FCA Proposes Software Fix to Solve Diesel Dispute

FCA Proposes Software Fix to Solve Diesel Dispute

After months of negotiations with regulations agencies, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has formally put forward an application to certify its 2017 model-year diesels. 

These vehicles have received updated emissions software calibration which FCA believes will make both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) happy. If the fix is approved, FCA also plans to update the emissions software in all model year 2014 to 2016 vehicles fit with the 3.0-liter diesel.

In January of this year, the EPA delivered a violation notice to FCA, alleging that about 100,000 2014-2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 vehicles fit with the 3.0-liter EcoDiesel engine were sold with at least eight pieces of software that were not disclosed to the agency, meant to cheat emissions tests. The agency also stopped FCA from certifying its 2017 3.0-liter diesel model.

SEE ALSO: Feds Preparing to Sue FCA Over Diesel Emissions

Further pressure was added this past week when news broke that the U.S. Department of Justice is gearing up to sue FCA over the issue if it is not resolved promptly.

Since the beginning, FCA has been clear in saying that the software is not a “defeat device,” or there to intentionally fool regulators. The brand has been involved closely with the EPA and CARB to clarify exactly how its emissions control software works and has developed a fix it thinks will be satisfactory.

FCA would not comment on exactly what the changes will be, though the company says that it “does not anticipate any impact on performance or fuel efficiency.” All owners of affected 2014-2016 vehicles will have to visit their dealership for the update, if approved.

Discuss this story at our EcoDiesel Forum

  • petey53

    FCA knew what it was doing. It intentionally designed and sold vehicles that emitted over the regulations in all normal driving. That is unethical, regardless of whether it is illegal.

  • Matthew Ervin

    Dont spew abunch of Bs until all the facts have been disclosed which really none have.


    Ah, do you have insider information to be so damn sure that you made such a libelous statement as an actual fact and not just your personal opinion? Perhaps you’re just clairvoyant.

  • petey53

    Automakers have been designing emissions control systems for decades. In order to do that, they need to understand what their engines emit under all conditions. It is all carefully designed and extensively tested. I don’t buy excuses like “we didn’t know we were over the limit”. They knew. FCA just didn’t care that their products caused toxic air pollution. They somehow thought they wouldn’t get caught or could squirm out of any penalty. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. FCA should have fully understood what it requires.


    You are still asserting your opinions as facts – apparently without the inside information to back them up. You are also publicly assigning criminal intent to their actions without possessing proof. You may be right but you may have to go through the financial ringer of a well funded lawsuit to prove it. You should always use qualifiers such as “as far as I’m concerned” or “In my opinion” as safe harbor. Otherwise you open yourself to a libel suit. It’s also a more effective way to convince people to entertain your view.

  • petey53

    Thank you for taking an interest in my posts and offering constructive criticism. I never considered libel was an issue on web site comment sections, but sites could certainly block me if they thought my language crossed a line. I can add some weasel words and still forcefully criticize companies for their pollution. Maybe I’ll be more convincing that way.

    In this case, I am saying FCA’s actions are unethical. I’ll let the lawyers decide whether its software contains illegal defeat devices but I think they should still be raked over the coals of negative public opinion for not taking sufficient care about what their products spew into our lungs. I’m not asserting anything that is not already being asserted in a lawsuit by an agency of the US government, but nothing has been proven yet in court and I have no inside information on this.

    I maintain that it is implausible that huge multinational automakers release emission-controlled power-trains into the mass market without knowing what they emit under a wide range of conditions. Surely, the fact that FCA now offers a software fix shows that the excess pollution was not justifiable if the details of the emission software had been disclosed to the EPA. It looks to me that that is the reason FCA failed to disclose and that failure to disclose should not exonerate them from charges of using a defeat device.