[Allpar News System]

Critics of Jeeps with rear-mounted gas tanks have continued to demand more action from Chrysler, though the vehicles far exceeded contemporary standards for crashworthiness and in most cases are more than ten years old, the limit for mandated recalls. Although the cases of fire are tragic, the collisions often far exceeded any federal regulations, and it is possible that cars with completely different designs would also have failed.

Jeep critics met with NHTSA officials to demand that Chrysler do more than reinforce older Jeeps with hitch assemblies (these are not solely hitches, but also reinforce the bumper area) and replace unsafe aftermarket hitches with their own assemblies, although the original design of the vehicle appears to be adequate to cover crashes with double the force required by law. In particular, advocates have demanded that the Jeeps be crash-tested with the hitch assemblies. According to Larry Vellequette of Automotive News, the..

View the original, full post

 

[freshforged]

enough with the fact-less white papers--the only way to put out this fire is to fight these extremist agitators with the truth.

 

[Stratuscaster]

The only problem with that is getting people to first listen to it, and then actually accept it. Difficult for some to do when emotion overrides logic.

 

[MoparNorm]

Can this thread be moved to the "who cares" section?
The reason nuts like Nadir, Gloria Is Allred and others become famous for 15 seconds, is because they get attention. Don't give them the satisfaction of gratification, by calling attention to them.
There are several threads about this subject, they have quieted down, Chrysler has responded, we don't need to start a new thread about it every week.
The headline should be Speeding Semis Cause Deaths. Duh...

 

[Dave Z]

Nader became famous for attacking a vehicle that was patently unsafe at a time when Detroit's concessions to safety were, well, padded dashboards and safety wheels. Regardless of what he's doing now, his early work had merit.

You will notice I did not mention the lead instigators by name.

Part of the issue in this case is very definitely political, there is Big Money behind this publicity campaign (which is why it won't freakin' die).

And yes, I'd like to stop it.

 

[humdrum]

I keep reading that this won't die down because of "well funded" critics. Like anything else, one just needs to follow the money to see what and who motivates these people. You would think that there would be a 7 year statute of limitations on these complaints. By this kind of reasoning being employed, problems that arose in the 70's would still be liable for repair. I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

 

[Dave Z]

There's a ten year limit, humdrum. As Bill Cawthon pointed out and as we had in this iteration.

At the risk of having this post removed as political, the fact is that as long as Chrysler is marked as a stand-in for President Obama's performance, this sort of thing will keep on going, along with crazy lawsuits by dealers with deep pockets and lots of rage, and Indiana officials (y'know, neither the courts nor I bought the claim that the Indiana Treasurer really expected Chrysler not to have risks, when he bought lots of bonds at something like nine cents on the dollar.)

 

[bumonbox]

There's a ten year limit, humdrum. As Bill Cawthon pointed out and as we had in this iteration.

At the risk of having this post removed as political, the fact is that as long as Chrysler is marked as a stand-in for President Obama's performance, this sort of thing will keep on going, along with crazy lawsuits by dealers with deep pockets and lots of rage, and Indiana officials (y'know, neither the courts nor I bought the claim that the Indiana Treasurer really expected Chrysler not to have risks, when he bought lots of bonds at something like nine cents on the dollar.)

I get what you are saying, as some anti Chrysler garbage has come from misdirected anger resulting from the continued insistance of tying Chrysler to Obama. He made basically one decision, it that decision turned out well ultimately, and that is where their ties end. It does need to stop. Especially, speaking purely politically, that it would be far more logical, more convincing to recognize Chrysler's success and specifically not attribute it to Obama.

That said, I wouldn't consider myself convinced that this persistance is a product of that. Especially because ideologically, this flies in the face of the convservative perspective. Since most conservatives see the system as overregulated / with the wrong regulations - it would be quite ironic to switch gears and decide the regulation was insufficient. Not saying it didn't happen, as it is not uncommon to be at odds with your own idealogy for political gain. But I am definitely skeptical . Also more of these overly litigious "consumer oriented groups" seem to reflect a more left leaning perspective. (I am not, for the record using that as any sort of indictment of liberal minded people. Naturally, many dislike these groups just as I do)

 

[Dave Z]

He made basically one decision, it that decision turned out well ultimately, and that is where their ties end. It does need to stop.

