Allpar Forums banner
21 - 40 of 69 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,209 Posts
Yes, a private group going after a political (or in many ways, politisized) group. Imagine that.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
moparmodelfan said:
Ditlow is doing this so he can run around to his like minded friends and crow about how "powerful and influential he is". He is nothing but a whiny little nobody. I would only agree to the new test if these two idiots agreed to be the crash test dummies!!!!!
Agreed.

And that is where I'll stop lest I get a warning or worse.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,401 Posts
I wish they would start teaching common sense in school... so that it finally became common.
 

·
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Joined
·
8,808 Posts
This is why I like IIHS as opposed to other private entities. IIHS generally tests just current models and has even skipped on some models that were already dead-dogs when they have developed certain tests, and they go for most-common scenarios, adding new common scenario tests when there's a demonstrated issue with those tests.

If I were going to crash-test a vehicle for rear-end high speed collisions, I'd test only those models offered as police cars, and I'd probably test them to a standard of 60mph with the equivalent of a 3/4 ton pickup truck's mass as the colliding object. For police on the sides of highways, that's a fairly common scenario. Outside of that fairly limited scope, there simply aren't enough of these kinds of collisions to justify too much development on this kind of crash performance, especially when there are front-offset, front-3/4-angle, and various other types of crashes that are much more common and kill more occupants annually to concentrate on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,121 Posts
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/06/us/jeep-crash

http://www.change.org/petitions/recall-accomplished-now-let-s-make-sure-the-recall-goes-right-review-and-consider-signing-at-change-org-jeeprecall

Did some research. The woman witnessed a horrific accident. Most of what she wrote was three months after the accident. She writes about what she saw, it was 60 seconds, and it was three months after that, that she wrote about it. I believe she was mis-remembering a lot about the accident. Eye witness testimony, has been proven to be unreliable, and it gets more unreliable as time passes.

That said, I think she is dealing with her grief by punishing those she see's as being most responsible.

Does the Jeep in question have a safety issue? Maybe, probably, but I don't know for sure, as the public evidence is sketchy to non-existant. That being said, I am willing to bet there are a lot of vehicles, and I do mean a lot, with this issue. Any vehicle with its tank between the frame rails, and between the rear bumper and axle.

The jeep in question, from the accident, was completely crushed. The rear of the vehicle was smashed completely flush with the rear of the rear doors. There is no passenger vehicle i know of that would have preserved the integrity of its fuel tank with that impact. None.

In more common accidents, do the Jeeps in question have an issue? No. And if they do, then fuel storage in all passenger vehicles needs a wholesale re-think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,503 Posts
...with the mis-information and dis-information about CNG, Ditlow and other parasites are just waiting to attack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: MoparNorm

·
THE MAD DUCK
Joined
·
2,403 Posts
Sick Puppy Mud Raking Horn Blowers - The Should take Up a Cause Against Lighting Bolts Striking Golfers!

TMD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
ptschett said:
I was curious what had happened to the truck driver in Embrey's story as well... he apparently was sentenced to 4 months in jail (360 day sentence but 240 days were suspended), given 2 years unsupervised probation and a $2500 fine. His truck had improper brake equipment and he had been texting shortly before the accident.

http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2013/04/truck-driver-in-duel-fatality-accident-sentenced-to-four-months.php
Imagine that.. Improper brakes and texting while driving a commercial vehicle... That's a big no-no... She should be going after tougher standards for commercial drivers and texting while driving...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
At the very least - an agenda.

