Feb 5, 2024 at 10:43 AM
  1. TDRComm Staff Member

    Will this be the final chapter in the Cummins’ 1.675-Billion-Dollar Vehicle Emissions/Clean Air Act Violations story?


    I’m confident folklore will add to, delete from, and rewrite this summary many times over.

    Previously, I had commented to many people my overly simplistic thoughts: “The recall notice is an ECM recalibration. No other hardware change is called for. If the end result is to increase the DEF dosage to reduce NOx emissions, why, oh why, would the Cummins folks not have done such at the onset? The engineer in charge, the project manager, the marketing team, the folks at Ram, all parties could sleep well at night.”

    “Truly, it isn’t like Ram is in competition with Ford or GM for the best miles-per-DEF dosage competition.”

    As I thought this idea through, perhaps the greater/more frequent DEF dosage would cause the expensive aftertreatment catalyst hardware to wear out quicker? Perhaps the hardware would have to be larger in size? Who purchases the catalyst, Ram? Did they control the cost/decision? I made some phone calls to contacts at Johnson Matthey Emissions controls. The short answer, “Extra DEF ‘dosage’ is not a concern.”

    So, throw-away the theory of “more DEF usage would mean a larger (more expensive) catalyst ‘box.’” Throw away the Ram controls the financial decision idea(s).

    Without the less DEF usage or hardware/cost reason to validate the 1.675-billion fine, we’re back to asking: What is the answer?

    Ah, here is where a folklore story, the story without a concrete and concise answer, gets its start.

    See if you can buy into this bit of rumor and innuendo:

    Calibration on the new 2019 engine resulted in minor concerns about the previously certified 2013-2018 engine. Cummins elected to report the discrepancy to the two agencies, the EPA and CARB.

    CARB would like nothing better than to completely eliminate diesel engines. (Strong opinion!) So, they escalated the previously certified 2013-2018 discrepancy problem with the EPA. It gets political. The EPA does further investigation. Cummins is fined. A big recall is initiated. There are no criminal charges involved.

    For reasons that are unknown, Cummins chooses not to fight the EPA. (Feel free to speculate: Other skeletons in the closet? Election year? EPA and or CARB folks trying to make a name for themselves? A “soft” Cummins management team?) Now, add to this rumor and innuendo as you see fit.

    And so, the story goes.


    TDRComm , Feb 5, 2024
    dieselwagon and Diesel85 like this.


Discussion in 'Articles' started by TDRComm, Feb 5, 2024.

    1. Diesel85
      Let me correct that for you...
      I've come to the realistic and scientific conclusion that EVs and Hybrids are not green for the average user, which coincidentally is going to be 95% of users.

      Reminds me of the vehicle I drive... an EcoDiesel. What is so "Eco" about it? It's a miniature diesel engine shoved in a half ton truck pulling the weight of a half ton truck. However, in the grand scheme of things, that little diesel engine will over the course of time, will pollute less than the mining, manufacturing, recharging, and recycling of a rechargeable EV battery. There are scientific numbers that prove this.

      The fuel of a diesel is very safe. The engine can run on 100% renewable diesel, bio diesel, and at the end of life, does not require specialized recycling or safety guidelines. To me, that is a huge, huge benefit of owning a diesel -- even over a gas rig is the safety of diesel fuel!

      I'll leave off with this anecdote: Green is a marketed word and does not reflect any reality other than the direction of the money.
      bcbender, wxman, dieselwagon and 2 others like this.
    2. Joseph Donnelly
      Joseph Donnelly
      I wonder if the answer is not more DEF usage but rather more EGR. More soot than absolutely necessary to meet emissions regulations can't be good for the engine.
      Bret Bunderson and Diesel85 like this.
    3. Carolinadave55
      I read an article in The Epoch Times stating BlackRock, JPMORGAN Chase, others had invested to reduce carbon emissions. Biggest ownership of manufacturing. Should be explanation enough.
      Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2024
      Diesel85 likes this.
    4. Carolinadave55
      Production of EPA mandates emits more carbon emissions than they say they are eliminating. It's all about $ to capitalism.
      Diesel85 likes this.

Share This Page