[Quatro]

Today's FT carries this article. Although I am posting it under International Automotive Scene, it will be equally relevant for national scene in the context of market share enjoyed by Fiat's diesel engines in our country.

https://www.ft.com/content/25fa04ac-...a-4574d7dabfb6

[Joxster]

Since the link you posted does not show the article without paying, pasting the excerpt for others to easily read this, without opening the attachment

Fiat Chrysler will ditch diesel from all of its passenger vehicles by 2022 amid a collapse in demand and spiraling costs in the latest blow to the scandal-tainted fuel source.

Under a four-year plan to be unveiled on June 1, the Italian-American carmaker will say it intends to phase out the fuel type from the cars across its brands, according to people familiar with the strategy.

FCA, which owns the Jeep, Ram, Dodge, Chrysler, Maserati, Alfa Romeo and Fiat marques, declined to comment.

The group becomes the latest carmaker to ditch the fuel publicly, after Toyota told the Financial Times last year it would probably not launch another model with a diesel engine, while Volkswagen-owned Porsche last week announced it would drop the technology from its range.

Once the dominant fuel source in Europe, diesel’s share of the market has been falling following the VW emissions scandal, rising political opposition to the fuel type and plans by several cities to ban it altogether.

For years, governments and carmakers promoted diesel as a way of lowering CO2 emissions compared with petrol. But revelations in 2015 that Volkswagen fitted 11m cars globally with software designed to deceive regulators about the vehicles’ pollution levels sparked a political backlash against diesel, with governments cutting incentives for the fuel and some expecting to ban it in the future.

Sales of diesel vehicles in Europe fell 8 per cent last year, taking its market share to 43.8 per cent, according to data from Jato Dynamics.

For FCA, the decision to ditch the fuel comes amid rising costs of making the technology compliant with increasingly tight emissions rules.
Industry estimates suggest that the cost of developing diesel engines that meet new European rules will be 20 per cent higher than in the past, making the cars less affordable for consumers.
At the same time, the costs of electric cars, which manufacturers increasingly need to sell to hit emissions targets, are coming down.

FCA has decided to pull diesel from all of its passenger cars but is expected to keep diesel options for its commercial vehicles, including a range of its pick-up trucks in the US, such as the popular RAM 1500.

FCA was the only big carmaker in Europe last year to see its share of diesel sales rise, in part because of its exposure to the Italian market, where demand for the fuel is still strong.

In total, 40.6 per cent of cars sold by FCA in Europe were diesel, according to data from Jato Dynamics, up slightly from 40.4 per cent a year earlier.

While European diesel sales last year fell to 43 per cent, in Italy the fuel still accounts for 56 per cent of sales. More than half of FCA’s European sales were in Italy. “This is because the Italian government has not taken a clear anti-diesel position and because Italy has the third most expensive gasoline in Europe,” said Felipe Munoz, global automotive analyst at Jato Dynamics.

Cheers

[GrammarNazi]

IMHO its completely understandable.

• Rising cost of developing emission tech to conform with various standards of govt policies & regulations in multiple countries,
• Rising public ire after emission scandals, people will always be skeptic about diesels,
• Maintaining production lines, part inventories and dealers having expensive service center's, to deal with both the fuel types is an avoidable burden altogether,

On a similar note, maybe we in the forum should try to discourage remapping, or even "EGR-Delete". Anyway, something to ponder.

[Sankar]

This is old news but is relevant here because FCA, Diesel and Emissions.

Originally Posted by Jalopnik

The U.S. Department of Justice recently filed a civil lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler for allegedly violating the Clean Air Act by installing undisclosed “defeat devices” on 3.0-liter diesel vehicles.

The Justice Department’s primary complaint is that Fiat Chrysler did not disclose certain software features on 104,000 Rams 1500s and Jeep Grand Cherokees that reduce emissions controls effectiveness, even under certain “normal driving” conditions.

A software device that reduces the effectiveness of emissions equipment under any driving scenario is called an Auxiliary Emissions Control Device, or AECD, and they’re totally legal if they’re used for the right reasons (for example, to protect the engine from damage while towing).

Still, automakers have to, by law, disclose all AECDs to the Environmental Protection Agency before receiving the Certificate of Conformity needed to sell cars.

But according to the lawsuit, Fiat Chrysler failed to mention eight Auxiliary Emissions Control Devices that change the way two crucial emissions control features work—Selective Catalytic Reduction and Exhaust gas recirculation.

Those eight AECDs are listed below:

1. AECD #1 (full EGR shut-off at highway speed);
2. AECD #2 (reduced EGR with increasing vehicle speed);
3. AECD #3 (EGR shut-off for exhaust valve cleaning);
4. AECD #4 (DEF dosing disablement during SCR adaptation);
5. AECD #5 (EGR reduction due to modeled engine temperature);
6. AECD #6 (SCR catalyst warm-up disablement);
7. AECD #7 (alternative SCR dosing modes);
8. AECD #8 (use of load governor to delay ammonia refill of SCR catalyst).

