Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A record $1.6B U.S. penalty against Cummins for allegedly installing emissions “defeat devices” in hundreds of thousands of RAM diesel pickups is prompting questions about whether fines meaningfully deter systemic cheating. Commenters compare the case to Volkswagen’s diesel scandal, argue that “clean diesel” targets have often been met through software tricks rather than real engineering advances, and debate whether tighter enforcement, open-source engine software, or a faster shift to electric vehicles is the only credible way to reduce harmful air pollution. Many see repeat offenses and modest financial penalties relative to profits as evidence that current regulatory and criminal accountability mechanisms are inadequate.

Penalty, Profits, and Deterrence

  • Many argue the record fine is still smaller than profits from cheating, so it’s treated as a business cost, not a deterrent.
  • Cummins is noted as a repeat offender, with a prior major settlement in the 1990s, leading some to say emissions cheating is cultural at the company.
  • Frustration that the settlement includes “no wrongdoing admitted” and no individual accountability; some call for a “corporate death penalty” or executive jail time.
  • Comparisons to Volkswagen: some expect Cummins will face less backlash, partly as a US company versus a foreign one.

Technical Aspects & Lack of Detail

  • Multiple commenters ask what Cummins actually did, noting that official documents are vague (“defeat devices” and “software update” only).
  • People reference known tactics from other scandals:
    • Detecting test conditions via wheel speed, steering angle, OBD connections, idle patterns.
    • Switching to a special low-emission map only during tests.
  • It’s unclear from the thread exactly how Cummins’ implementation worked.

Diesel Technology, Regulations, and Cheating

  • Some claim modern diesel emissions limits were effectively unattainable in real-world use, pushing manufacturers to cheat.
  • Others counter that technologies like SCR/urea injection and DPF can meet standards, especially in commercial engines.
  • Passenger diesels are said to be more prone to cheating due to:
    • Cost and packaging constraints.
    • Customer expectations for high power and long DEF refill intervals.
  • Several note that commercial diesel platforms do meet emissions rules more consistently, at the cost of complexity and maintenance.

Regulation, Testing, and Systemic Gaming

  • Discussion of how emissions and fuel-economy tests work (EPA drive cycles, state OBD-based checks, older “sniffer” tests).
  • Many believe regulators long ignored obvious test-gaming visible to tuners reverse-engineering ECUs.
  • Some argue both regulators and corporate management set incompatible targets (low emissions, high power, high efficiency), encouraging fraud.

Broader Energy and Environmental Debate

  • Some say the diesel scandal underscores the need to “stop burning stuff” and move to EVs.
  • Counterpoints:
    • EVs still rely on upstream “burning stuff” and mining; non-CO₂ impacts (roads, wildlife, tire dust) remain.
    • Others respond that centralized power plants pollute less per unit energy and are easier to clean up, and EVs can run on renewables/nuclear.
  • Hydrogen is described as “nonsensical” by some, except possibly for niche uses.