Agreed.

Since most conservatives see the system as overregulated / with the wrong regulations - it would be quite ironic to switch gears and decide the regulation was insufficient.

Many of those who call themselves conservative aren't. Just because they're in the same party as real conservatives, doesn't mean anything. I must point out that it's "conservatives" who keep enacting state laws that strip automakers of their contracts with dealers, and keep regulating and regulating and regulating automakers in the specific case of franchise law.

The same organization that screamed bloody murder over the closure of dealerships as "government interfering with business" simultaneously demanded that government step in and overrule automaker contracts with other dealerships.

The people who I suspect are funding this nonsense scream and cry constantly about government overreach but they sure take a lot of government money and support legislation that takes away our right to sue or manage our own property.

Calling one’s self a conservative does not make it so.

 

[valiant67]

It's interesting that the Jeep recall issue is bringing politics into the discussion. I suspect it's more trial lawyer related than politics related but then again I don't know who is spending the money. And if it is political, I guess they are pretty stupid if they think some anti-Jeep billboard today is going to be associated in the mind of Joe Blow with an auto bailout that happened how many seasons of American Idol ago?

 

[Muther]

Are we going full polical in this thread? If so...

Fiat has been after Chrysler for a long time. The idea predates Sergio, and Daimler, I believe. Obama didn't really make the decision, he appointed good people, and they made the right decision. They then told him what to do. Like most presidents, he is only as good as the people he surround himself with. Obama was hit and miss for a long time with appointees (he hit with the so called car Czar, not so much with others).

I have tons and tons and tons of polical ammo to unload if we ARE going full political.

If we are not going full political...

These groups are both good and bad. They do tend to take out some of the healthy tissue sometimes, when they go after the cancer, but overall, I think they are a good thing. There are horsepoo consumer advocacy groups, too, and consumer advocacy groups very strong with ties to both sides of the aisle (each washes the hands of the other for mutual benefit, sometimes maliciously, sometimes for good). Like anything, you have to inform yourself before you go spouting off about this group or that group.

As far a Nader goes, there is probably no other American who has done more to save lives, and that goes way, way, way, beyond the automotive industry. Yes, I would agree though, that lately (mid nineties to present), he has let his name go to seed as it were. Maybe he has a retirement to pay, I don't know.

 

[Dave Z]

Muther, I think we're on the same page.

Funny thing is, Chrysler and GM ... Pres. Obama handled them rather differently, but in some ways, there were similarities. Appointing Akerson to GM was, I think we can agree, not a smart move. Took him very little time to depose Fritz, who was just what GM needed at that point — someone with priorities, not an overgrown sense of executive entitlement — and take over himself, taking a massive salary and paying off the board members who led the switch.

I don't know any Akerson supporters... are there any out there?

 

[Muther]

Personally I could care less about GM.

They are too big to fail (obviosuly)...
so if they screw themselves up again...
big papa (Uncle Sam) will step in...
spank them...
give them billions...
and send them on their way...

again...

I do like the idea of hte new Z28, though. Its purity of purpose is admirable. Now, Mother Mopar needs to show them how it's really supposed to be done, using the Chally, or maybe the Barracuda, if it ever gets here.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

Since we're going political......and nobody pointed out.......Jeep represents SUVs ----- the ultimate evil and symbol of consumption, in the eyes of liberal environmental groups.

Add in the anti-corporation liberals, trial lawyers and a media that no longer presents facts, but "stories"......and you have an alliance with deep pockets.

So, there are many facets to this story, not just an anti-Obama side.

 

[73PlymouthDuster]

Nader became famous for attacking a vehicle that was patently unsafe at a time when Detroit's concessions to safety were, well, padded dashboards and safety wheels. Regardless of what he's doing now, his early work had merit.

You will notice I did not mention the lead instigators by name.

Part of the issue in this case is very definitely political, there is Big Money behind this publicity campaign (which is why it won't freakin' die).

And yes, I'd like to stop it.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one.