I'm on record as protesting the protest, and am crafting a response to send to the parties involved.
That's something I'd sign. No doubt it's a tragedy that those people lost their lives in the incident she unfortunately witnessed and subsequently has now consumed her life. But people perish in car wrecks every day in this country. It's a chance we all take when we go out on the roads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Lots of criticizing of Ditlow but I wonder how many have actually met Ditlow. I have. He is not a nut job. I absolutely agree that you can't blame Jeep for an accident caused by a semi truck, unless there was something wrong with that Jeep that made the injuries worse. And it is not Chrysler management's mentality to toss in the towel if they think they are right. It is, however, their mentality to weigh the costs of bad PR against the cost of just doing it. That "meeting" was about cutting costs to do what they knew had to do. NHTSA only does a recall after a long, exhaustive, scientific analysis of an issue - because they know that their decision may end up in Court. The Preliminary Evaluation was followed by an Engineering Analysis and this investigation, for example, started in 2009 and it took 4 years to get to this point - and Chrysler was involved throughout the entire process (the manufacturer always is). What came out of it is that the industry standard placement location for fuel tanks is in front of the rear axle but Chrysler put the two recalled Jeep fuel tanks behind the rear axle, in a vulnerable position. No other SUV make does that and most vehicles of any kind don't do that. The Grand Cherokee and Liberty models had twice the normal rate of fire fatalities from a rear end accident. In fact, an 8-24-1978 internal memo at Chrysler pointed out that doing that would expose the gas tank to collision damage. It happened and that's what started this whole Jeep recall thing. NHTSA did not push for this recall without evidence that something was wrong. It did so in an extraordinary 13 page, detailed letter to Chrysler (you can go to NHTSA's recall pages and see that most such letters are 2-3 pages). Read the NHTSA letter (I did) yourself. But I am sure that Chrysler thought it was right to fight the recall. And I am just as sure that Ditlow was objecting for just one reason - auto safety and quality. Not everyone is nuts and reasonable people can disagree and still just be reasonable people doing their job. The Jeep recall has nothing to do with big government or politics or guns. Folks may not like NHTSA or Ditlow or the Center for Auto Safety, but this recall has to do with one thing only - auto safety and quality. It is just plain stupid to put a gas tank behind the immovable hard metal rear axle where nothing but the rear plastic bumper is protecting it from rupturing in a rear end collision. A ruptured gas tank causes fires and fires kill people. The only way to fix stupid when it comes to car design, is to do a recall. And, as Chrysler knows, the way to limit the cost of a recall is to negotiate the quantity of vehicles being recalled.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,284 Posts
HemiDayton said:
What came out of it is that the industry standard placement location for fuel tanks is in front of the rear axle but Chrysler put the two recalled Jeep fuel tanks behind the rear axle, in a vulnerable position. No other SUV make does that and most vehicles of any kind don't do that.
And at one time most vehicles (other than pickup trucks) had the gas tank behind the rear axle. It was very common.
The Jeeps in question passed the safety standards of the day. Will my 1979 Cordoba be recalled since it has a rear mounted gas tank with (horror of horrors) a rear mounted filler tube?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
Granted the gas tank behind the rear axle is not optimum if your rear ended; however most all cars were made that way from the 1920's onward.

In the heyday of Ralph Nader's assault on the Corvair, GM got the bright idea of placing the gas filler tube behind a fold down rear license plate holder centered in the bumper.. If memory serves, this fueling arrangement was used on misized Buicks, Pontiacs, Olds etc. You flipped down the license plate, and removed the gas cap to gas up, the gas cap could be inserted to block the spring loaded plate down while pumping gas. I saw more than one of these cars driving away from the gas pump--- the driver having forgot to return the cap to the filler neck so these cars trailed a stream of raw gas during acceleration. And the filler neck on a flimsy rear bumper offered not one whit of protection durning a rear end wreck and could be snapped off easily dumping gas on the street. Where was Ralph Nader talking about this? Not a word from him, he was too busy destroying the Corvair over dubious issues of much less hazard.

Nader, a nut job, founded the org that Ditlow now heads, they even look alike and think alike; i.e. one nut job to another.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Lots of car designs have changed over the years, no doubt about that. Some for practical reasons and some for safety reasons. Change or die. It's the way the process works. Most of the cars I've owned in my lifetime had gas tanks behind the axle, yes, and I recall one whose gas tank I filled up at the license plate by flipping it down and, yes, I used the gas cap to keep it open during the fill up (although I never forgot to put it back on). Designers back then didn't think so much about safety aspects of what they built, that's for sure. But design improvements are just that, improvements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,121 Posts
Let's keep this about the topic. Right now disparaging Nader and Ditlow does nothing.

