Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
TDRComm
Staff Member
Will this be the final chapter in the Cummins’ 1.675-Billion-Dollar Vehicle Emissions/Clean Air Act Violations story?
Doubtful.
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.
RP
Doubtful.
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.
RP
