Chrysler Stands Down, Recalls Jeeps

by Derek Kreindler

Published: June 18th, 2013

Facing a looming deadline to comply with a NHTSA request to recall 2.7 million 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee and 2002-2007 Jeep Liberty SUVs – some of which are close to 20 years old at this point – Chrysler had decided to comply with NHTSA’s request.

While Chrysler maintains that their vehicles are safety, the auto maker has decided to inspect and, if necessary, repair the affected vehicles, as per their official statement

As a result of the agreement, Chrysler Group will conduct a voluntary campaign with respect to the vehicles in question that, in addition to a visual inspection of the vehicle will, if necessary, provide an upgrade to the rear structure of the vehicle to better manage crash forces in low-speed impacts.

The issue revolves around rear-mounted gas tanks in the two models and the question of whether or not rear-end crashes can cause vehicle fires. NHTSA has been investigating the matter since 2010 and reports a total of 51 deaths resulting from 37 rear-end crashes in both cars.

Chrysler not only maintained that the Jeeps in question were safe, but mounted a mini-PR war against NHTSA, providing data on rear end crash fatalities. The company may have been right, but public perception may have been such that Chrysler didn”t want to risk going through what Ford did during the Pinto fire controversy. The PR battle would have been unwinnable, given the complexity of the issue and the public’s general aversion to nuance and detail when it comes to any sort of discourse. We’ll have more as this story develops.

#Chrysler #Government #Jeep #JeepGrandCherokee #JeepLiberty #NHTSA #Recall #Safety #SUV

Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Comments

Join the conversation

14 of 44 comments

Krhodes1 on Jun 18, 2013

I own one of the Jeeps in question, an ''02 Grand Cherokee. It already has an outstanding recall for an airbag issue. Guess it will be a two-fer. I'm not remotely concerned, and tend to agree with Chrysler - 37 deaths in umpteen zillion miles in these things is just not cause for concern. This whole thing is just a colossal waste of resources all around.

Like Reply
ToxicSludge on Jun 18, 2013

I have to ask myself....where will this end? Does the govt have the power to order a recall on vehicles that fully met the safety standards at the time of manufacture? And go back 20 years? What's next I wonder.

Like Reply
- HerrKaLeun on Jun 18, 2013
  
  Only a few models are 20 years old and the request for recall already happened 5 years ago (or something like that ... read the TTAC articles). So if you don't count the 5 years Chrysler already has been stalling, most of the cars in need for recall were fairly young at the time. the manufacturer should not get the right to delay the recall 5 years and then say it only affects old cars. and the fact that they "met" the safety standards of the time was certified by the manufacturer who designed and tested every nook and granny of the vehicle. the government only does superficial tests/reviews (and short of re-designing they have to rely on the manufacturer). So basically Chrysler back then optimistically claimed it meets the safety standards, which apparently wasn't the case. It's like with mileage numbers, the EPA just trusts the manufacturer claims.
  
  Like
Nickoo on Jun 18, 2013

I'm all for consumer safety. But this is completely BS and makes me understand why people hate government. Chrysler being forced to recall a vehicle product line that dates to 20 years ago that met all legal standards for sale and didn't show strong statistical proof of being more problematic than an average vehicle from that time period is the height of retardedness. And it's not even the "same" Chrysler with the bankruptcy. What's going to happen next, the NHTSA gonna have a problem with 1945 Willys MB Jeeps not having airbags or anti-crush roof protection and gonna force Chrysler to do a recall on them too? To anyone who works at NHTSA reading this and had a hand in it...WTF were you thinking?!?

Like Reply
- See 3 previous
- DenverMike on Jun 18, 2013
  
  Technically, Pintos should be recalled too. But are there 2.7 million still on the road? At this point, the 'fix' would cost more than Pinto are worth. For all we know, Pintos held up better than these Chryslers in low-speed rear end crashes.
  