How many vehicles made since the 90's have gas tanks in this location? Are there any current vehicles locate there tanks there?

The NHTSA is not a bunch of idiots. If they re going after a vehicle, there is almost always merit to their case. I am not familir with Ditlow, but I suspect he just trying to be relevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,503 Posts
I believe the term is Myopia.

I think Ditlow and others convinced themselves first that there was a problem and then went about trying to prove it.

The tragedy combined with the fuel tank placement made this a good case to pursue as it aligned with their beliefs and included an emotional tale.

In regulated industries, if a company complies with all regulations, they should be exempt from this type of intimidation.

If there is a flaw or gap in the regulations, compliance can take place in the future.

This type of retroactive regulation and unchecked liability is one of the leading factors that drives companies off our shores.

Some wish to argue that there must be limits on all things. Well, I am waiting for the limits to be placed on litigious groups, like those headed by Ditlow.

Up until the present, any efforts to regulate the liability industry have been met with failure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,046 Posts
HemiDayton said:
It is just plain stupid to put a gas tank behind the immovable hard metal rear axle where nothing but the rear plastic bumper is protecting it from rupturing in a rear end collision.
Do you really think there is "nothing but a rear plastic bumper" protecting the vehicle? Remove the plastic and you'll see there's more to it than that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,327 Posts
dak4x4 said:
Granted the gas tank behind the rear axle is not optimum if your rear ended; however most all cars were made that way from the 1920's onward.

In the heyday of Ralph Nader's assault on the Corvair, GM got the bright idea of placing the gas filler tube behind a fold down rear license plate holder centered in the bumper.. If memory serves, this fueling arrangement was used on misized Buicks, Pontiacs, Olds etc. You flipped down the license plate, and removed the gas cap to gas up, the gas cap could be inserted to block the spring loaded plate down while pumping gas. I saw more than one of these cars driving away from the gas pump--- the driver having forgot to return the cap to the filler neck so these cars trailed a stream of raw gas during acceleration. And the filler neck on a flimsy rear bumper offered not one whit of protection durning a rear end wreck and could be snapped off easily dumping gas on the street. Where was Ralph Nader talking about this? Not a word from him, he was too busy destroying the Corvair over dubious issues of much less hazard.
A lot of cars including Chrysler (My 71 had the tank filler behind the license plate) had the filler located there. Very common in the past. Fuel tanks were almost universally under the floor of the trunk for years.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,686 Posts
Where was Ralph Nader talking about this? Not a word from him, he was too busy destroying the Corvair over dubious issues of much less hazard.
Ummm... even John DeLorean said that Ralph Nader was absolutely right about the Corvair. When's the last time you saw James Dean in a movie? I disagree with much of what's done in recent years but not about Corvair. The problem was it felt perfectly safe until you were out of control. My [Pennsy-built 1979] Rabbit was similar and many of my Rabbit driving friends ended up flipping them or in a ditch or pointed the wrong way on the Interstate. (For me, it was just the wrong way on an entrance ramp after hitting an invisible patch of sand.)

Fuel tanks were almost universally under the floor of the trunk for years
Ask yourself why they were moved out.

I do not think Ditlow is insane. I think he has tunnel vision. Yes, the tank placement in these vehicles was sub-optimal for safety. Yet they did not perform all that poorly and passed all existing and the more recent tests. The tunnel vision is in always blaming the vehicle and demanding ever safer vehicles without regard for any other factors. At some point we need to stop and ask, how many lives will we save with more safety stuff, vs how many will we lose by ignoring inspections, driver retraining, etc ... not to mention the arguable relationship of oil purchases (due to the weight of all the safety gear cars use more fuel) and terrorism?
 
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
Top