3 ms·

I’m an EE that works on these vehicles, but not engines. I’m still trying to gather wtf they’re are talking about. I know what diesel defeat is, but can not t

I’m an EE that works on these vehicles, but not engines. I’m still trying to gather wtf they’re are talking about. I know what diesel defeat is, but can not think of what this is from Cummins. All these vehicles have functioning DEF and particulate systems. My best guess is there is a way to turn on the defeat… which is strange because the last of the people doing that do so with custom PCM/ECM (engine computer) calibrations.

mistrial9 3y ago
in mass market liability, it is common to make the "brand holder" financially responsible for complex products. The "brand holder" in simple terms, is the company that owns the trademark that is advertised to consumers. So I imagine that is the case here - "Cummins" company is held financially responsible for the complicated mix of parts. Note also that the company itself may be in layers of holding companies, arms-length ownership or other obfuscation..
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  I just don’t get it. I know their software and security systems. The vehicles require DEF and particulate equipment. If there is a backdoor, I’m not sure anyone knew about it before this. If there isn’t a backdoor, and the only way to remove DEF equipment is to cut out the cats, remove the EGR, reflash the computer with modified and signature-bypassed software - then how the shit is that Cummins or RAM’s fault? I’m waiting to find an explanation that even remotely makes sense.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    no - those are the engineered parts of a product that you are listing. The ruling here is a legal decision to hold "A Company" responsible for action on the ground. You can see by the other comments, there is no doubt that rolling coal is a real thing that happens. So here, a governing body decided to hold A Company responsible, that company is called Cummins, a brand name that you and others are aware of. And believe me, when there is that much money involved, you bet that other companies get a letter or uncomfortable phone calls from Cummins.
londons_explore 3y ago
Other 'defeat device' cases from other manufacturers have been software related, and down to the fact that the system only puts effort into reducing NOX emissions when under test conditions. When under typical use conditions, instead the engine prefers high power output and efficiency, and pumps out 10x or more NOX than allowed. A little like students who cram a subject just before the test and then forget it all afterwards. In both cases, there was no requirement to have all the knowledge/have low NOX emissions outside the test - but regulators kinda assumed that they would.

mistrial9 3y ago

in mass market liability, it is common to make the "brand holder" financially responsible for complex products. The "brand holder" in simple terms, is the company that owns the trademark that is advertised to consumers. So I imagine that is the case here - "Cummins" company is held financially responsible for the complicated mix of parts. Note also that the company itself may be in layers of holding companies, arms-length ownership or other obfuscation..

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
I just don’t get it. I know their software and security systems. The vehicles require DEF and particulate equipment. If there is a backdoor, I’m not sure anyone knew about it before this. If there isn’t a backdoor, and the only way to remove DEF equipment is to cut out the cats, remove the EGR, reflash the computer with modified and signature-bypassed software - then how the shit is that Cummins or RAM’s fault? I’m waiting to find an explanation that even remotely makes sense.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  no - those are the engineered parts of a product that you are listing. The ruling here is a legal decision to hold "A Company" responsible for action on the ground. You can see by the other comments, there is no doubt that rolling coal is a real thing that happens. So here, a governing body decided to hold A Company responsible, that company is called Cummins, a brand name that you and others are aware of. And believe me, when there is that much money involved, you bet that other companies get a letter or uncomfortable phone calls from Cummins.

londons_explore 3y ago

Other 'defeat device' cases from other manufacturers have been software related, and down to the fact that the system only puts effort into reducing NOX emissions when under test conditions. When under typical use conditions, instead the engine prefers high power output and efficiency, and pumps out 10x or more NOX than allowed. A little like students who cram a subject just before the test and then forget it all afterwards. In both cases, there was no requirement to have all the knowledge/have low NOX emissions outside the test - but regulators kinda assumed that they would.