The previous week marked its significance in taking the court through key contemporaneous documents and securing concessions from the Peugeot/Citroen DS (PCD) factual witnesses. In the cross-examination Defendants’ software expert’s submissions confirmed the Claimants’ case on vehicle operation in practice.
The Claimants’ expert evidence in mechanical engineering was cross examined and the defendants’ counsel explored the decision to derate Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) at 5 degree Centigrade as alleged defeat device in his report.
In the cross-examination Defendants’ mechanical engineering expert made helpful concessions on how PCD calibrated the vehicles during preconditioning to ensure they pass the tests.
The witness cross examination focused on Euro 5 calibration alleging split injection acted as a cycle recognition defeat device due to activation conditions and timer limits. However, the activation criteria were the same on-road and during New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) tests.
The cross examination further shaped in by admitting overstating efficiency claims in the report and agreeing to the Condition Authorisation Flag (CAF) activation influencing diagnostic success and NOx sensor readiness during tests.
The defendants’ expert acknowledged EGR fouling risks could cause severe accidents and admitted manufacturers lacking real world failure frequency data necessitating caution.
The joint testing showed conformity factors on NOx emissions at low temperatures and explained physical reasons for higher NOx at low temperature increasing oil viscosity.
The expert proposed mitigating factors such as split injection, variable valve timing, and turbocharger redesign but also admitted errors in the report.
The cross examination focused on alternative technologies and PCD’s choices of EGR for Euro 5 and selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) for Euro 6 reasonably align with the state-of-the-art practices.
The significance of differences in conformity factors, limitations of test data and challenges of interpreting results across vehicle types were also discussed.
The trial went well as the factual witness statements supported the case. The Claimant’s counsel secured good evidence from the mechanical engineering expert on SCR.
In week 9, the evidence will focus on Renault followed by Nissan.
.jpg)