Fiat Chrysler acused of using emissions deception software in diesel vehicles

Forums: Fraud, Fiat Chrysler, Emissions Controls, Diesel Engines
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday accused Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV of using software that allowed excess diesel emissions in 104,000 U.S. trucks and SUVs sold since 2014, the result of a probe that stemmed from regulators' investigation of rival Volkswagen.

The EPA and California Air Resources Board told the automaker it believes its undeclared auxiliary emissions control software allowed vehicles to generate excess pollution in violation of the law.

First VW, now Fiat Chrysler. I bet this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,194 • Replies: 18

@InfraBlue,

Good for them.

1 Reply

http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/fiat-chrysler-shares-tank-by-most-on-record-as-epa-alleges-emissions-cheating-in-jeep-grand-cherokees-and-ram

0bama motors

1 Reply

@Frugal1,

Frugal1 wrote:

0bama motors

Of course. Obama is known to be part of the Agnelli family.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

You forget your 0bama bail-out history.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

He is known as a union sympathizer who would do anything to save the unions. His saving of 2 auto companies had nothing to do with the companies themselves.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Good for them.

Good for Fiat Chrysler? How so?

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

And that is in what way related to the Diesel-software?

0 Replies

Chrysler / Fiat is one of the companies that squandered 0bama's bail-out money, it all went to the unions, and then to his reelection campaign. They should have spent the money on better ECU software programing & design, but that's not why he gave it to them.

1 Reply

@Frugal1,

Obviously they didn't squander it, cars are still rolling off the assembly line and people are still getting paid paychecks.

It's absolutely horrendous that conservatives would much, much prefer to see the American auto industry-the very symbol of the American economy and American middle class lifestyle for so many years-go right down the tubes so they can say, "Take that, unionized industry!".

Obama saved the American auto industry-and got the government paid back in the bargain. And you just hate his guts for it.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

He is known as a union sympathizer who would do anything to save the unions

Yes, Obama is a known American President who would do his best to save the American auto industry, and he did so. And got the government paid back as well.

I wonder what America's stature in the world, especially the economic world where we are supreme, would be today if the symbol of the American economy-the auto industry-shut its doors and went out of business. America's clout in the economic sphere would be much less than it is now.

If this doesn't beat all. Obama saves the auto industry and over a million Full Time jobs, and conservatives hate him for it.

0 Replies

Italian media quoted FCA Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne as saying today that there was no wrongdoing and the company never attempted to create software to cheat emissions rules.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles shares rose as investors played down the potential impact of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accusing the company of concealing diesel emissions. (About ten percent at 12:00 GMT (13:00 h local time).

1 Reply

You guys are really confused, lol!

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

An opposite reaction in France: French prosecutors have announced they will investigate Renault over suspected cheating in emissions tests of diesel motors, causing shares in the carmaker to fall sharply.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Obama saved the American auto industry-and got the government paid back in the bargain. And you just hate his guts for it.

As usual for his "business" dealings, Obama lost money for the American taxpayer. He didn't save anything but union pensions. Had those 2 car companies gone through a normal bankrupcay process, they would still have cars rolling off the lines but it wouldn't have lost taxpayers 9 billion dollars in the process, we can add that to the lose with Solendra and other failed taxpayer investments.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/12/30/auto-bailout-tarp-gm-chrysler/21061251/

Quote:

It's absolutely horrendous that conservatives would much, much prefer to see the American auto industry-the very symbol of the American economy and American middle class lifestyle for so many years-go right down the tubes so they can say, "Take that, unionized industry!".

It was the Unions that were the major cause for the failure for those 2 car companies, unreasonable pay and unreasonable pensions that refused to shift with the times. The Unions forced the companies into ridiculous promises that they knew couldn't kept and it almost forced them into the grave.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Gripe gripe gripe, complain complain complain. Is that what your internet boss trains you to do? How about a few facts which show how great the bailout actually worked?

Dear Taxpayer: Your Auto Bailout Loan Is Repaid, With Interest
Jun 10, 2013 by Drew Winter in Final Inspection

The auto bailouts were not speculative investments aimed at delivering a fat return to John Q. Public. They were designed to avoid an economic apocalypse that would have rivaled the Great Depression. Even so, taxpayers have come out a few billion ahead.

General Motors has rejoined the Standard & Poor’s 500 and 100 after being kicked off the list when it went through a U.S.-government orchestrated bankruptcy. This has triggered another round of griping from critics who say the rescue of GM and Chrysler from liquidation was a waste of taxpayer money and a giveaway to President Obama’s union friends.

To these unhappy taxpayers I say: Relax, your $80 billion auto bailout loan is paid in full and you also have received handsome interest and dividends.

I also would like to tell unhappy taxpayers that it is true hundreds of thousands of Americans, many belonging to the United Auto Workers union, did indeed keep their jobs because of the bailout. But hundreds of thousands of non-union blue-collar and white-collar employees at auto-related suppliers, dealerships and small businesses also kept their jobs thanks to the bailout.

GM and Chrysler have paid off their outstanding financial obligations, but bailout bashers still complain about the potential loss taxpayers’ face when the government sells off the remaining shares of GM stock it owns.

The government took a $49.5 billion stake in GM in 2009 as part of the auto maker’s structured bankruptcy. It since has sold part of its GM stake in a late-2010 initial public offering, and the auto maker bought back another chunk of shares earlier this year.

