Uh Oh.....Dodge/Cummins Emissions Law Suit

It's going to be interesting what the new administration does when they get in office. :E

In sum, the emission system gives you crappy fuel mileage, shortens engine life and doesn't reduce emissions.... glad mine fell off years ago!

I see the attorney in Mississippi just dropped his case against Popeye's Chicken because he and his family were being criticized for his effort to right a great wrong.

It seems he, the attorney, had choked on a piece of fried chicken because he wasn't given a knife to cut it with. Without the needed knife, he, the attorney, was forced to rip the chicken off the bone with only his bare teeth! This caused some of the brutalized meat to lodge in this throat, and it required medical intervention to correct the problem.

He, the attorney, says that even though he dropped the suit in order to save him and his family, he hopes the chicken company learned its lesson and will begin supplying knives to eat its fried chicken with in the future.

Probably not. After all, McDonald's didn't seem to learn its lesson. It's still serving coffee hot, despite the lawsuit brought by the lady with the burned loins.

According to the EPA web site most of your emission system is only required to be covered by warranty for the first 2 years or 24,000 miles (light duty vehicles, <8500 GVWR).

The catalyst and the ECU are warrantied 8 years or 80,000 miles.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
All 2017 Eco-Diesels are on hold as the Feds are up all manufactures backsides since the VW scam! Seems the EcoD is not passing some part of the new 2017 test. GM for some reason has been aloud to continue selling their GM baby diesel by listing it as a 2016 while they have their 2017 trucks tested. No word on Ford's 3.0 diesel but it is not due out until later next year.

Don

Don - I think you meant GM was "allowed" to continue selling their 2016 as it was already certified. The VINs would have a 2016 VIN, so it meets the certification.

Remember in 2014 that Ford built their 2014 trucks to the end of November, so they could discount them against the price of the new GM twins.

Smart business decisions.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
All 2017 Eco-Diesels are on hold as the Feds are up all manufactures backsides since the VW scam! Seems the EcoD is not passing some part of the new 2017 test. GM for some reason has been aloud to continue selling their GM baby diesel by listing it as a 2016 while they have their 2017 trucks tested. No word on Ford's 3.0 diesel but it is not due out until later next year.

Don

Absolutely idiotic behaviour all round.. Wait till they get to the particulates coming out of Petrol/ Gas engines. You will be using tandem bicycles to tow your 5th wheel.
Maybe a conference involving all manufacturers on suitable EPA restrictions rather than Pie in the Sky numbers,

All 2017 Eco-Diesels are on hold as the Feds are up all manufactures backsides since the VW scam! Seems the EcoD is not passing some part of the new 2017 test. GM for some reason has been aloud to continue selling their GM baby diesel by listing it as a 2016 while they have their 2017 trucks tested. No word on Ford's 3.0 diesel but it is not due out until later next year.

Don

otrfun wrote:
The lawsuit itself (700+ pages!) bases part of its argument on tests they conducted on several privately-owned, 2007-2012 Ram 2500's, some with as much as 70,000 miles on them.

At what point is a manufacturer released from liability on pollution controls?

Curious, as a whole, how every 70,000 mile vehicle in America would fare under the same test?

Haven't checked recently, but on gassers the emission warranty was for 100,000.

The lawsuit itself (700+ pages!) bases part of its argument on tests they conducted on several privately-owned, 2007-2012 Ram 2500's, some with as much as 70,000 miles on them.

At what point is a manufacturer released from liability on pollution controls?

Curious, as a whole, how every 70,000 mile vehicle in America would fare under the same test?

Sounds kind of like they are grasping! How do they know they pollute more? No where in the article did I read about higher numbers than what the manuf claimed! More profiting at he consumers expense (for the lawyers)!