib wrote:
| Discussed 3 hours ago: Cummins Fined $1.6B for Diesel Defeat
| Devices in 630K RAM Trucks[0] (80 points, 124 comments). Maybe
| don't need both?
|
| [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38746664
| orenlindsey wrote:
| There's no way to make a diesel or gasoline car that's not
| actively bad for the environment. Electric is the only way. (And
| maybe hydrogen, but that's quite a ways off)
| cyanydeez wrote:
| unfortunately, saving the environment is currently a luxury
| item.
| Syonyk wrote:
| An electric car is bad for the environment (described
| generally, not in the laser-focused "CO2 emissions are the only
| thing that matters!" modern sense) in almost all the same ways
| an ICE vehicle is, just with a reduction in runtime carbon
| emissions, and with quite a bit more mining going into the raw
| materials.
|
| Hydrogen, meanwhile, is nonsensical in every way you care to
| look at the problem, unless you look at it through the lens of
| "petrochemical suppliers who want to ensure that a future
| vehicle fleet needs to fill up at stations they supply with
| fuel that can be rapidly delivered in a 5 minute window." And
| _maybe_ shipping, but even there, I think metal-air batteries
| that are smelted for recharging are likely to work better. And
| that 's before you get into what a devious little pain in the
| ass hydrogen is to deal with at a chemical/technical level.
| pardoned_turkey wrote:
| Is there any article explaining what they actually did, or are
| alleged to have done? With the VW scandal, there was a fairly in-
| depth discussion of the technical aspects of it. But all the
| articles about Cummins seem exceedingly vague.
|
| IIRC, VW had code to detect emissions testing and reduce
| performance at that time. What did Cummins do?
| thelastgallon wrote:
| Air pollution kills 10 million/year[1]. All the legacy carmakers
| + fossil fuel companies are responsible for this. Nearly all the
| big car manufactures have done this[2-6], and probably continue
| to do so, these small fines are not a deterrent, just cost of
| business.
|
| 1) Air Pollution Kills 10 Million People a Year. Why Do We Accept
| That as Normal?https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environ
| ment/air-p...
|
| 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
|
| 3) ICCT and ADAC showed the biggest deviations from Volvo,
| Renault, Jeep, Hyundai, Citroen and Fiat:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal
|
| 4) "Disguise, defeat and deny:" Toyota loses appeal and must pay
| $1.3bln for dodgy diesel filters:
| https://thedriven.io/2023/03/28/disguise-defeat-and-deny-toy...
|
| 5) Mercedez-Benz faces over 300,000 UK claims over diesel
| emissions: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-
| transportation/merced...
|
| 6) Daimler to Settle U.S. Emissions Charges for $2.2 Billion:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/business/daimler-emission...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-23 23:00 UTC)