2012 Ram 2500 Big Horn on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ram and Jeep diesel emissions allegations spur class action lawsuits

This shouldn't come as a surprise. Last week, the EPA issued a notice of violation to FCA after it determined that Jeep and Ram installed eight undisclosed auxiliary emissions control devices on diesel vehicles. Since then US law firm Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC and Canadian firm Sotos LLP have launched class action suits on behalf of owners. These latest lawsuits are unrelated to a previous class action suit brought against FCA and Cummins over NOx emissions in 2007 to 2012 Ram models. The violation notice – and the subsequent lawsuits – covers 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models equipped with the 3.0-liter turbodiesel V6, a total of about 104,000 vehicles in the US. The EPA says that while the emissions control devices aren't necessarily illegal, installing them without disclosing them to the EPA is, as they produce more emissions in real world use than in testing. Skirting certification in this way might be a violation of the Clean Air Act. FCA could see fines of up to $45,000 per vehicle, depending on the outcome of the EPA investigation. FCA denies that these are cheat devices, and has proposed software updates to bring the vehicles into compliance. As for the lawsuits, Heninger Garrison Davis says that "Fiat Chrysler marketed those vehicles as environmentally friendly with enhanced fuel efficiency, better performance, and lower emissions. Although the diesel vehicles were successfully marketed as 'clean,' their environmentally-friendly representations were deceptive to consumers." The suit seeks an undisclosed amount of compensation for owners of these vehicles. In Canada, Sotos LLP is seeking $250 million in damages on behalf of owners. This suit, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, also claims deception on the part of FCA, "resulting in losses and damage" to owners. These are similar claims to group actions against Volkswagen with regard to its diesel emissions cheating scandal. While VW is fixing or buying back many of the affected vehicles, the company is defending itself against some suits on behalf of owners, saying it expects " no decline in the residual values of the affected vehicles as a result of this issue." Don't be surprised if FCA mounts a similar defense.

2019 Ram 1500 eTorque Drivers' Notes Review | Filling in the gaps

When the 2019 Ram 1500 debuted earlier this year at the 2018 Detroit Auto Show, the biggest news was arguably the addition of the 48-volt mild hybrid system. Dubbed eTorque, the system is standard on V6-equipped models and a $1,450 option on trucks with the 5.7-liter Hemi V8. It's not a hybrid in the traditional sense. Despite Ram's claim that the system adds up to 130 pound-feet of torque on the V8, it only does so for a fraction of a second and doesn't actually change the engine's total output. You'd be hard pressed to notice a difference if you didn't know the system was there. But that's kind of the point. There's been a lot of confusion about what eTorque is and how the system works. Much of that falls on FCA's shoulders. The automaker didn't do a great job of explaining the whole thing, leaving us to work out much of it for ourselves. This isn't meant to boost performance, towing or payload. The Ram eTorque can't run on battery power, so don't expect a Toyota Prius with a bed and wood trim. It's here to make the truck just a little bit more efficient by improving areas where conventional internal-combustion engine's fall short. The eTorque system replaces the engine's alternator with a small, belt-driven electric motor. On the V6, the motor is part of the water pump assembly and driven by that belt; the V8 uses a dedicated belt that's separate from the other accessories. A small battery pack is mounted upright behind the rear seats inside the truck's cabin. There's also a DC-to-DC converter to charge the battery and convert 48 volts down to 12 to power the truck's normal systems. Visually, the only difference between an eTorque-equipped model and a standard one is a small metal box at the top of the engine. There's no badging and the battery pack can't be seen, even with the rear seats folded up. The system is designed to be as seamless and innocuous as possible. The auto start/stop system spins up the engine a little quicker. Shifts from the eight-speed ZF automatic transmission are a little smoother as the eTorque system smooths out and fills in the gaps. It does so for a fraction of a second, but it works its magic often. Big gains in fuel economy have already been made. It's going to take things like Ram's eTorque system to improve internal combustion engines from here on out. Editor-in-Chief Greg Migliore: I'd like to say I noticed a huge difference between the Ram eTorque and the regular Ram, but I didn't. That's how it's supposed to work.

Lexus tops JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study again, Buick bests Toyota

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but Lexus has once again taken the top spot in JD Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. That'd be the Japanese luxury brand's fourth straight year at the top of table. The big news, though, is the rise of Buick. General Motor's near-premium brand beat out Toyota to take second place, with 110 problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota's 111 problems. Lexus owners only reported 89 problems per 100 vehicles. Besides Buick's three-position jump, Scion enjoyed a major improvement, jumping 13 positions from 2014. Ram and Mitsubishi made big gains, as well, moving up 11 and 10 positions, respectively. In terms of individual segments, GM and Toyota both excelled, taking home seven segment awards each. The study wasn't good news for all involved, though. A number of popular automakers finished below the industry average of 147 problems per 100 vehicles, including Subaru, (157PP100), Volkswagen (165PP100), Ford/Hyundai (188PP100 each) and Mini (193PP100). The biggest losers (by a tremendous margin, we might add) were Land Rover and Fiat, recording 258 and 273 problems per 100 vehicles. The next closest brand was Jeep, with 197PP100. While the Vehicle Dependability Study uses the same measurement system as the Initial Quality Survey, the two metrics analyze very different things. The VDS looks at problems experienced by original owners of model year 2012 vehicles over the past 12 months, while the oft-quoted IQS focuses on problems in the first 90 days of new-vehicle ownership. Like the IQS, though, the VDS has a rather broad definition of what a problem is. Because of that, a low score from JD Power is no guarantee of extreme unreliability, so much as just poor design. In this most recent study, the two most reported problems focused on Bluetooth connectivity and the voice-command systems. The former leaves plenty of room for user error due to poor design (particularly true of the Bluetooth systems on the low-scoring Fords, Volkswagens and Subarus), while the second is something JD Power has already confirmed as being universally terrible. That makes means that while these studies are important, they shouldn't be taken as gospel when it comes to automotive reliability. News Source: JD PowerImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Jeremy Korzeniewski / AOL Buick Fiat Ford GM Hyundai Jeep Land Rover Lexus MINI Mitsubishi RAM Scion Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Auto Repair Ownership study