Chrysler and Jeep Fire recall

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rjundi

Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
7,255
Location
USA
Chrysler does not want to recall 2.7 million vehicles with potentially fatal fuel tank exposure behind the rear axle. NHTSA is requesting it. Apparently a skid plate(originally optionally) cover it off.

The new Pinto or flawed data. 51 deaths attributed.

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/c...-184656330.html

Given how recall happy most car makers now without push from NHSTA, Chrysler is taking a new approach.
 
I see Ford Pinto and GM sidesaddle pickup fiascos in this whole thing.Chrysler is probably fearing a potential liability on other rear tank mounted vehicles....like Cherokee,Wrangler...if this one goes thru.The only major question here is will this effect sales of new Grand Cherokees (not even related vehicles) as punishment of Jeep/Chrysler the public may see as retrobution?
 
36.gif
 
if i remember the crowm vics had the same trouble. the pics showed the brackets on the rear end had some sharp edges that opened the gas tank upon a rear crash. fords fix? plastic covers for the rear end. if i remember right. chryslers fix? iam not taking any bets.
 
I had Lexus performing recalls when there had not even been any accidents.

They found design issues and wanted to avoid injury and death to their customers.

I know that the statistical chances are that you're more likely to be killed from any number of things than a fuel tank on a Chrysler but they should fix this poor design and learn from it, not play some sort of calculation game, especially when they've had a bailout from the very customers who are now at a real or perceived risk and will lose value in their vehicles.

This has the potential to be a PR disaster. Who at Chrysler made the decision to argue against a media who will bring up stories of the 4 year old kids who died?
 
I have a 2004 Grand Cherokee, one of the models noted in the article. Got rear ended by a full size HD pickup last year, over $5k in damage, was sore for a few days and went to the hospital to get checked out.

No fire, no gas tank leak and still have the vehicle.
 
Why should Fiat absorb any of this cost. The original company is dead and gone the Government and labor unions took it over before selling 20% to Fiat it, let them pay the recall.
The Union wanted it now they have it. Make them pay their fair share. LOL

Quote:
On June 10, 2009, the sale of most of Chrysler assets to "New Chrysler", formally known as Chrysler Group LLC was completed. The federal government financed the deal with US$ 6.6 billion in financing, paid to the "Old Chrysler", formerly known as Chrysler LLC and currently named Old Carco LLC.
 
don't forget chrysler has beat the nhtsa before:
The company previously refused a NHTSA request in 1996, when the agency asked it to recall 91,000 Dodge Stratus and Chrysler Cirrus cars for an alleged seat belt defect. NHTSA sued the company and won in federal court. But in 1998, an appeals court reversed the decision, saying NHTSA had unfairly held Chrysler to a new standard.

I think you will find a similiar ruling hear. Recall a 21 year old vehicle that passed all safety standards in the day?
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Chrysler does not want to recall 2.7 million vehicles with potentially fatal fuel tank exposure behind the rear axle. NHTSA is requesting it. Apparently a skid plate(originally optionally) cover it off.

The new Pinto or flawed data. 51 deaths attributed.


As much as I hate Chrysler, I do agree with them. The cars pased the NHTSA standards and that should be enough. Don't like it, adjust the standards.

Most likely it is just like the Pinto where the risk was no greater than any other car of the era. That was proven as fact by someone other than a [censored] journalist or lawyer.

The story was the same with the side saddle gas tanks.

You can't make everything 100% safe.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Why should Fiat absorb any of this cost. The original company is dead and gone the Government and labor unions took it over before selling 20% to Fiat it, let them pay the recall.
The Union wanted it now they have it. Make them pay their fair share. LOL

Quote:
On June 10, 2009, the sale of most of Chrysler assets to "New Chrysler", formally known as Chrysler Group LLC was completed. The federal government financed the deal with US$ 6.6 billion in financing, paid to the "Old Chrysler", formerly known as Chrysler LLC and currently named Old Carco LLC.



