...and that reason is that the EPA is incompetent and butt-hurt.

I’m trying to say that the EPA changed the rules after the engine had already been approved.

From the EPA:

No shit, but that’s NOT the question I was providing a response to. The AECDs need to be disclosed so that the Engineers can weigh in on whether they’re necessary.

I honestly don’t believe that the AECDs weren’t disclosed, I think this is an issue with the amount of disclosure pre- and post-Dieselgate. Remember this…

At what point do these stop being devices to protect the motor and, you know, being a way to cheat emissions...

Clearly, this is Mother Nature’s punishment for us all not going to drive it enough.

This and I would repeat some of these steps post-track day.

Came for this. Left satisfied.

ALL AECD’s are cheat devices.

None of these AECDs are defeat devices and the EPA knows this, they’re just being pretentious dicks over a bureaucratic issue which is complete bullshit. I have much respect for the science and engineering that goes on at the EPA but the bureaucracy and Napoleon complex these bureaucrats have is insufferable.

I’m willing to bet that the EPA moved the goal posts AFTER FCA submitted the relevant information to the EPA.

No there isn’t.

It doesn’t have worse handling, especially when they’re turning identical slalom times and etc.

Looks like the Barber wasn’t the only thing they skipped!

It isn’t ethical at all. It’s the classic silicon valley software programmer approach. When real engineers are involved, you get the approach that almost all of the OEMs are doing in regards to autonomous tech: testing, testing, testing, and more testing before you even consider releasing it to the public.

This is why…

Thanks! Yours is pretty awesome too! I hope to add a coupe down the line.

No, they were eating crunch wrap supremes.

My GT.

My SVO

tbh who gives a shit? This is not the same thing and it’s not going to stop me from buying an FCA diesel.