Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Cadillac Chips Case

No description

Dante Harris

on 30 October 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Cadillac Chips Case

We are now going to take a look into the ethic case of: Cadillac's History Cadillac Chips In 1902, Henry Leland, a master mechanic entrepreneur boldly found Cadillac.
He name the company after Antione de le Mothe Cadillac, founder of Detriot.
The Cadillac's family historic coat of arms serves as the inspiration for the company's crest.
Cadillac became the first american to win the prestigious Dewar trophy from the royal automobile club of England, there they receive their slogan " Standard of the world"
Cadillac has since stood for uncompromising performance, daring design and groundbreaking technology. From developing the world’s first electric self-starting engine and pioneering the integration of computer technology into vehicles. Now you are probably wondering what is this computer chip??? Well a computer chip can be used for many things but right now we are referring to it's usage with cars. Carburetors have evolved into fuel injection, and eventually everything under the hood has become computer controlled. In the evolution of "fiddling," the aftermarket industry came up with computer chip upgrades. The main computers chips parameters is engine efficiency—the optimum air/fuel mixture. Back to the Case! Lawyers for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department contended that G.M. knew that the design change would result in pollution problems. Rejecting this claim, G.M. released a statement saying that the case was "a matter of interpretation" of complex regulations, but that it had "worked extremely hard to resolve the matter and avoid prosecution." Some statistics I dug up According to EPA and Justice Department officials, the $11 million civil penalty was the third largest penalty in a pollution case.
The second largest under such penalty under the Clean Air Act.
The largest involving motor vehicle pollution.
This was also the first case of a court ordering an automobile recall to reduce pollution rather than to improve safety or dependability. The reason for the creation! 1990 a new computer chip was designed for the engine controls of Cadillac Seville and Deville models. This was in response to car owners complaints that these cars tended to stall when the climate control system was running. The chips injected additional fuel into the engine whenever this system was running. But this resulted in tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide well in excess of the regulations. What is the Case? Cadillac was charged with installing computer chips that resulted in emitting excessive amounts of carbon dioxide from their Cadillacs, General Motors agreed in December 1995 to recall nearly 500,000 late-model Cadillacs and pay nearly $45 million in fines and recall costs. Were the G.M Engineers wrong? EPA officials argued that, under the Clean Air Act, G.M. should have
informed them that the Cadillac’s design
was changed in a way that would result in violating pollution
standards under normal driving conditions. Using this Act do you think the engineers should
had known that what they were doing would cause high emissions levels?

G.M. spokesperson said that testing emissions with the climate control running was not required because, "It was not in the rules,
not in the regulations; it’s not in the Clean Air Act." However, claiming that G.M. discovered the problem in 1991,
Justice Department environmental lawyer Thomas P. Carroll objected to G.M.’s continued inclusion of the chip in the 1992-5 models: "They should have gone back and re-engineered it to improve the emissions." Although the cars are usually driven with the climate control system running, tests used for certifying the meeting of emission standards were conducted when the system was not running. This was standard practice for emission tests throughout the automotive industry. In agreeing to recall the vehicles, G.M. said it now had a way of controlling the stalling problem without increasing pollution. This involves "new fueling calibrations," G.M. said, and it "should have no adverse effect on the driveability of the vehicles involved."
Full transcript