While it depends upon the actual wording in a contract, when a company is sold often the assets and liabilities go with it. This is a liability the current owner may have to deal with.
 
So there is the Pinto and now the Jeep Grand Cherokee. But lets not forget the famous Mustang "drop in" gas tank that was Lee Iacocca's brilliant idea when he was at Ford.

While I have had no Pinto, I did have 2 Mustangs (1965 & 1969 Mach 1) and now a 2001 Jeep.

I am hoping Chrysler does the recall. But I might do it myself.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Why should Fiat absorb any of this cost. The original company is dead and gone the Government and labor unions took it over before selling 20% to Fiat it, let them pay the recall.
The Union wanted it now they have it. Make them pay their fair share. LOL

Quote:
On June 10, 2009, the sale of most of Chrysler assets to "New Chrysler", formally known as Chrysler Group LLC was completed. The federal government financed the deal with US$ 6.6 billion in financing, paid to the "Old Chrysler", formerly known as Chrysler LLC and currently named Old Carco LLC.



That's how a 363 works, Fiat, the unions and the US Govt. purchased the liabilities so they are on the hook. Had they dropped Jeep you would be correct however they elected to retain that division with the new company. I was involved in a 363 bankruptcy back in 2009, it was amazing we jut had the pick the vendors and assets for the new LLC that we wanted to keep and ditched the rest.
 
If I owned one I would dump it or get the skid plate before putting my family in a potential BBQ.

Jeep is not going to look good and hopefully their calculation of potential further loss of life with heavy scrutiny/network coverage/litigaion is worth the reputation damage incurred for the cost savings they seek.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
IMO it is ridiculous after so long. These companies should have a legal "out" after a reasonable time.


Well, we are talking about GCs made through 2004, which is only nine years ago. And Libs made through 2007, which is only six years ago. To me, that's well within a reasonable time frame, and manufacturers have recalled vehicles before that had more age on them. If this issue involved Grands only up through 1998, then I'd agree that we're talking about vehicles that are too old. But vehicles manufactured and sold within the last decade...that's still new enough where a high percentage of these are on the road.

We had a '96 ZJ (part of the requested recall by NHTSA), but it had the Up Country package and had the skid plate in the back. If that skid plate is all that's required to protect the tanks, then it's fortunately an easy fix for the owners if Chrysler won't do it.
 
This is nuts. Could you imagine if they found this issue on the old Jeep Wagoneer body style that went 1963-1991, more or less, and found the problem in 1998, making the whole body line recall worthy?
 
You can't back spec safety standards...otherwise you would only have cars that were 2 years old at any given time on the road. If they enforced that it would be the biggest cash for clunkers campaign on the planet...whoops I should not have said that...should not have said that...

Cirrus and Stratus...I am still trying to wrap my head around anything that car was good at....it was a convertible maybe..
 
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
You can't back spec safety standards...otherwise you would only have cars that were 2 years old at any given time on the road. If they enforced that it would be the biggest cash for clunkers campaign on the planet...whoops I should not have said that...should not have said that...

Cirrus and Stratus...I am still trying to wrap my head around anything that car was good at....it was a convertible maybe..


+1. Model T gas tanks have a real safety problem. The tank under the cowl may catch fire reversing up hill backwards.
Lets have a recall and force Ford to fit a tank in the back, also those Acetylene lights are downright dangerous. Retrofit to 12v electrics.
This nanny state, do-gooders and crackpots have gone off the rails.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
GM Camaro Recall, 6/13/14
Replies
18
Views
5K
ThirdeYe
W
  • Locked
Another Chrysler recall
Replies
12
Views
3K
rslifkin
T
  • Locked
NEW PRIUS RECALL COMING UP
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
29K
mikered30
T
  • Locked
Motorists, experts say throttles to blame
2 3
Replies
56
Views
29K
brianl703
Back
Top Bottom