Jump to content
Create New...
  • 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.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

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

  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • You say that now.....  but once you've got two little ones only 1 year apart, you're gonna be rocking the man-van.  And honestly, they aren't at all bad to drive. I'm quite aware it is an image thing, but they have the ride height with more utility, and they have a soft ride like a car.   But that's also why I suggested keeping the MKC and finding a van for the dad duty stuff.  In about 3 years, those rear screens will be useful for you to start memorizing the Bluey theme song.   Have you figured out a charging situation at home yet?  You don't want to be charging a Lightning on a 110v outlet. You might be able to get away with it on something with a smaller battery, but not a full-size truck.  The F-150 Hybrid could potentially beat your MKC in lifetime mpg, depending on your driving patterns.  You'll be in EV mode more often if you're predominantly suburban driving.    Yeah, your dad is right on this one. It's a bit hypocritical of me to say not to buy a truck, but I keep mine parked as much as possible and use the 300 or bike as much as I can.  There's a new job I'm going for, and if I get it, I'll be using public transit as often as I can.
    • Hahaha well our first was due Jan 5th and she was 2.5 weeks early.  Ehhhh I...just...don't want a minivan... I wouldn't mind us having one for the overall utility and convenience, but I don't think I want to drive one of those every day. But, who knows what I'll think in a year or two when I have two kids running around and approaching school and activities-age.    Part of that is why I want a Lightning. I don't want a $100 gasoline bill per week or thereabouts. If the hybrid *actually* gets its 23/23 rating, then that's about my lifetime MKC average anyway (22.6mpg over 52,234 miles of ownership). Our bulk orders will be filled like that anyway for things like 2x4s, drywall, insulation. We have a local lumberyard that delivered for free in the past, although I doubt it's free now, because we were only like 2 miles from them.  I do believe there's a U-haul dealership in town but if I'm doing that, I'm just borrowing my dad's Taco. He's told me not to buy a truck because I can use his anytime. So there is that. He genuinely does not mind me borrowing it any time.  The DOHC is another ~60hp/50tq over the SOHC one. I believe in the Mustang GT it was 240hp/270tq and in the Mach 1 it was 305hp/320tq. I LOVE how the ford 4.6's sound. I can't get enough of how they sound. 
    • If that rear skirt was removed, you ended up with an untrimmed wheel arch and it would look mismatched from the front. 
    • What I was really randomly thinking:   reminiscing ... something I saw in Yosemite National Park when I went with my parents on a cool overcast November day and was smitten ... with both the national park and this ... ... except that it was dark metallic forest green with an apple green landau and interior. Look at the stupid things on this one:  manual windows, a vanilla looking bench seat, and black seat belts. These looked good with either the rear wheel skirt or without ... but I prefer them without it.  It looks like they can easily be removed.  The fully exposed rear rally wheel makes it look less chunky and more sporty. - - - - - I was looking at where this car and the other GM stablemates went with the 1977 downsizing.  Except for the Cadillac, I didn't like most of them, since they went too slab-like and lost most rounded elements.  The full-size Pontiac floundered from the late '70s to the mid '80s, right down to occasionally oddly proportioned styling and a weird assortment of engines that they came with ... and that came and went.
    • Wow.  Interesting dashboard. Rectilinear and curved ... but more rectilinear! Definitely Lincoln styling vocabulary and not much GM seen here. I know what driving a Ford SOHC 4.6L V8 felt like ... as in very good.  However, I am not remembering its sound.  For some reason, low displacement V8s, especially when newer and have intact exhaust systems, tend to purr beautifully.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

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