Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Chrysler Says No To NHTSA Request To Recall 2.7 Million Jeeps


    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    June 4, 2013

    In a surprising form of defiance, Chrysler has said no the demand made by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recall 2.7 million Jeep Grand Cherokees and Liberties due to fuel tanks that could catch on fire in a rear end accident.

    NHTSA has been investigating since 2010 and alleges that 1993 through 2004 Grand Cherokee and 2002 through 2007 Liberty are more prone to fuel leaks and fires. In its analysis, NHTSA found that 51 deaths involved Grand Cherokees and Liberties in rear-end accidents that caught on fire. NHTSA alleges the reasons for this are the tanks being made out of plastic and being placed behind the rear axle.

    In a statement released today, Chrysler says they do "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."

    Chrysler goes onto say their "vehicles met and exceeded all applicable requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including FMVSS 301, pertaining to fuel-system integrity."

    Also, the company says in their tests the problem occurs less than once for every million years of vehicle operation and argues that NHTSA's analysis of the problem is not complete.

    So what happens next? Motoramic reports that NHTSA could hold a public hearing and declare the two vehicles defective. The agency could also take Chrysler to court to force the recall.

    It's a game of chicken and the question is, who blinks first?

    Source: Motoramic, Chrysler

    Chrysler's Press Release and White Paper is on Page 2


    Chrysler Group LLC Responds to NHTSA Recall Letter

    June 4, 2013 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) has issued a recall request letter proposing that Chrysler Group recall the Jeep Grand Cherokee in model years 1993 to 2004 and the Jeep Liberty in model years 2002 to 2007 (a total of approximately 2.7 million vehicles).

    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.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    I've been seeing different versions of this article all day and I'm already sick of it...I own one of said Grand Cherokees and to be honest I think it's a waste of time to recall all of these...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • No tough corner, it is amazing to think you feel there is no degradation in a 20yr old ICE auto. I know that both EV and ICE wear out, battery packs will outlive the actual EV and ICE auto.  At this point we do not have enough data to know if the EV motors will lose as much hp/torque as an ICE does over 20yrs of use and depending on how an auto is cared for it can be big changes or minimal changes. I know my Escalade is in much better shape than most and being it is garage kept; it is out of the elements and sun just like my EV is. With that, I also know I have two oil leaks after 200,000 plus miles. The oil pan and another leak that I suspect is at the input of the transmission to the engine. Both are so minimal that the thousands it costs to repair the gaskets does not justify the expense. I can also tell you that the response of the V8 is NOT what it was when it was new. I do not expect the EV to be the same after 200,000 miles either. No corner here to worry about, both autos will wear out, I can also say that my Escalade does not get the 15 mpg it got new and now averages 12 mpg. A 20% decrease in MPG after 200,000 miles of use and 19 years old. With out a compression test, I could not tell you how worn the rings are, though since I have only ever used synthetic in the engine, I would have to think it is minimal as I do not burn any oil, but the overall engine has wear and tear and it is clearly tired in comparison to a new motor. End result is as the original story stated, the EV battery pack will outlive the auto and that will outlive most ICE auto's as while we have the average age now just a little over 12yrs old, most ICE are not on the road after 20 years.
    • I know you're put into a corner when you'll do anything to defend your EVs and your Escalade. It's tough to admit that your Escalade isn't wore out but you're trying to say 20 year old cars are all worn out at the same time. 
    • No, it is not. A 20 year old ICE vehicle is not losing any SIGNIFICANT amount of range or power output.    So you're basically saying your Escalade is a piece of junk at this point? It's 20 years old. I think we both know it's probably pretty close to OEM status when it comes to output and range, right?  Even if they aren't as simple as a good tune-up away, they are still way closer to factory output and range than a 20 year old EV will be. 
    • WOW, I get it that your stuck on the 64% capacity issue. Yet the same thing can be said for ICE  A 20-yr old auto is NOT a tune up away from running near-new running condition. Never will be and the evidence of how moisture destroys an auto that has been sitting or only run in short local driving is everywhere. From gasket leaks due to age on just about every component that has a liquid to the rings on the piston that after 20 years of running will have blow by in not holding compression and cannot make the initial HP/Toque of when the engine is new. As one that grew up with building engines, transmissions and tune-ups on ICE, the clear evidence is both ICE and EV will still be around in 20 years, but how they work, and the power is very different. End result is the FUD that has been thrown at EVs is just that FUD as EVs is going to last just as long and in some cases could be longer as the auto industry has moved to superior insulation to avoid battery degradation, no different than how they realized heat shields play a pivotal role in maximizing the burning of unburnt hydrocarbons and how they use cats to clean up the exhaust.  EVs batteries are already better in dealing with extreme cold and heat than earlier generation EVs and will only get better over time. In this regards the batteries will outlast most of the auto's life and still have a use which cannot be said for an ICE Motor without having to have it totally rebuilt. I respect your choice to feel how you feel just as I feel about batteries versus ice. Have a relaxing weekend with the family.
    • We'll I always felt it needed to be updated, but is a Black Screen of death any better? Microsoft kills the iconic Windows 'Blue Screen of Death.' It looks like this now | PCWorld
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search