Fires resulting from accidents are tragic events. A statistically-based defense even if valid does not have emotional appeal Chrysler has learned.
Chrysler Group will recall 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee and 2002-2007 Jeep Liberty vehicles and modify the chassis. The sudden reversal announced this afternoon follows two years of investigation and controversy about the fuel system design on more than 2.7 million Jeeps. Earlier this month there was an unusual public disagreement between Chrysler and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration when Chrysler refused to recall the Jeeps at NHTSA’s request and issued a statement questioning NHTSA’s judgement. NHTSA now appears to have stared down the Fiat-controlled company in what was – at a minimum – a growing image disaster about the safety of its products. The first rule of automotive public relations applies here: when you are in a hole, stop digging it deeper. (“La prima regola di relazioni pubbliche si applica qui: quando sei in un fosso, smetti di scavare la più profonda,” should be sent to all the Fiat executives involved with running Chrysler.)
There are almost 200 crashes and close to 300 fatalities where fires were involved in the recalled Jeeps, according to the allegations of product liability lawyers and their closely aligned colleagues at the Center for Auto Safety. Chrysler Group now says it will conduct a voluntary recall that in addition to a visual inspection of the vehicle will, if necessary, provide an “upgrade to the rear structure” of the vehicle to improve management of the crash forces in low-speed impacts. The upgrade includes a factory or Mopar aftermarket trailer hitch assembly. If the Jeep has one in good repair, it’s okay. If not, it will be installed or fixed at no charge to the owner as required by U.S. safety regulations.
Chrysler’s analysis – it still maintains – claims that these Jeeps are not defective and are among the safest in the peer group of similar size SUVs.
“Nonetheless, Chrysler Group recognizes that this matter has raised concerns for its customers and wants to take further steps, in coordination with NHTSA, to provide additional measures to supplement the safety of its vehicles,” the company said in a statement just issued.
No other details were released, but more information about what the recall entails will ultimately be part of public documents that AutoInformed will obtain from NHTSA and comment on.
The latest safety statement from Chrysler is an attempt to stay consistent with previous Chrysler assertions in the controversy that AutoInformed first reported in February of 2011. (Read Chrysler Challenges Nader, Center for Auto Safety, Disputing Need for a Jeep Grand Cherokee Recall for Rear Impact Fires)
In practice, automaker communications departments are usually silent when media are reporting allegations by critics – including those with unsavory but lucrative ties to product liability lawyers – about safety matters.
Corporate lawyers, always playing defense, insist that the charges be tried in court where rules of evidence apply and cross examinations are allowed – both legal safeguards that are notably absent during virtually all the workings of a tabloid press corps looking for sensationalist headlines no matter how slight the knowledge of the often technical issues involved, before moving on to the next controversy, real or media manufactured.
So the common corporate communication practice includes a bland “we are cooperating statement,” along with the requisite “we take safety seriously,” as Chrysler once again said today. No further comment is then given, since the matter is subject to multiple combinations of possible, pending or actual litigation. Often this is interpreted as a cover-up by those predisposed to think that all auto companies are bad, a patently false statement since killing your customers is a demonstrably bad way to increase your business.
In its previous statements, Chrysler said the Jeeps “are not defective and their fuel systems do not pose an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety in rear-impact collisions. These Jeep vehicles have proven to be safe in operation and the Company’s analysis shows the incidents at the focus of this request occur less than one time for every million years of vehicle operation. (Chrysler’s emphasis.) Additionally, these vehicles met or exceeded all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards in place at the time they were built.”
CAS disagrees with its analysis, which claims that a study of 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees “with the fuel tank behind the rear axle had a fire death rate 20 times higher than the Ford Explorer with a fuel tank in front of the rear axle.”
Interesting precedent being set here. Chrysler contends that the vehicles in question met or exceeded all Federal standards in place at the time the 2.7 million vehicles were manufactured, which in some cases goes back two decades. NHTSA is essentially saying they have to be updated to the current standard, which to my knowledge is unprecedented.
Chrysler will meet the requirement by installing factory trailer hitches on all affected vehicles which were not initially so equiped. So, any of them that were sold with the factory hitches will not be recalled. Apparently the factory hitch provides enough protection to meet the new fuel integrity requirement. I’m a former owner of a bought-new 2001 Grand Cherokee that was equipped with the factory tow package, which included the hitch. I remember looking at the exposed plastic tank and thinking how vulnerable it was. However, rather than crash damage, I was thinking more in terms of it being smacked by off road obstacles, rocks, etc. on the trail. Needed a sturdy skid plate. Indeed, Mr Ditlow of C.A.S. said in an interview their data suggested the ones with factory tank skids were OK.
Chrysler made a good decision and I’m willing to conjecture their initial response was “Fix It Again Tony” management again misunderstanding the North American market. Many of us remember the FIAT debacle of the 70s, let’s not have a repeat performance, OK?
I am puzzled by the involvement of trailer towing packages. Could it be that the hitch systems are the culprit and not fuel tank per se? It would be typical of CAS and its litigious allies to fail to tell all the facts and bamboozle NHTSA (and the media) in the process. Could it be that vehicles with some trailer tow packages fare better than others in severe rear impacts? As I recall from reading earlier, those with Chrysler MOPAR hitches don’t need to be checked, and if so, sounds like it’s some aftermarket vendor with shallow pockets whose goose is about to be cooked.