Not only that, but some of the AECDs the company failed to disclose allegedly act as true defeat devices, allowing Rams and Grand Cherokees to pass the EPA’s standard barrage of federal emissions tests, but to spew excess levels of NOX under off-cycle tests that the EPA still considers “normal driving.”

More here: https://jalopnik.com/why-the-u-s-gov...che-1795483130

Apparently FCA is not alone in this second wave of emissions scandals. There is a lawsuit against Ford for the very same reasons.

More here: https://jalopnik.com/lawsuit-accuses...-50-1821962910

[libranof1987]

Not entirely OT but this news affects Fiat's presence in India.

Sure, India doesn't have any plans yet to phase out diesel cars so Fiat can continue to milk their existing diesel engines. But only for so long.

Given that Fiat's presence in India is largely driven by engine sales (Jeep is too recent a development), FCA deciding to not develop diesel engines altogether and a global push for hybrid, if not electric car leaves their position in India shaky.

[1100D]

Just read this report from Autocar that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles to abandon diesels by 2022. So thought of Sharing.

This forum is well aware of the contribution of Fiat to modernizing the Diesel engine. It can be seen as a pioneer of Diesel technology. If they have hung their boots on this fuel, alongwith the other giants involved in multiple scandals, emissions cheating and what not, does this really signal the formal end of the Diesel engine as a viable automotive fuel option?

https://www.autocarindia.com/car-new..._medium=Social

[UB_007]

To my knowledge the existing engines will continue to be produced as these are generating revenues for the company without additional invests in countries which are still running below Euro 5 norms.
What they meant may be is to not have any new diesel engine development for their new car platforms.

It is not logical that they will kill their engines which are currently cash cows for FCA.

-UB

[shashanka]

Originally Posted by 1100D

Just read this report from Autocar that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles to abandon diesels by 2022. So thought of Sharing.

This forum is well aware of the contribution of Fiat to modernizing the Diesel engine. It can be seen as a pioneer of Diesel technology. If they have hung their boots on this fuel, alongwith the other giants involved in multiple scandals, emissions cheating and what not, does this really signal the formal end of the Diesel engine as a viable automotive fuel option?
https://www.autocarindia.com/car-new..._medium=Social

Depressing, isn't it, 1100D? But with the wisdom of hindsight (and keeping a firm grip on the global scenario, as far as general awareness of our environment & ecology goes) one can look back and say that perhaps the writing was on the wall the day the VW diesel-gate scam broke. And on a personal level, for die-hard gear-heads like me (having worked with diesel engines all my working life), it cuts close to the bone, since I can see that my beloved Scorpio's days are numbered!

[1100D]

Originally Posted by shashanka

Depressing, isn't it, 1100D? But with the wisdom of hindsight (and keeping a firm grip on the global scenario, as far as general awareness of our environment & ecology goes) one can look back and say that perhaps the writing was on the wall the day the VW diesel-gate scam broke. And on a personal level, for die-hard gear-heads like me (having worked with diesel engines all my working life), it cuts close to the bone, since I can see that my beloved Scorpio's days are numbered!

The bigger concern is that, the constant tightening of norms always was accompanied by technology scaling up to deal with it. Right now, its probably reached a strangling point. Diesels today, Gasoline tomorrow, just a matter of time.

I once owned a W124 Mercedes E320 in Texas. The car was a California born car. California has historically had a much stricter regulation for emissions than the rest of US. Initial few days of ownership of the car in Texas, the car used to feel extremely bogged down when the weather got too warm. So much that it used to cut its AC off at times, especially when there was a traffic hold up on the interstate highways. After initially dismissing this as an age acquired feature, I still decided to dig a bit deeper, since the car ran absolutely fine in the evenings, night and morning, irrespective of traffic situations. Found some posts on a popular Merc forum about the emissions control playing havoc. Took it to the dealer mechanic, who readily knew what was the issue. He bypassed the system and voila, the problem was not only resolved but the car started to feel like what a 3.2 liter in-line six cylinder naturally aspirated motor should make you feel like! Even more powerful and responsive in the evenings, night and morning than before.

I had asked him, if we would need to re-engage the system back again before renewing the emissions clearance. The guy simply said, not to bother at all, the car would pass the smog test without a hitch. To my utter delight, it did, and well within the limits in Texas at that time.

I guess, these days there is a much larger scheme at work, to control and monitor movement of people. Fossil fuel based vehicles can still be made to run in incognito mode. Once every vehicle is electric, each individual is under radar, of where he is going, how he is going, whether to shut him down real time at the press of a button from a command center. Much the same way as Elon Musk increased battery range for his vehicles over one storm affected area in US, where the bigger question was why the extra range was not readily available to users upfront anyway.

Interesting times, anti establishment forces would really need to up their game against this fast approaching "Matrix"

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by 1100D

Much the same way as Elon Musk increased battery range for his vehicles over one storm affected area in US, where the bigger question was why the extra range was not readily available to users upfront anyway.

Interesting times, anti establishment forces would really need to up their game against this fast approaching "Matrix"

The extra range was always available at a cost, it was just a payment away on the Tesla app. The problem is that people think they are entitled to the best version without paying for it. Musk did what was possible and if range was so important, why didn't those owners pay upfront for it?

