Old cars are dangerous, or a genuine bad design? - JeepForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 04:26 PM Thread Starter
cappedup
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Carmel
Posts: 73
Old cars are dangerous, or a genuine bad design?

It's might be old news here, or not. I couldn't find anything about it.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/auto...sal/index.html

Basically. Fuel tank is behind rear axle. In a rear end shunt it can/does get compromised and as a result the stats for fires in certain Jeeps after accidents is higher.

Is this a case of old cars being judged by today's safety standards?

cappedup is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 04:41 PM
wsigo
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappedup View Post
Is this a case of old cars being judged by today's safety standards?
Yes.

The only totally "safe" car, is NO car.
wsigo is offline  
post #3 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 04:47 PM
Technohead
Old School
 
Technohead's Avatar
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Exeter, RI
Posts: 7,330
Fuel tanks have been behind the rear axle since gas-powered vehicles came into existence. No big deal.
Technohead is offline  
post #4 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 04:50 PM
zander21510
Registered User
1995 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dallas
Posts: 2,139
This has been brought up the past year or so...hey I hope they have to give us a recall, odds are it would be a skidplate or something free lol.

People need to realize cars were made to the safety standards of their era and can't be held to the same standards as today...every time my girlfriend says "OMG your car is such a deathtrap!" I remind her it was totally safe in 1995, and that a car is only as safe as the person driving it.
zander21510 is offline  
post #5 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 05:02 PM
5-90
Registered User
 
5-90's Avatar
1988 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 5,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappedup View Post
It's might be old news here, or not. I couldn't find anything about it.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/auto...sal/index.html

Basically. Fuel tank is behind rear axle. In a rear end shunt it can/does get compromised and as a result the stats for fires in certain Jeeps after accidents is higher.

Is this a case of old cars being judged by today's safety standards?
Yes.

However, it's not the CAR that's unsafe, it's the untrained halfwit in control of the thing that causes all the trouble...

"recon" (sic - reckon)(tm) "hihgly"(tm) "seceed"(tm)
"Outback AIDS - Alcohol-Induced Dizzy Spells"
5-90 is offline  
post #6 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 05:11 PM Thread Starter
cappedup
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Carmel
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5-90 View Post
Yes.

However, it's not the CAR that's unsafe, it's the untrained halfwit in control of the thing that causes all the trouble...
In the case of a rear end shunt the driver is as much a passenger as the, er passenger.

What is it about the Jeeps fuel tank design that seems to be raising the stats for fires after rear end collisions? Why is this designs tank compromised when other cars are less so?

The attached report says that Jeeps up to and including 2004 Cherokees and 2007 Liberties are concerned. Although 9 and 6 years old, they are hardly what you would call an 'old car'.
cappedup is offline  
post #7 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 05:46 PM
dmill89
Registered User
1995 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Harrisburg
Posts: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappedup View Post
What is it about the Jeeps fuel tank design that seems to be raising the stats for fires after rear end collisions? Why is this designs tank compromised when other cars are less so?

The attached report says that Jeeps up to and including 2004 Cherokees and 2007 Liberties are concerned. Although 9 and 6 years old, they are hardly what you would call an 'old car'.
It is a case of the NHTSA making something of nothing. All these vehicles were built to the safety standards of the time they were made. The actual number of crashes resulting in fire from this and fatalities is very low a grand total of 37 crashes and 51 fatalities out of 2.7 million vehicles and over 20 years that works out to 0.000014% of vehicles sold being involved in such a collision. Even the NHTSA stated that this is not significantly higher than other vehicles from the same time period but still tried to get a recall .

The NHTSA trying to apply current standards to 20 year old (or even 7 years old in the case of the Liberty) vehicles is ridiculous and likely illegal (this would be an example of an ex-post-facto law which the constitution specifically prohibits, not that the current administration cares about that pesky thing). What's next recall every vehicle made before air-bags, anti-lock brakes, stability control, seat belts, etc. ? If you want a vehicle with all the that meets all the current safety standards and has all current technology, buy a new one.
dmill89 is offline  
post #8 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 07:28 PM
SLOspeed
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oakland
Posts: 60
The ZJ can't survive a 65mph hit from a semi? What a POS. I want my money back.
SLOspeed is offline  
post #9 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 09:03 PM
jeepkid945
Registered User
1993 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 124
Had a 69 volkswagen a few years back in highschool and the fuel tanks are in the front so totally safe from a rear end collision Haha
jeepkid945 is offline  
post #10 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 09:53 PM
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 19,161
Over 1.4 million made you would think it would have been an issue 20 years ago if it was anything to worry about. A bunch of liberal B.S.
PolkaPower is offline  
post #11 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 09:55 PM
jnowak
Registered User
1993 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: dahlonega
Posts: 492
In my 1970 f-100 standard cab, the tank is in the cabin behind the seat. Lol, when I fill up all the way the top seal leaks. So I smell gas till about 3/4 of a tank. How bout that for a safety feature.
jnowak is offline  
post #12 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 09:59 PM
dnuccio
Registered User
1995 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLOspeed View Post
The ZJ can't survive a 65mph hit from a semi? What a POS. I want my money back.
right? show me a vehicle that can and then ill be impressed.

Reliability is relative
R.I.P. Ratmonkey
dnuccio is offline  
post #13 of 47 Old 06-04-2013, 10:07 PM
zjosh93
Registered User
1993 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,951
Even if, hypothetically, the ZJ had the worst rear end collision fuel tank rupture rate leading to vehicle fires it wouldn't legally matter as long as it met the safety standards of the day. That's why there are safety standards. Otherwise every vehicle would have to meet the standards of the safest vehicle and we'd all be driving identical Volvos. Won't stop you from getting sued though.

There just really isn't a safe place to mount a container holding gallons of gasoline. Lots of cars have them behind the rear axle and both Pintos and Crown Vics have already run through that gamut. A lot of trucks have side mounted tanks and Chevy already got dragged through the mud on that. No one wants to put the tank very near the passenger compartment or anywhere it interferes with interior space or can be damaged in an accident. Where does that leave?
zjosh93 is offline  
post #14 of 47 Old 06-05-2013, 12:03 AM
zander21510
Registered User
1995 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dallas
Posts: 2,139
Looks like this is a big deal now...even my buddy saw it in the news. Chrysler's making a big gamble, saying NO to the fed's recall. This should get interesting....
zander21510 is offline  
post #15 of 47 Old 06-05-2013, 01:24 AM
Oldfrog
Registered User
2007 WK 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Louisiana/Texas
Posts: 5,091
I'd be tickled if they sent me $300 for a PCM....or heck...even a tank of gas at this point.

2007 5.7 Hemi, Ltd. QD II -
1997 ZJ, 4,0 select trac, Up country, track lok.
Oldfrog is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome