Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Says They've Under-reported Death and Injury Claims

what's a grasshopper?

@05lgt Lessee, two parts gin, one part brandy, one part Creme de Menthe. If this were Government Motors, the Feds would say no big deal, carry on.

@DeadWeight That's why the feds are looking at the Colorado/Canyon diesel emissions - because they don't care. /facepalm

@APaGttH VW will end up paying 3x to 8x as much for deceiving emissions regulations than GM did for killing at least 127 people (actual number likely 5x that) and seriously injuring hundreds more (actual number likely 5x that).

@APaGttH DW, do we know how many people have been crushed to death or maimed in their Fiat 500? Fiatsler has admitted to underreporting claims.

@APaGttH I've yet to hear that the Fiat 500 is less crashworthy than the typical car in its respective segment, and moreover, I'm not sure what the crashworthiness of a 500 has to do with anything.

@APaGttH "I’m not sure what the crashworthiness of a 500 has to do with anything." It may not but IIRC the 500 is the only new vehicle that Fiatsler has introduced in America. Everything else was basically a carry-over from the days of Daimler-Chrysler. And all of them were crashworthy at least up until 2009.

@highdesertcat: Some of it carried over from DaimlerChrysler and Cerberus. But actually, Fiat Chrysler has released a number of all-new vehicles here in the U.S., including: -Fiat 500L/X -Jeep Cherokee -Jeep Renegade -Chrysler 200 -Dodge Dart -Dodge Viper -Maserati Quattroporte -Maserati Ghibli -Alfa Romeo 4C (Coupe and Spyder) ...and the new Alfa Romeo Guilia will hit our shores shortly

@DeadWeight Interesting. To me a grasshopper is one part creme de cacao, one part creme de menthe, and one part cream. You can make it a leaping grasshopper by adding one part vodka.

@APaGttH Was the 8C technically released under FCA, though developed by Fiat-Alpha separately?

@APaGttH I'm guessing you mean 4C. I'm not sure, honestly.

@APaGttH Nope - you said 4C already! I mean 8C. It was released right around the time of Chrysler buyout, I think.

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

THE PEOPLE - THE CONSUMERS choose what they want with their money. If they want something, they will buy it. If the government passes more and more regulations forcing vehicles to conform, they'll only drive up prices. Ultimately, manufacturers like Volvo can develop vehicles based on safety, while others develop focused on fuel economy. If a vehicle isn't safe and doesn't have good MPG, word will get out and people won't buy it. It's called THE FREE MARKET. Try it. Instead of Crony Capitalism.

I don't know about that. This doesn't seem like a case of an EVIL CORPORATION being evil. Seems more likely that this was a case of poor data management and different parts of the company not talking with each other.

@bigtruckseriesreview @ Youtube It's not the simple. If everyone drives around in death traps we still all pay for it: 1) Most obvious - more accidents, more injuries, more deaths, higher insurance premiums. Not just the obvious auto insurance, but life, health, and STD and LTD. That's more cost to me as a consumer, it is just hidden. 2) Lost productivity and time due to red asphalt on already congested highways. Poorer quality and a let the consumer decide safety standards means more accidents, more severe accidents, which means more delays, more congestion, and in the backup behind the accident, more accidents. It hurts commerce, trade, and consumers due to lost productivity - which is already a problem. 3) I as a consumer have a "choice" when I buy a vehicle. But I have a consumer have less choice when I get into a taxi, or on a bus, or other motor vehicle. You suggest as a consumer if the death trap taxi company stops to pick me up, I wave them off, and wait at the loss of my time and productivity until the armored taxi company drives by. What about a bus or say an even better example of no choice, a shuttle bus at the airport. If Dollar cheaps out on their shuttle bus but Avis doesn't then what. Let's extend that to car rentals in itself. If I have an Avis rental for a midsize, and I get to the counter and all they have left is the Death Race 3000 special in that class - then what exactly do I do? Walk? Take the Death Race 3000 SE and hope? Or pay another $100 a day for the Baby Buggy Nanny Cam Special? The whole idea that regulation bad - no regulation good is kind of mind blowing. I for one do not long for the days of metal dashboards (got my lip split open on one as a kid) no seat belts (see previous comment), lack of safety glass, and hundreds if not thousands of other improvements.

@APaGttH I think you are completely missing the point of the FREE MARKET by attacking it with unfair conclusions. The Nissan Z was considered the "Most Fatal Car" a few years ago (I'd post a URL but sometimes it doesn't go through). I still see people buying them.

@bigtruckseriesreview @ Youtube That only works if consumers have access to good information. If manufacturers under-report issues, then we don't.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-engineers-lament Auto companies are large groups of people designing cars that meet a dizzying array of laws around the world (go read a single chapter of FMVSS, you'll see what I mean) while providing the brand name, price, styling, technology, fuel economy, safety, and drive quality (in rough order of consumer preference) customers want at a car payment of below 500$/month. You don't get a 45 ton tank for 500$/mo., you get a car. And you don't get supermen, you get normal people using standard engineering processes to try to track down problems and tackle them one at a time.

Well, it seems a bit pessimistic, but it's not above any one automaker to choose to release vehicles with dangerous and remediable design faults, at the expense of their customers' safety or environmental safety. I'm sure there are all sorts of things we don't know about. That Takata airbag thing was a nice surprise. And for all the trouble GM got into for the ignition switch, I'm sure some of the engineers were silently thanking the gods that no one caught onto the nine or ten *other* fatal problems that are probably present on the Delta I and Kappa vehicles. Ditto for any other automaker. Like I said, I wouldn't put things like this above any automaker, but I guess the best thing you can do as a customer is see which company has the lowest track record of such tricks, and which one seems to have the best real-world safety ratings. I'd feel pretty safe in that new XC90, for example.