Possible Recall 2002-2007?

[profdlp]

...they stuck a label on there saying don't leave on the ball mount if not towing something. Took them more time to put it on the lift that to do anything else...

Took me more time to scrape that stupid sticker off than all the rest of it combined. :gr_grin:

 

[Birdman330]

Took me more time to scrape that stupid sticker off than all the rest of it combined. :gr_grin:

I got lucky mine wasn't really stuck on there so I peeled it right off, after I was told it got ''misplaced'' as I had requested.

 

[Em96]

I heard something about that. I got papers in the mail saying that they would install a tow hitch in those models to protect from impact on the tanks in case of an accident. Idk how much that actually helps.

 

[CzarKJ]

I heard something about that. I got papers in the mail saying that they would install a tow hitch in those models to protect from impact on the tanks in case of an accident. Idk how much that actually helps.

From LOW SPEED impacts that hit just the hitch yes. High speed doesn't matter. Also the tank is still mostly unprotected without a fuel tank skid plate anyways.

 

[uss2defiant]

at least go do it and get your gift card. I think they're giving visa cards out to get people to do the hitch recall.

 

[tommudd]

My 04 still doesn't have one, again total BS

 

[LibertyTC]

They stuck a label on there saying don't leave on the ball mount if not towing something.

I wonder if they would have to hold a general meeting to name this mount..:icon_lol:
55473[/ATTACH]"]

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Hockeygoon]

My 04 still doesn't have one, again total BS

Agreed.

The hitch doesn't help at all. It was something dreamed up in a meeting with Ray LaHood and Chrysler officials when the government was demanding a fix to the exposed gas tank problem. My understanding was no studies or tests were done before the "fix" was quickly agreed to by Chrysler as it was by far the cheapest option. It sounds like it was something suggested as a possible fix during the meeting and by the end of the meeting it was agreed to be "the fix". Problem is even the ones with this "hitch" are still bursting into flames in low speed accidents.


Chrysler, Jeep recall from gas tank fires still raising safety concerns - CBS News

 

[tommudd]

Agreed.

The hitch doesn't help at all. It was something dreamed up in a meeting with Ray LaHood and Chrysler officials when the government was demanding a fix to the exposed gas tank problem. My understanding was no studies or tests were done before the "fix" was quickly agreed to by Chrysler as it was by far the cheapest option. It sounds like it was something suggested as a possible fix during the meeting and by the end of the meeting it was agreed to be "the fix". Problem is even the ones with this "hitch" are still bursting into flames in low speed accidents.


Chrysler, Jeep recall from gas tank fires still raising safety concerns - CBS News

Its not if the hitch does anything its the BS that they even are doing anything. The KJ met all standards when it was built , so few fires have been reported that its not really worth discussing. Only in the auto industry does such stupid things exist.

 

[Hockeygoon]

Its not if the hitch does anything its the BS that they even are doing anything. The KJ met all standards when it was built , so few fires have been reported that its not really worth discussing. Only in the auto industry does such stupid things exist.

Did it? Industry standard at the time had removed the fuel tank from the rear on all other makes. The Cherokee was to industry standards but the Liberty and Grand Cherokee continued with the fuel tank in an exposed position long after ever other manufacturer had moved it. Besides Jeep/Dodge the last rear mount fuel tank I can think of was the Bronco - dropped in 1996. At least it had a real frame, real bumper and a shield to protect it.

 

[tommudd]

Yes it did at the time
and I'll continue to say its all BS, lawyers etc are making the money on this deal

 

[Hockeygoon]

Yes it did at the time
and I'll continue to say its all BS, lawyers etc are making the money on this deal

Who else was building a vehicle with a rear mounted fuel tank?

 

[Leeann]

Who else was building a vehicle with a rear mounted fuel tank?

Irrelevant. It wasn't required by law. The fuel tank met all applicable safety standards in place at the time.

Also, the vehicle doesn't burst into flames in low-speed accidents. It explodes under high-speed conditions. The accident they kept mentioning during the negotiations happened at 60 mph.

 

[Hockeygoon]

Irrelevant. It wasn't required by law. The fuel tank met all applicable safety standards in place at the time.

Also, the vehicle doesn't burst into flames in low-speed accidents. It explodes under high-speed conditions. The accident they kept mentioning during the negotiations happened at 60 mph.

You think industry standards are set by law?

Very relevant - why do you suppose all other manufacturers had quit using rear mount fuel tanks? Their cars had a tendency to catch fire in rear end accidents. In the 1970s Ford was sued over them and paid millions, then in the late 1980s early 1990s Chevy was sued over them and paid over a billion. WTF was Chrysler thinking? Didn't they read the papers?

The industry standard was set - don't use rear mount fuel tanks unless you want to be sued. Apparently they wanted to be sued.

 

[profdlp]

Why do you own a Liberty and post on a Liberty forum if you hate them so much? That's like moving to Paris and complaining about all the French people. Are you a *********? :mexsmoke:

 

[Hockeygoon]

Why do people have a problem with honest conservation?

 

[Hockeygoon]

Why do you own a Liberty and post on a Liberty forum if you hate them so much? That's like moving to Paris and complaining about all the French people. Are you a *********? :mexsmoke:

If you didn't have contact with the French why would you complain about them?

 

[tjkj2002]

Who else was building a vehicle with a rear mounted fuel tank?

During the time in question?


Ford,GM,Toyota,and Izuzu just to name a few besides Chrysler.




Oh and the '07 KJ with a rear mounted gas tank passed the stricter crash tests which forced all others to move the gas tank forward.They changed to tests again a few years ago which they are trying to use against Jeeps made years before the new standards.

 

[tommudd]

Why do people have a problem with honest conservation?

I don't have an issue with honest, good , practical conservation ,
heck my Grandfather and I were practicing it back in the 70s, plowing on the curvature of the land on our farm. We also created many acres into wildlife habitat during that time.

But now back to the gas tank conversation
I think the term of industry standards is some what misleading
who sets the so called industry standards and then everyone is suppose to follow?
The KJs met all rules and regs set at that time and I still think its foolish to make any auto manufacturer go back and rebuild an automobile 5-10-15 years later

 

[Hockeygoon]

During the time in question?


Ford,GM,Toyota,and Izuzu just to name a few besides Chrysler.

What models?