The week wrapped with the Renault evidence as full and final along with concluding the Nissan factual evidence. The overall impression on the judge and our submissions to the court remained strong and we are confident on the prospects and merits of our case.
The week started traditionally by cross examining Renault’s expert evidence.
While exploring the definition of ‘Defeat Device’ under expert evidence, the Defendant’s expert admitted that he is not expert on legal framing but agreed that cycle recognition is one category among others.
The Defendant’s expert agreed that in principle, temperature thresholds for EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) modulations should not be linked to NEDC.
The Defendant’s expert acknowledged NEDC tailored strategies in his academic work proposing (high pressure-low pressure) HP-LP EGR optimising fuel consumption subject to NOx limits.
The Defendant’s expert confirmed that calibration aimed to minimise fuel penalties during NEDC while ensuring compliance, and that real-world NOx remained far higher than NEDC results.
The expert also suggested that lower NOx was technically possible with different calibrations, subject to durability and safety constraints.
The Defendant’s second expert was cross examined on the issues of LP-EGR in Euro 5 and Euro 6 vehicles.
The expert agreed on the effectiveness of DPF system if functioning properly and confirmed that LP-EGR generally offers better NOx reduction than HP-EGR.
The Defendant’s expert also agreed that NOx rises notably under high load and speed during testing and the EGR mitigation becomes difficult to achieve in such conditions.
The Defendant’s expert accepted that real-world NOx was poorly controlled compared to NEDC results and acknowledged that improving NOx would increase other pollutants.
The Nissan factual witness was cross examined on the issues of purge strategies and very high conformity factors outside NEDC where he accepted Nissan’s poor NOx controls under cold conditions.
The witness agreed on Euro 5 updates that were technically achievable, however Nissan did not implement them stating the decision political rather than technical.
The witness confirmed that his role was to focus on adopting Renault software for Nissan vehicles rather than performing hands on calibration.
The witness also confirmed in cross examination that updates allowed more frequent purging when the LNT was less full, improving NOx control.
The witness confirmed that Nissan conducted an internal review and recognised a significant gap between regulatory limits and real-world emissions following the Volkswagen (VW) scandal.
The witness confirmed that improvements were applied to new vehicles but not to Euro 5 existing models.
The witness confirmed in re examination that oil dilution was fully connected to LNT purging and was one of the biggest constraints.
He also agreed to maintain oil quality while balancing HC,CO, fuel consumption and engine reliability Nissan tried to limit the NOx purges.
By the end of this week the Claimant Counsels secured some helpful admissions and evidence from the factual witnesses. The decision on trial is not expected until the first quarter of new year. If liability is established, court will set the timetable to determine the quantum of these claims. We aim to keep you posted about any developments of the trial and emissions litigation.
.jpg)