• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

93-2004 Grand Cherokee Safety Probe

Sideshow

NAXJA Forum User
Location
Lynnwood, Wa
http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/24/autos/Jeep_Grand_Cherokee/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T2

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Federal safety regulators have opened an investigation into gas tanks that could pose a fire danger on an estimated 3 million older Jeep Grand Cherokees, documents showed Tuesday.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it launched the preliminary investigation on Monday in response to a petition it received in October from consumer watchdog the Center for Auto Safety. The probe does not mean the vehicles are being recalled.

CAS claims that Jeep Grand Cherokees made between 1993 and 2004 have defective fuel tank storage systems that present a fire hazard in crashes. The group said federal records indicate that the Cherokees in question were involved in 172 fire crashes where 254 people died. But it did not say specifically that defective fuel tanks were to blame.According to CAS, the plastic gas tank on the Jeep Grand Cherokees from those model years was placed behind the rear axle and below the bumper, where it could be ruptured in a rear-impact collision. The tanks in question also had inadequate shielding, the group said.
In response, NHTSA reviewed the records going back to 1992 and identified 10 crashes where the alleged defect may have been a factor. Those crashes resulted in 13 deaths, the agency said.
Scott Brown, spokesman for Chrysler Group, which makes Jeep, said that the company is fully cooperating with NHTSA in the investigation.
"The 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee meets or exceeds all applicable federal safety and has an excellent safety record," Brown wrote in an e-mail to CNNMoney.com.
 
Was just reading that myself. Seems to be back to the same BS that people went through with Crown Vic's a few years ago.

Maybe it's just me, but ANY vehicle that's rear ended hard enough has a potential to ignite. One of those "common sense" things I guess.
 
Yeah, that whole "fuel tank is rear mounted and not constructed from unobtainium" thing. Pesky physics and logic.

These are probably the same people who need to be told to be careful with hammers.
 
IIRC the ones going up were being hit by vehicles running at speeds no lower than 45mph while the GC's involved was at or near a dead stop too and I think a few of them were even hit by busses or heavy trucks. There was a guy on Dodgetalk that was insistant that Chrylser had to do something about those deathtraps, but had never responded after I suggested his little late 60's/early 70's A-body (either a Dart or Duster, can't remember for sure) wouldn't fair any better in such a crash and since it has a rear mounted metal tank.


Yeah, that whole "fuel tank is rear mounted and not constructed from unobtainium" thing. Pesky physics and logic.

These are probably the same people who need to be told to be careful with hammers.

That's probably right on the money there:doh:
 
Last edited:
Oh no!
Quick, someone tell
2z4hf2e.jpg

to file some ridiculous lawsuit.
 
Stupid physics....gets ya every time!!!

Did they change the location on the WK's? Haven't looked at one real hard...curious as to why the probe stops with the WJ.
 
Stupid physics....gets ya every time!!!

Did they change the location on the WK's? Haven't looked at one real hard...curious as to why the probe stops with the WJ.

I think they moved the tanks up higher and inboard from the previous locations. Kinda like what they did on the JK's vs all previous open top Jeeps.

Does this mean a free gas tank skid for my dad's wj?

If Chrysler is forced to do something, that would be the quickest and cheapest way to protect those tanks without any major modifications to the unibody or replacing the tank with a physically smaller one that would tuck ouyt of the way better than the standard one would.
 
This is similar to the deal with Ford Pintos from the early '70s, where a hard enough hit would push the tank into the rear axle. The recall involved placing a plastic shield ahead of the tank, so it wouldn't split if driven into the differential. But, the threat magically went away with the 1974 models, because of the federally mandated 10MPH bumpers. Don't all modern vehicles still have this, although well hidden under plastic bumper caps? Or did various SUV models circumvent this because they're trucks? Oh, wait, we have four XJs, and none are equipped with energy-absorbing bumpers.
Maybe I should sue the Federal Government because they let a primarily passenger carrying vehicle NOT be equipped with a safety device. And, since they are a major stockholder in said company, aren't they even more liable?
 
Yeah, that whole "fuel tank is rear mounted and not constructed from unobtainium" thing. Pesky physics and logic.

These are probably the same people who need to be told to be careful with hammers.

When I get home I'll post the parking signs here out on the cape, sign in center of pull in parking space, 'put center of hood against signpost'.
 
Wasn't the Crown Vic thing something about the tanks occasionally exploding when a stationary car got hit from behind by a vehicle doing 60-70 mph? 'Wonder if those 10 Cherokees had a similar problem. 'Also wonder how many (if any) of them had the skid installed.
 
IIRC the skids will help reduce that since that will protect the take from run-unders and such. In a bad enough collision though, I can't imagine a factory skid being much more help if not a way to puncture the tank depending on how that collapses and folds up under that kind of load.
 
If this dramatically devalues all of the used ZJ and WJ grocery getters, then it seems OK to me. It'll save me some money when I go to pick up a used one :)
 
Back
Top