  Like
- Nickoo on Jun 18, 2013
  
  @DenverMike we examined that case in my engineering ethics class. The reason the pinto case was completely justified in my opinion: An internal Ford memo was leaked that proved Ford knew that the fuel lines were in a problematic location, and they decided to forgo putting in the baffle that cost a couple of dollars to protect it because the profit vs potential death trade off was deemed acceptible. Actually, the numbers of collision fires and deaths of the pinto were significantly less than the honda compact of the same year on a per miles driven basis.
  
  Like
- Nine11c2 on Jun 19, 2013
  
  @DenverMike good point Mike..
  
  Like
- Scoutdude on Jun 19, 2013
  
  @nickoo Yup the Civic was over twice as likely to result in firey death as the Pinto on a per capita basis. Of course the Pinto outsold the Civic about 10 to 1. There were multiple reasons Ford lost the lawsuit. #1 Ford engineers crash tested the Pinto beyond the standards they needed to and that revealed the failure point. #2 Ford engineers had been recently visited by Firestone sales people who showed them their latest product a bladder to line fuel tanks and told them it would cost about $9 per car. #3 Ford engineers sent a memo to the bean counters telling them how they could make the car far exceed the standards for only $9 per car. #4 The bean counters rejected the idea as it would prevent them from selling it at their desired price point with their desired profit margin. #5 The engineers fought back. #6 The lawyers were brought in and did a cost benefit analysis using the insurance industry's valuation of a human life. Those calculations showed that the cost of adding that bladder to each vehicle would exceed the likely benefit based on the statistical likelihood of deaths and projected sales volume. The shield and a retainer to reduce the likelihood of the filler neck from pulling out of the tank was something that was engineered after the lawsuits and was not considered initially.
  
  Like
Wmba on Jun 18, 2013

Retro liability killed the general civil aviation manufacturers, which is why 40 year old Cessnas cost so much. Lawyers led the way in "exposing" design "flaws" by engineers who "reasonably" should have "known better" in 1956, when some overpaid physician and over-confident amateur weekend pilot augered in to zero altitude driving a Beech Bonanza, Bellanca, etc., etc. in 1978. This Jeep case is even worse. The government is doing the same as the tort lawyers in general aviation did, only they are basically saying their very own regulations were inadequate and now the new owner of a bankrupt company should be responsible for NHTSA inadequacies that occurred before their ownership. Only in America.

Like Reply
- See 4 previous
- Toshi on Jun 18, 2013
  
  General aviation is a particularly poor example to have chosen. See the 1994 General Aviation Revitalization Act, in particular. Congress legislated away manufacturer liability for aircraft older than 18 years, and the industry is doing fine to this day.
  
  Like
- Claytori on Jun 18, 2013
  
  @Toshi If that turns your crank, then you should check out the limitations on liability for the owners/operators of nuclear plants. The industry would not exist if not for these laws.
  
  Like
- Wmba on Jun 19, 2013
  
  @Toshi "Particularly poor example" ,"Industry doing fine to this day"? Not like it was. Read Plane and Pilot 1970 to 1975 to see the amazing variety of GA aircraft available then. I am aware of GARA, it was too little too late, locking the stable door after the horses had bolted. My pal was an enthusiastic GA pilot back in the 1970s, and as time went by he went on and on about the gradual demise of manufacturers and his hobby. Why not read this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act and tell me things are just dandy. Now the lawyers are after parts suppliers rather than manufacturers. They never stop, do they, righting injustices to grieving families, ha ha. I suppose if the equivalent of GARA happened in the auto industry to limit liability, they would go after gas tank manufacturers. Aircraft are certified by the FAA, yet their manufacturers still got pursued by ambulance chasers. Did anyone sue the FAA for issuing the certifications? I cannot find any record of it. It's like being regulated by NHTSA and the FMVSS, double jeopardy. Design the way we tell you, but be aware, we may come back years later and blame YOU for following OUR regulations. Utter BS.
  
  Like
- Summicron on Jun 19, 2013
  
  "Only in America." Well... yeah. Where else was private aircraft manufacturing ever big enough to be a target?
  
  Like
- Danio3834 on Jun 19, 2013
  
  @wmba +1. My dad is a professional pilot and his career spanned through the '70s. With me being in the automotive industry, he's drawn this parallel as a warning to me as well.
  
  Like