Jeep cherokee Added to investigation of fire danger...

Just fyi...

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/201...gation-into-fire-risk-of-jeep-grand-cherokee/

It cuts off the model year at 1993, but is there really a difference between my 1992 and a 1993 that is a part of this?

armor and gas tanks usually cite differences between 1997 and up, not 1993 and up, don't they?

Even so, my tank is RIGHT there behind the bumper just like those mentioned.

Not saying I'm super worried, more than I'm interested in hearing their findings. It's more that I'm unclear as to why they chose that year as a cutoff. :dunno:

they probably just dont investigate vehicles that are 20 years old or older.

Vanimal said:

they probably just dont investigate vehicles that are 20 years old or older.

Click to expand...

Yeah, thats what I was thinking, too. That there might be a statute of limitations, or maybe more of an official/unofficial "cutoff" to limit a companies liability.

two dozen total instances since 1993. thats not enough evidence to be concerned.

Hey Cal, yeah, I was just reading some of those statistics, too.

Were the two dozen instances for the XJ, or the Grand Cherokee's they had already investigated?

It said two doze grand cherokee's. They never mentioned a single instance of the XJ, I'm guessing its just related to the similar tank design.

cal said:

It said two doze grand cherokee's. They never mentioned a single instance of the XJ, I'm guessing its just related to the similar tank design.

Click to expand...

10-4, I see that having read it and a few other news blurbs. They're probably going to find those statistics on the Libby and XJ, now, too...

There is already a second thread going on about this.

http://naxja.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1085661

Oops. I searched. Oh well.

Only thread that popped up was the thread relaying info about a family that perished in a fire-related accident. They were rear-ended hard by a drunk driver.

That's the thing about this...


Take the Crown Vic for example. Ford has been sued for fires. Ford has gone so far as to offer a trunk fire suppression system in Police Vics.

You know why? Because it's not uncommon for a Vic to catch fire if it's parked at a dead stop and hit from behind at 75 mph. That is a lot of energy, more than you can really design around.

Any vehicle with a tank between the bumper and axle has this "fault," hell this is the same issue the Pinto had back in the early 70s. If you hit it hard enough the tank will rupture. Try not to write anybody tickets on the side of the Interstate and you'll be a lot safer.

bad things happen when you put stupid bling rims and lo-pros on a 4x4

Im all for jokes, even when people potentially got hurt, but that guy was probably rear ended because of no fault of his own... dont be a jerkoff, karmas a bitch. Maybe someday you or a loved one will die in a fire because of no fault of their own.

that jeep was hit hard! i wonder if the extra steel of a hitch and a gas tank skid would help protect the tanks in a impact like this.

DesertRunner said:

that jeep was hit hard! i wonder if the extra steel of a hitch and a gas tank skid would help protect the tanks in a impact like this.

Click to expand...

I've been hit 3 times in my current xj, and all three times the impact was directed at the hitch's ball mount.

Two were trucks (f250 and chevy silverado) and one was a nissan altima.

Both trucks came away with damaged bumpers, and the car had a broken grill and dented hood where the hitch encroached on the engine compartment. I recieved no damage in all 3 accidents other than possibly wallowing out the hitch mount bolt holes at the subframe, and as I realized later on, bending the threaded stalk of the ball mount.

The car didn't have any sign of damage on the bumper, interestingly, meaning if this was more than just a 10-15mph hit, it likely would have eventually underridden my jeep, and made contact with my tank.

So, long story, short, I think a hitch with ball mount "armor, AND an aftermarket skidplate similar to a tomken or similar would go a long way to prevent damage.


On the other hand, when it comes to catastrophic rearend hits at 40+ mph, which would have the unibody buckling and moving towards the rear seat, I don't know if anything would prevent the rear tank from being compressed and ruptured. If it WERE sturdy enough to withstand deformation, the load transfer to the occupants would likely be just as, if not more, deadly than the possible fire danger.

yea, i guess it's just down to how you want to go out. either mangled, or crispy. i certainly would not want to be burned alive.

a good solid 90% of the time im the only occupant in my jeep. the other 10% its usually just my wife and we dont have kids yet. seeing things like this always make me want to have cages, 5pts and fuel cells.

Vanimal said:

yea, i guess it's just down to how you want to go out. either mangled, or crispy. i certainly would not want to be burned alive.

Click to expand...

x2... I was a firefighter for a while and thats the very reason i got out. My buddy got burned right next to me when a room he was next to flashed over. I was on the hose and doused him immediately but his left side was already injured. Just like that.

All it took for me to say, "fukk this, i'm outa here" career-wise. Consequently, i have mad respect for career guys/gals, and a healthy fear of fuel containers(especially when they're riding shotgun)..lol.