It's amazing how those who cheer electric mobility see themselves as fighting the establishment.

[1100D]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

The extra range was always available at a cost, it was just a payment away on the Tesla app. The problem is that people think they are entitled to the best version without paying for it. Musk did what was possible and if range was so important, why didn't those owners pay upfront for it?

It's amazing how those who cheer electric mobility see themselves as fighting the establishment.

This is another debate though. Its strange that the new-age world does not see any problem when some part of what you have already paid for is blocked and you are asked to pay for unlocking it. Its like having powerwindows on all doors and you are asked to pay optional extra to enable the rear ones. The hurt really stems from the fact that people aren't able to see that as wrong.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by 1100D

This is another debate though. Its strange that the new-age world does not see any problem when some part of what you have already paid for is blocked and you are asked to pay for unlocking it. Its like having powerwindows on all doors and you are asked to pay optional extra to enable the rear ones. The hurt really stems from the fact that people aren't able to see that as wrong.

The customers didn't pay for it and that means they valued their money over the higher range, a reality in every transaction. Its not like having power windows that you have to pay extra to activate , it was told to them upfront. Ask any of the complaining crew why they didn't pay for the bigger battery, they'll tell you they didn't think it was worth it.

Those who bought cheaper versions didn't see value in extended range and Tesla was able to profit from the willingness to pay of others. The hurt stems from the fact that some people have a sense of entitlement and think profit is something evil and someone's input should be made available below cost to them.

[1100D]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

The customers didn't pay for it and that means they valued their money over the higher range, a reality in every transaction. Its not like having power windows that you have to pay extra to activate , it was told to them upfront. Ask any of the complaining crew why they didn't pay for the bigger battery, they'll tell you they didn't think it was worth it.

Those who bought cheaper versions didn't see value in extended range and Tesla was able to profit from the willingness to pay of others. The hurt stems from the fact that some people have a sense of entitlement and think profit is something evil and someone's input should be made available below cost to them.

At the risk of going completely off-topic! Both of us seems to be from completely different worlds. I come from one, where you buy something and its full potential is made available to you, irrespective of your knowledge and requirement. Optional extras can be charged only for items that require additional material input costs. If something doesn't cost the company anything to give me, I think its unfair for the company to ask me to pay for it. As simple as that.

Profiting is not evil, but unfair profiting definitely is.

However, as stated before we are going completely OT. Also Tesla kind of enjoys a certain monopoly at this point, which is soon to be obliterated, will see how much they dance after that!

[shashanka]

Originally Posted by 1100D

At the risk of going completely off-topic! Both of us seems to be from completely different worlds. I come from one, where you buy something and its full potential is made available to you, irrespective of your knowledge and requirement. Optional extras can be charged only for items that require additional material input costs. If something doesn't cost the company anything to give me, I think its unfair for the company to ask me to pay for it. As simple as that.
Profiting is not evil, but unfair profiting definitely is.
However, as stated before we are going completely OT. Also Tesla kind of enjoys a certain monopoly at this point, which is soon to be obliterated, will see how much they dance after that!

+1. Very succinctly put! I kind of come from a similar background - where my folks paid through their noses so I could acquire a public school education! And fortunately, the Irish Brothers running the establishment didn't offer options like different uniforms costing differently, or the boarders having different lunch menu options all costing differently!

And the Tesla story seems to be acquiring some outlandish overtones - one section of the on-the-fringes press had reported a while back that Tesla doesn't have any patents on his technology, because it is all reverse-engineered alien technology, and so no one can unravel the alchemy involved so far!

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by 1100D

.. I come from one, where you buy something and its full potential is made available to you, irrespective of your knowledge and requirement. Optional extras can be charged only for items that require additional material input costs.

Profiting is not evil, but unfair profiting definitely is.

However, as stated before we are going completely OT. Also Tesla kind of enjoys a certain monopoly at this point, which is soon to be obliterated, will see how much they dance after that!

The extended range is not something the customer paid for, those customers were given a choice to pay later on, basically they got on board cheaply. In a free market with a wide choice, they chose the second best and complained they didn't get what they didn't pay for! Your argument about information doesn't make sense, Tesla sold the cars cheaper because of the option to upgrade later, they explained that upfront.

You have absolutely no objective measure or definition for the highlighted. Tesla didn't extort money for the cars. Going by the title of the thread, Fiat should never given the 90hp version to me because the same engine block is used in both versions they sell.

Originally Posted by shashanka

+1. Very succinctly put! I kind of come from a similar background - where my folks paid through their noses so I could acquire a public school education! And fortunately, the Irish Brothers running the establishment didn't offer options like different uniforms costing differently, or the boarders having different lunch menu options all costing differently!

The Irish brothers had the first class boarder system up until the 60's. The first class boarders paid extra for better facilities, much like Tesla's better paying richer customers.

The original thread was about FCA's diesel plans, much noise about stopping an engine option that they don't have. There are no diesel passenger cars in the lineup, they'll continue with diesel on their SUVs and trucks because the emission norms are different for that category.