[Mike V.]

Booooo!

 

[Paul J. Reed]

What a shame...

 

[Stomper]

Sorry to see this happen. Makes me think that this leaves them open to future lawsuits by owners who have their vehicle inspected and then get into an accident where a low speed rear impact triggers something major.

 

[Bob Lincoln]

When are we going to see a recall for a 1920 Model T because it had a plate glass windshield and no seat belts?

 

[tomit]

Hopefully, it gets people to the sales floor.

 

[Mike V.]

When are we going to see a recall for a 1920 Model T because it had a plate glass windshield and no seat belts?

And that is exactly the problem. What a terrible precedent this sets.

Mike

 

[Stratuscaster]

But...it's not a "recall"...it's a "voluntary campaign". For what that's worth.

 

[Dave Z]

As I've said before, the precedent has long been set that if a vehicle is deemed unsafe for any reason, it can be recalled.

I suspect there's something Chrysler is not telling us, which we will find out when one of our dealership friends spills the beans on what's involved in that visual inspection.

Might well be that there's a part that rusts away or some such.

Adding a hitch seems to fix it...

 

[Erik Latranyi]

The auto industry is a target for many people. Chrysler could not win this in the sphere of public relations.

In fact, making a deal so late will probably not erase the initial news reports from the public's mind.

 

[Dave Z]

In two weeks this will all have been forgotten...

 

[Jeepophile]

Ya think Chrysler will install fuel tank skid plates on all recalled Grand cherokees/Libertys that didn't come with the skid plate package?! If so, that's gonna cost a lot more than the Ford plastic plate fix for the Pinto... (And probably would do a lot more to resist fires in high-speed rear end collisions from dump trucks---but how many vehicles could resist such fires in such collisions anyway?! And how many people would be alive from such collisions even barring such fires?!.)

 

[TripleT]

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19024822-chrysler-backs-down-agrees-to-recall-27-million-older-model-jeeps?d=1


Time to hit the social networks and fight the incorrect assumptions being posted

 

[BenDodge]

This is unfortunate. First off, it is sad when anyone looses their life to a car accident. You dont want customers dying in you'r product. That said, There were clearly problems with the NHTSA report and it did not make any sense to recall an old vehicle that met the requirements at time. If this is the case they should recall other vehicles that did not test as safe. Plus, given the amount of vehicles on the road and the deaths, it doesnt seem as a big a problem as it has been made out to be. I was hoping they wouldnt bend but I can understand the pros and cons of fighting the fight may outway the cost of doing the recal.

 

[Dave Z]

Do you mean the moronic comments to the story, or the story itself, which adds nothing to what's already been posted here?

I have to point out that this is NOT a matter of making the vehicles conform to later safety standards. It now appears that there is a problem with some vehicles. We won't know till we find out what they're "inspecting them" for.

A design choice / not meeting later standards would not require inspection.

The "my 1934 Plymouth PX will have to be recalled to get airbags" argument is obviously fallacious in this case. Despite Chrysler's successful attempt to reframe it that way (only among domestic motorheads, though), that's not what's happening.

We will find out.

 

[Bob Lincoln]

I was being facetious. To me, if you drive a 20-yr old vehicle, you drive at your own risk and should not expect recalls of any kind at that point, when you are 2x beyond the design life of the car.

 

[Marcos]

Perhaps the inspection is to determine if the vehicle already has a skid plate installed, which some owners may not be able to discern on their own? (And, given the age and possible changes in ownership of the vehicles in question, skid plates may have been removed or installed over the years, so running the VIN might not prove reliable.)

 

[james.mooney.]

CNN said the fix is to install a trailer hitch.

 

[saltydog]

"" To me, if you drive a 20-yr old vehicle, you drive at your own risk and should not expect recalls of any kind at that point, when you are 2x beyond the design life of the car.""

I feel the same way....I better sue Chrysler for not having ABS in my 64' Plymouth.... :thumbsdown:

As pointed out before, this is a no win for Chryler either way....

 

[Dave Z]

To quote me,

I have to point out that this is NOT a matter of making the vehicles conform to later safety standards. It now appears that there is a problem with some vehicles. We won't know till we find out what they're "inspecting them" for.

A design choice / not meeting later standards would not require inspection.

The "my 1934 Plymouth PX will have to be recalled to get airbags" argument is obviously fallacious in this case. Despite Chrysler's successful attempt to reframe it that way (only among domestic motorheads, though), that's not what's happening.