Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
TireRack
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Members Area > General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-05-2013, 01:18 AM   #1
King Sun
Casual Camaro Owner
 
King Sun's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Black LS V6
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville Fl
Posts: 1,090
The Hits Keep Rolling

http://autos.aol.com/article/chrysle...6pLid%3D323291


Quote:
Chrysler has boldly refused to comply with a government request to recall 2.7 million Jeeps that could be prone to fires, arguing the government is applying unreasonable standards to its vehicles.

At the crux of the dispute is an alleged issue with the fuel tanks on older Jeep Grand Cherokees and Jeep Liberty SUVs. Safety watchdogs say Jeeps have been bursting into flames after rear-end crashes due to poor design; the tanks are behind the rear axle, leaving them more exposed. Since 1993, nearly 500 people have died in Jeep fires after rear crashes, according to the Center for Auto Safety.

After a three-year investigtion, the National Highway Traffic Administration agreed with the safety groups. On June 3, it sent a letter to Chrysler asking the automaker to recall 2.7 million of the 1993 to 2004 model year Grand Cherokees, and 2002 to 2007 Liberty SUVs. The next day, Chrysler issued a press release saying it would not comply because it does not agree with NHTSA's analysis.

"The company stands behind the quality of its vehicles," said Sergio Marchionne, chairman and CEO of Chrysler, which owns Jeep. "All of us remain committed to continue working with NHTSA to provide information confirming the safety of these vehicles."

The company published a white paper on the matter, which argues that NHTSA is applying new standards to older vehicles. "NHTSA seems to be holding Chrysler Group to a new standard for fuel-tank integrity that does not exist now and did not exist when the Jeep vehicles were manufactured," the company argued.

All but one of the fatal crashes involved high speed, Chrysler said. About 78 percent of the fatal crashes involved speeds that exceed standards set in 2008. Most safety standards are set for lower-speed crashes, because high-speed accidents are simply too destructive.

When the investigation was announced three years ago, NHTSA said it found 44 Grand Cherokee crashes and 55 deaths since 1992 where fire was listed as the most harmful factor. Of those figures, 10 crashes and 13 deaths were most likely associated with rear-end crashes, the safety agency reported.

Voluntary recalls

Most vehicle recalls are done on a voluntary basis, and it's rare these days for an automaker to reject the government's request for a recall. It was more common in the 1970s and 1980s. General Motors was embroiled in two recall fights in court with NHTSA, with one over a similar fuel tank issue that Jeep faces here.

Automakers have, for the most part, come to the conclusion that agreeing to a recall is better for their public image than fighting against one in court.

Ford learned that lesson the hard way in the 1970s, when its Pinto cars were also accused of bursting into flames when involved in rear-end crashes. After dragging its feet for years, a memo was exposed showing how Ford had calculated it was cheaper to refuse to install an $11 plastic shield that would prevent the fires from happening and instead pay out settlements to victim's families after the crashes occurred. The automaker eventually recalled the Pinto in 1978, but not until serious damage had been done to its reputation.

Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, was involved in the Pinto issue and told AOL Autos today's fight over the Jeep fires reminds him of that long-ago battle.

"To be blunt, Chrysler is content with letting its customers burn to death," Ditlow said. "This is the most callous decision I've seen ever seen by a manufacturer, even more than the Pinto (scandal)."

Chrysler's refusal to recall these vehicles could end up in a lengthy battle between NHTSA and the automaker. NHTSA will likely open the issue up for public comment, then they'll decide if they will try to force the recall or not. If they try to force the recall, Chrysler can take the matter to federal court to appeal it.

"Unfortunately, consumers with problematic Jeeps are in limbo," said Michelle Krebs, senior analyst for Edmunds.com "They will have to wait for the process to play out."
King Sun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 01:20 AM   #2
mikeyg36


 
Drives: 2015 Z/28 #533
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: NY
Posts: 6,731
That's why I will never own a Chrysler vehicle...
mikeyg36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 01:48 AM   #3
King Sun
Casual Camaro Owner
 
King Sun's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Black LS V6
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville Fl
Posts: 1,090
After that chevy SS announcement I was seriously considering a new charger RT......... I can't get down with that
King Sun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 08:53 AM   #4
CamaroSkooter
Retarded One-Legged Owl
 
CamaroSkooter's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Black Camaro 2SS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 9,745
Man, if in my job I was required to retroactively apply all current standards to stuff built 10-15 years ago, I'd have a bit of a problem with that, too.

