bagwell

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/auto...html?hpt=hp_t2

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
In a rare rebuff of the U.S. government, Chrysler Group is refusing a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration request for a recall of 2.7 million SUVs.

The government agency says the gas tank design used in 1993 to 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees and 2002 to 2007 Jeep Libertys is unsafe.

It is the first time since 1996 that an automaker has challenged a recall demand from the safety agency. That case, also involving Chrysler, was over the seat belt system on 91,000 cars. Chrysler -- which was an independent U.S. company at the time -- won a federal court decision on that dispute two years later.

Chrysler -- now controlled by the Italian carmaker Fiat after the 2009 U.S. government-sponsored bailout -- said it has been working with the agency over concerns over the vehicles in the current dispute since 2010.

Chrysler says that the design of the gas tank cited by NHTSA -- placed behind the rear axle -- is a commonly accepted design used in many other vehicles. It also says that the fatal accidents that occurred involving the vehicles were almost all high-speed, high-energy accidents in which a different design would have made no difference.

For example, it said one accident involved a tractor-trailer truck traveling 65 miles per hour that hit a stationary Grand Cherokee.

"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," said the automaker's statement. It said it typically conducts recalls before it receives any notices from the safety agency.

Since it started the recall process in 1966, NHTSA said it has been involved in 17,000 separate recalls involving about 500 million vehicles.

NHTSA did not have an immediate comment on Chrysler's statement, although it did provide a copy of the letter requesting the recall that was sent to Chrysler on Monday.

The NHTSA investigation began at the request of the Center for Auto Safety, a Washington public interest group. The group said there have been 201 fire crashes with 285 deaths involving the Grand Cherokees, and 36 accidents resulting in 53 deaths involving the Libertys.

Clarence Ditlow, the Center for Auto Safety's executive director, has asked Chrysler to recall those model year Grand Cherokees on its own, and has also written to NHTSA asking the agency to order a recall. The group said that "The only way to prevent more fire deaths is for NHTSA to order a mandatory safety recall and require Chrysler to design an effective remedy," said Ditlow in his letter to NHTSA.
Chrysler says that there are many models of other automakers with far higher fatality rates, and that the incidents cited by the agency "occur less than once for every million years of vehicle operation."

"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," said the company.

But the Center for Auto Safety said the risk of fire for a Grand Cherokee in the model years in question is more than 20 times greater than the risk in a comparable Ford Explorer. NHTSA's letter to Chrysler said the vehicles in the recall request perform poorly in regard to fatalities, fires without fatalities, and fuel leaks when compared to all but one similar vehicle.

TangoRed

It's tempting to read the title and say "Chrysler sucks" then walk away. But they do make a strong argument- I'm sure they did a very healthy dose of research and analysis before making such a ballsy move.

Habious

I think the problem with this situation is...the final decision lies with someone who is far from a "disinterested third party".

Chrysler is making a CORPORATE decision, based on the bottom line.

I agree that they probably can't afford for their brand to tank...again.

So, they're going to go with the decision that's in THEIR best interests, not THE CUSTOMER'S best interests.

PhilipMSPT

iTrader: (5)

There's the rub.

Chrysler has every right to do so if they feel that this is a "non-issue" financially. It may be a public relations nightmare; the significance and perception of a brand's safety is easily blown out of proportion.

I think about when Toyota did the opposite: recall millions of cars when they knew that nothing was wrong (beyond improperly placed floor mats, which any automaker could have suffered from). Again, the significance and perception of a brand's safety reputation were at stake, and Toyota survived it (albeit costing hundreds of millions of dollars).

I'd like to see how Chrysler handles this specific situation...

Stormwind

When you got nothing to lose why not just go all out and refuse to fix anything especially safety related, I mean what's the government gonna do put them out of business? They've already gone out of business twice what's another one gonna matter.

S2000toIS350

How can we trust Chrysler to develop and implement the repairs.

I vote for the vehicles being crushed and Fiat paying cash to the customers

TangoRed

I hope that post was a joke.

Fizzboy7

Interesting story. I've always noticed earlier JGC's gas tanks are very obvious and exposed when following from behind. More so than other vehicles.

S2000toIS350

No joke TangoRed

I believe it is degrading to have to build Chryslers and leads to things like their auto workers being seen getting stoned and drinking on lunch breaks

I think that extends to other functions like being in a repair shop where Chryslers are serviced

Outrage

It would be cost prohibitive to move the location of a fuel cell on an existing vehicle. 237 incidents over 20 years is not statistically significant particularly given the high sales volume of those models. NHTSA never fronts the bill for these recommended recalls, we, the consumers, ultimately do.

mmarshall

You're living in the past. Those were former Chrysler UAW workers (many of whom are gone, retired, or laid-off)....not those of today. Fiat, today (Chrysler's primary owner), doesn't tolerate that kind of stuff.

Of course,some of those possible-recall-vehicles in question do date back to those dark labor-years at Chrysler, but gas-tank location is obviously more a question of engineering/design than of how much assembly-line workers goof off, drink, or smoke pot.

Infra

iTrader: (1)

You win the award for the most fallacious post of the day.

What a slippery slope of an argument if I've ever seen one. I suppose we should kick Chrysler out of America because their workers might start speaking italian and cooking lots of pasta.

S2000toIS350

Infra

In no way would I ever make a racial or ethnic comment here

If you go back through my posts, you will see that I try to be the best Chrysler hater I can be based on the cars and what I have experienced from their dealers growing up, their driver's on the road and the company (pre Iacocca, post, recent bankruptcy, Daimler, Cerberus and now Fiat eras)

My argument continues with, who gets up in the morning and wants to drive a Chrysler? Once we have that answer we move on to most folks need transportation at a price that fits their budget

With low cost participants like Hyundai and Kia (and others in the market) Chrysler could go away

mmarshall

I think that if you actually go look at and test-drive a new Jeep Grand Cherokee, you'll have your answer. Its transformation over the last 2-3 years has been nothing short of stunning.....though, admittedly, its price tag is not chump-change.

Hyundai and Kia used to compete with Dodge in providing low-cost minivans, but, unlike Dodge, they decided to drop their American-market minvans. It was a foolish move, IMO.

S2000toIS350

Kia still has a minivan

http://m.kia.com/us/sedona

MM, I agree the Jeeps are nicer than they were but there are lots of other SUVs that folks could own instead