During the week commencing December 1st, the court concluded evidence from Renault's factual witnesses who made some useful admissions in emissions testing and the presence of defeat devices.
The court heard the issues relating to calibration of various tests, Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) modulation, the frequency and effectiveness of purges, torque limitations and cut off.
· The week started with the cross examining of Renault factual witness evidence.
· Renault's factual witness agreed that regulations defined clear targets during engine development but admitted that Renault was not aware that Euro 6 limits were defined as early as 2006.
· The Defendant’s factual witness stated that Renault introduced Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology for Euro 6Dvehicles but decided it could not be implemented for Euro 6b passenger cars.
· The Defendant’s factual witness agreed that Renault focused on Euro 6 vehicles and did not update Euro 5 vehicles after Diesel Gate scandal.
· The witness admitted Renault was unaware that Mercedes improved calibration for OM607 Euro 5 engines.
· The Claimant’s Counsel challenged the witness on his stance of purges that occur at the end of pre-conditioning and compared New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) test and off cycle purge frequency.
· The Defendant’s factual witness acknowledged failures in Euro 3 and winter conditions impacting Euro 4 in 2006 leading to EGR limits.
· The Claimant’s Counsel challenged the witness that Renault’s Lean NOx Trap (LNT) calibrations were designed to purge at specific NEDC points, but Defendant’s factual witness disagreed to this.
· The Claimant’s expert was cross examined and re-examined on general propositions on Engine Control System (ECS) and calibration.
· The expert agreed that EGR was the most advanced technology at the time of Euro 5 and Euro 6 production, relatively rare in Europe but common in the US.
· The expert agreed that EGR is not fully eliminated outside NEDC.
· The expert agreed on soot and fuel dilution degrade lubrication increasing the risk of engine seizure although maintaining the vehicle can mitigate the risk but remains unpredictable and sensor unreliability.
The week concluded with the cross examining of Defendant’s factual witness evidence and examining Claimant’s expert evidence. The evidence presented by the Claimant’s software expert was broadly accepted. The Claimant’s mechanical expert gave evidence on EGR and LNT however this was more helpful on issues of alternative technology. The Defendants’ experts have not yet given the evidence, and it is not yet possible to assess the overall effect of Claimant’s mechanical expert evidence.
JLG is committed to keep the clients updated about the PDD trial and looking forward to share the final week of the trail updates and evidence from both parties.
.jpg)