I don't see Chrysler as being unreasonable at all.

But then again, I'm of the opinion that if you own a mid-90's vehicle (of any make/model) you inherently accept whatever risks that come with that choice. Every manufacturer warrants their vehicles for a limited amount of time. After that warranty runs out, you inherently agree that anything from that point forward is your responsibility/choice.

__________________

My VIN = 2G1FK1EJ9A9105017
Build Date: 04-23-2009 according to:
http://www.compnine.com/vid.php
CamaroSkooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 09:00 AM   #5
McBeevee
220/221 whatever it takes
 
McBeevee's Avatar
 
Drives: See sig....
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lafayette In
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter View Post
Man, if in my job I was required to retroactively apply all current standards to stuff built 10-15 years ago, I'd have a bit of a problem with that, too.

I don't see Chrysler as being unreasonable at all.

But then again, I'm of the opinion that if you own a mid-90's vehicle (of any make/model) you inherently accept whatever risks that come with that choice. Every manufacturer warrants their vehicles for a limited amount of time. After that warranty runs out, you inherently agree that anything from that point forward is your responsibility/choice.

Exactly what I was thinking too
__________________
Brent

2022 BMW X5 M50i
2022 Ram TRX
2021 GT500 CFHP
2016 Challenger Hellcat A8 1058whp/898wtq
1970 Chevelle SS396 4spd
McBeevee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 09:51 AM   #6
Stew


 
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter View Post
Man, if in my job I was required to retroactively apply all current standards to stuff built 10-15 years ago, I'd have a bit of a problem with that, too.

I don't see Chrysler as being unreasonable at all.

But then again, I'm of the opinion that if you own a mid-90's vehicle (of any make/model) you inherently accept whatever risks that come with that choice. Every manufacturer warrants their vehicles for a limited amount of time. After that warranty runs out, you inherently agree that anything from that point forward is your responsibility/choice.

BINGO. i guarantee if GM or Ford was faced with the same unreasonable bullcrap they would have the SAME answer.
Stew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 09:53 AM   #7
Stew


 
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,789
How about we actually look at a less one sided article that actually includes Chrysler's side....

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php...recall-request

Quote:
First and second generations of the Jeep Grand Cherokee

Chrysler Group has received a letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting a recall of 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees and 2002-2007 Jeep Libertys. Such a recall would involve approximately 2.7 millon vehicles.

The request is based on the agency’s Engineering Analysis EA12005, which was opened in June of 2012. It followed a Preliminary Evaluation (PE10031) which was opened in August of 2010 and closed in June, when the investigation was upgraded. Both inquiries regarded crash-related fuel tank fires but, as yet, have not been able to connect the reported incidents to a defect in the design or construction of the Jeep vehicles.
Chrysler is rejecting the government request for a recall. In a statement issued this morning, the company said: “Chrysler Group has been working and sharing data with the Agency on this issue since September 2010. The company does not agree with NHTSA’s conclusions and does not intend to recall the vehicles cited in the investigation. The subject vehicles are safe and are not defective.

“We believe NHTSA’s initial conclusions are based on an incomplete analysis of the underlying data, and we are committed to continue working with the Agency to resolve this disagreement. ‘The safety of drivers and passengers has long been the first priority for Chrysler brands and that commitment remains steadfast,’ said Sergio Marchionne, Chairman and CEO of Chrysler Group LLC.

“The company stands behind the quality of its vehicles. All of us remain committed to continue working with NHTSA to provide information confirming the safety of these vehicles.”

“Chrysler Group’s position on this matter is clear.

“These vehicles met and exceeded all applicable requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including FMVSS 301, pertaining to fuel-system integrity. Our analysis shows the incidents, which are the focus of this request, occur less than once for every million years of vehicle operation. This rate is similar to comparable vehicles produced and sold during the time in question.

“Chrysler Group stands behind the quality and safety of its vehicles. It conducts voluntary recalls when they are warranted, and in most cases, before any notice or investigation request from NHTSA.

“Customers who have questions or concerns can call the Chrysler Group’s customer care line: 1-800-334-9200.”