The Treasury Dept. wants to sell its remaining 18% holding by early next year. Analysts say it has to sell the remaining shares for an average of $79 to break even on this part of the bailout.

That’s not going to happen. GM stock almost has doubled in price since last July to $35, but most analysts say the Treasury will take about a $20 billion hit when the government fully divests its holdings.

Even so, that shortfall already has been covered by more serious losses the bailout averted.

According to a study by the highly regarded Ann Arbor, MI-based Center for Automotive Research, more than 1 million jobs would have disappeared if the U.S. government had not rescued GM and Chrysler and their respective GMAC and Chrysler Financial credit units. The cost to U.S. taxpayers of those job eliminations in 2009 and 2010 would have amounted to $28.6 billion in lost income tax revenues, unpaid social security taxes and other negatives related to catastrophic unemployment levels.

“On a 2-year ROI (2009-2010), the government would be ‘made whole’ if it recovered all but $28.6 billion of the $80 billion extended to GM, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler financial due to the net public benefits,” says Kristin Dziczek, director-Labor and Industry Group, CAR.

As long as the Treasury loss on GM stock is less than $28.6 billion, “It’s better than a wash,” she says. “The important piece that many critics (of the bailout) miss is the cost of doing nothing was not zero.”

Indeed. The auto bailouts were not speculative investments aimed at delivering a fat return to John Q. Public. They were designed to avoid an economic apocalypse that would have rivaled the Great Depression, especially in the industrial Midwest.

“I didn't want there to be 21% unemployment,” former President George W. Bush told the National Automobile Dealers convention in 2012, explaining why he initiated the auto bailout with $17.5 billion in bridge loans prior to Obama taking office in 2009.

The plan worked.

New products such as the Cadillac ATS, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram pickup are piling up awards and raking in profits. Factory utilization rates are at all-time highs.

Skeptics who claimed wiping out the debts of GM and Chrysler would put Ford at a disadvantage because it did not receive bailout money were wrong. Ford has emerged from the dark days of 2008 and 2009 with some of its most stylish, fuel-efficient and profitable vehicles ever and its factory utilization rates are among the highest in the industry.

Soaring light-vehicle production has been a primary driver of employment and gross domestic product growth for the past three years. For the first time in decades, Detroit Three labor costs and quality are competitive with Toyota, Honda and Nissan.

So let’s review. A Republican President and Democrat President both agreed to save two failing iconic U.S. auto makers because they believed it was the right thing to do for the U.S. economy and the good of the country.

The strategy worked. Both auto makers now are the healthiest they have been in decades. The government loans are paid back, and there even is a few billion extra left over. Let’s call that interest, because that’s what it is. And the U.S. economy now is getting back on track, thanks in no small part to the reviving U.S. auto industry. That’s a whopper of a dividend.

It is sad many Americans are so blinded by ideology they no longer can recognize success when they see it.

[email protected]
Source

My only question is: Now that conservatives have had automatic griping programmed in for the past eight years, (no matter how well things turned out), are you going to require technical help to re-adjust yourselves to automatic cheering for Trump for the next four years? Or will you somehow manage that yourself?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

It seems there are opposing views on the loans and what was paid back. Your article which is a year older seems to say the taxpayer got all of our money back and my article says we were shorted 9 billion. Which is it?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Dunno. You tell me. But if you do, answer me one question: What if it turned out the Federal government did spend $9 Billion on saving Chrysler and GM? Not saying they did, but let's suppose they did. Can you say it wouldn't have been worth it?

In the last quarter of 2008 alone, the country lost over 2.5 Million Full Time jobs. Lehman Brothers, a venerable financial institution, went bust. The stock market was cratering 1929 style. And on top of it all, two of the three auto companies go under? And the government just stands on the sideline and says, "Not my problem"?

Keep in mind that one of the things the US economy has going for it is the confidence of the world in our economy. For example, over 80% of international deals are carried out in dollars. The US could not afford to let the two of the three auto giants go under, and it didn't. They did what they had to do, and even if $9 Billion was used of government money, (not saying it was, but if it was), the investment was very much worth it.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

In the last quarter of 2008 alone, the country lost over 2.5 Million Full Time jobs. Lehman Brothers, a venerable financial institution, went bust. The stock market was cratering 1929 style. And on top of it all, two of the three auto companies go under? And the government just stands on the sideline and says, "Not my problem"?

How do you know they were going to go under? We don't know if they would have or not, they never got the chance to go through bankruptcy and properly restructure their debt. They only would have "gone under" if they failed after the bankruptcy. I think they would have been down for a bit, but they wouldn't have been out.

Quote:

Keep in mind that one of the things the US economy has going for it is the confidence of the world in our economy. For example, over 80% of international deals are carried out in dollars. The US could not afford to let the two of the three auto giants go under, and it didn't. They did what they had to do, and even if $9 Billion was used of government money, (not saying it was, but if it was), the investment was very much worth it.

The question no one asks is how much stronger would the US economy be had the US govt allowed those companies to go through debt restructuring? The govt couldn't allow that to happen, they had to save the pension plans of the UAW or face the consequences at the ballot box. Just like what took place with the banks, the govt saved them instead of allowing nature to take it's course when bad business decisions are made.

0 Replies

Fiat Chrysler acused of using emissions deception software in diesel vehicles

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know