Nader had it in for General Motors. He hated the company and the unconvential design of the Corvair gave
him an opportunity for his 15 minutes of fame. A rear engine car handles completely different than a front engine one....
Perhaps GM needed to better educate its buyers better before letting them purchase a vehicle with those unique
driving dynamics. If you compare the Corvair to a Porsche 911 of its respective era, the Corvair was a hell of a lot
more predictable and stable. Yet, old Ralph never mentioned the potential handling issues of the similarly designed
Porsche because it wasn't manufacturered by "evil" General Motors.

Nader was and always will be a blowhard. Nothing he ever did was of any consequence. Well, besides insuring
a Bush victory in 2000. But, beyond that.... Nada......

 

[Muther]

Chevy changed its design of the Corvair shortly after "Unsafe at Any Speed" was published. They addressed the issues he brought up in the book, mostly having to do with the from suspension. The book was about the automotive industry's safety record, not solely about the Corvair, or GM.

Porsche later addressed similar issues with the 911, fearing the same things GM feared.

Nader didn't thnk GM (or the auto giants) were evil. His premise was, that corporations, both large and small weren't being called on the carpet for the things they were doing. His greatest contribution was to change activism itself. Einstein changed science. Gaudi changed architecture. Nader changed activism. He changed the mindset of Americans. His attacks of the auto industry were the most famous of his achievements, but also among the smallest of his contribuitons.

He was instrumental in removing PCB's from capacitors, and electronics, and forcing the electronics makers to stop using them, and to clean up their polution. Among his greatest achievements are his work in ecology (anyone remember the rivers that used to burn?). Democratic capitalism is a partnership. Too much government, and the capitalism half of the equation fails. Too much capitalism, and the other half of the equation fails. Having no governmental interference, is just as bad as having too much. Nader, was part of the balance, using his, and our free speach rights, to force irresponsible companies to rethink how they did business.




(before anyone says anything about PCB's, google it. Read. I have a lot of dead friends, all from Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Nader might as well have saved my very life.)

 

[moparmodelfan]

What ticks me off is they want these vehicles held to current standards. Do they expect every car or light truck on the road today no matter how old it is to meet the current safety standards? I can just imagine it now. They are going to crash test a Model T using todays standards. Then make Ford recall all of them to put in seat belts, ABS, air bags, and whatever else. Once you open Pandora's Box you can't close it or but back what came out.

 

[Muther]

Other industries are protected by law. After so many years, the manufacturer, has no liability. The aircraft industry comes to mind. I wholeheartedly agree. 22 years, is a damned long time. You'd think ks safety issue would have surfaced at least a decade ago. I wonder what the satory is behind the story. The onenot being reported, or maybe actuively suppressed.

 

[tryphon]

Agreed.

Many of those who call themselves conservative aren't. Just because they're in the same party as real conservatives, doesn't mean anything. I must point out that it's "conservatives" who keep enacting state laws that strip automakers of their contracts with dealers, and keep regulating and regulating and regulating automakers in the specific case of franchise law.

The same organization that screamed bloody murder over the closure of dealerships as "government interfering with business" simultaneously demanded that government step in and overrule automaker contracts with other dealerships.

The people who I suspect are funding this nonsense scream and cry constantly about government overreach but they sure take a lot of government money and support legislation that takes away our right to sue or manage our own property.

Calling one’s self a conservative does not make it so.

This Country needs a third party! Now!

 

[bumonbox]

This Country needs a third party! Now!

Probably a 4th party really. Both parties are terrified of a 3rd party dipping too much into the support of the respective party and losing the election for the both of them. Inevitably, nearly every independant party still has a particularly leaning, which means they're likely to take votes away from only one of the main parties. That detours them, the voters themselves, and makes the respective mainstream party more aggressive in uprooting any such effort. If you had 2 successful independant parties or opposing leanings, that could well ease those concerns.

But, err. Ok. As indicated, I really see no evidence that this effort is a product of anti-Obamism. It would be easier to make a far more compelling and current case on something else. Not to mention, the defense against this is too strong. There are much easier targets. It just smells like good ol' fashion idiots stirring up muck for a little bit of fame and recognition, and money or something. Heck, the death of Dodge publications have much more potential to be anti obama peices. As they would suggest Sergio is taking the company apart and that the wrong decision was made. While I've stated I am not completely sold on Sergio's path, I don't think he's out the kill the brands. Not just yet anyways.