To view Chrysler Group’s White Paper on NHTSA’s Recall Request, please visit http://media.chrysler.com/newsrelease.do?id=14371&mid=2

Stew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 10:45 AM   #8
mikeyg36


 
Drives: 2015 Z/28 #533
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: NY
Posts: 6,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter View Post
Man, if in my job I was required to retroactively apply all current standards to stuff built 10-15 years ago, I'd have a bit of a problem with that, too.

I don't see Chrysler as being unreasonable at all.

But then again, I'm of the opinion that if you own a mid-90's vehicle (of any make/model) you inherently accept whatever risks that come with that choice. Every manufacturer warrants their vehicles for a limited amount of time. After that warranty runs out, you inherently agree that anything from that point forward is your responsibility/choice.

I think the problem is more of what the effects can be. If your cars are bursting into flames, the right thing to do is fix it and save people's lives. I understand it's a mid 90s car, but that isn't really that old when you think about it.
mikeyg36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 10:50 AM   #9
dkp2LT


 
dkp2LT's Avatar
 
Drives: '11 2SS, '11 C6 GS, '04 MDX
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kearney, MO
Posts: 2,830
I'd like to know what the 'fix' is & how much it would cost before making a complete judgment, but based on face value I'm leaning towards Chrysler.
dkp2LT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 12:22 PM   #10
derklug

 
derklug's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Boss 302
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Posts: 1,369
If the problem is not a defect in design or construction, just what the BLANK does the government expect them to do? While you can design a vehicle to last for ages and survive any rear end crash, the end result would be an M-1 Abrams. Not something I want distracted soccer moms tooling around in.
__________________
The biggest mistakes in life come when you know exactly what you are doing.
derklug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 12:57 PM   #11
2010-1SS-IBM

 
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 827
I'd side with Chrysler on this. 2.7 million vehicles and all that was found was that in 10 rear-end crashes a fire broke out and caused a fatality. We don't know the circumstances of those crashes, but based on the low number of fires compared to the number of vehicles on the road, it sounds pretty safe.

Edit - Just want to add this statement here seems like slander: "To be blunt, Chrysler is content with letting its customers burn to death," Ditlow said.

This Ditlow guy should be sued. There's nothing there to indicate that the cars in question are dangerous, or that Chrysler is acting irresponsibly.
2010-1SS-IBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 01:27 PM   #12
CamaroSkooter
Retarded One-Legged Owl
 
CamaroSkooter's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Black Camaro 2SS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 9,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyg36 View Post
I think the problem is more of what the effects can be. If your cars are bursting into flames, the right thing to do is fix it and save people's lives. I understand it's a mid 90s car, but that isn't really that old when you think about it.
In practical application, this statement should only apply to vehicles that are under current design standards.

Think about it this way, when a car company tools its manufacturing process to produce its current line-up of vehicles, are we now going to expect them to keep a production facility open for parts/design for outdated vehicles in the off chance that the government arbitrarily forces a recall?

Unless the problem resides with a current generation of vehicle, a forcible recall should be out of the question. I would never expect a manufacturer to be responsible for updating older generations to adhere to whatever new regulations have been enacted after that generation already came and went.

__________________

My VIN = 2G1FK1EJ9A9105017
Build Date: 04-23-2009 according to:
http://www.compnine.com/vid.php
CamaroSkooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 01:35 PM   #13
mikeyg36


 
Drives: 2015 Z/28 #533
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: NY
Posts: 6,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter View Post
In practical application, this statement should only apply to vehicles that are under current design standards.

Think about it this way, when a car company tools its manufacturing process to produce its current line-up of vehicles, are we now going to expect them to keep a production facility open for parts/design for outdated vehicles in the off chance that the government arbitrarily forces a recall?

Unless the problem resides with a current generation of vehicle, a forcible recall should be out of the question. I would never expect a manufacturer to be responsible for updating older generations to adhere to whatever new regulations have been enacted after that generation already came and went.

I agree, there shouldn't be a forcible recall because it isn't feasible, but I think Chrysler should do something about it instead of basically telling owners to **** off. Maybe give them some credit towards a newer vehicle that doesn't burst into flames
mikeyg36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 01:51 PM   #14
CamaroSkooter
Retarded One-Legged Owl
 
CamaroSkooter's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Black Camaro 2SS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 9,745
Chrysler isn't telling the customers to F off, they're telling the government to F off
__________________

My VIN = 2G1FK1EJ9A9105017
Build Date: 04-23-2009 according to:
http://www.compnine.com/vid.php
CamaroSkooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.