Jeep Enthusiast Forums banner

1993 - 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee Government RECALL on Gas Tanks

21K views 283 replies 137 participants last post by  rdkendrick 
#1 ·
#2 ·
It's a bull**** request that has no merit.

Is the dealer really going to relocate my gas tank for me, making sure to avoid interference with my armor, lift and aftermarket rear bumper? Or should I be forced to give up a $11,000 vehicle for zero compensation?
 
#3 ·
Seriously? How did they miss every XJ ever made having the gas tank behind the axle? Or is it high enough to be protected?

I'm pretty sure every mustang ever made up until the S197 in '05 had the gas tank behind the rear axle and below the crash bar. Is Ford going to recall 40 years worth of mustangs?

What do they want them to do anyway? Cut out the spare tire well and move the tank up?
 
#10 ·
Seriously? How did they miss every XJ ever made having the gas tank behind the axle? Or is it high enough to be protected?
It is likely the leaf springs and rear shackle mounts which are right in front of the rear bumper (and behind/under the tank) that protect the tank on the XJ vs. the control arms and coils on the ZJ/WJ which do not extend behind the axle providing no protection when struck by a "low-nosed" vehicle.

That being said it still isn't the issue that the NHTSA is making it out to be, the ZJ, WJ, and KJ all met the safety standards when they were built and The NHTSA is trying to apply current standards to 10-20 year old vehicles which 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. ?

And as gcjeeping said the odds are so low it isn't even worth worrying about and the rate of fires on ZJ/WJ/KJs isn't significantly higher than other vehicles from the same time period.
 
#4 ·
Concerning the Mustang, the issue is not so much that the tank is located behind the rear axle but more about being located there ...combined with the height of the tank in proportion to the likely lower vehicle or same height that hits it.

More to the point, in a rear colision, if the tank suffers a direct hit as in the case of a lower vehicle and a WJ, the tank is not surrounded by structure that will offset the impact and deflect damage away from the tank.

A reasonable solution is not obvious to NHTSA nor reasonable for Chrysler to implement. The WJ met the standard at the time and though the standard was set low in comparison to now, it was the standard.

Here's more (older) coverage & video of the tank giving up fuel. http://abcnews.go.com/US/safety-adv...-recall-jeep-grand-cherokee/story?id=13791477

Do you ignore the past and future deaths/injuries or do something? That's the question that court will decide I guess.
 
#5 ·
I think the stat was that there is a death that is directly attributed to a fire caused by a rear impact to a ZJ or WJ once for every million yesrs they have been on the road. Perfectly acceptable imo, otherwise you have to go back and apply current standards to other manufacturers as well.
 
#7 ·
This has been popping up every month or so for the 5 years Ive been a member of this forum. Its something thats been around for almost a decade. Chrysler has already released their "fix" with a big slice of steel on the drivers side of the tank.
 
#13 ·
According to the data included in Chrysler's response to this, I am safer in an '84 Dodge Aries than I am in my WJ. That's inspiring and doesn't at all cause me to raise an eyebrow. I've never really been a fan of burning to death though. No matter how low the odds might be, I always like to go lower on something like that.
 
#45 ·
According to the data included in Chrysler's response to this, I am safer in an '84 Dodge Aries than I am in my WJ. That's inspiring and doesn't at all cause me to raise an eyebrow. I've never really been a fan of burning to death though. No matter how low the odds might be, I always like to go lower on something like that.
So wear a flame retardant suit and a helmet when you drive. That would lower your odds of burning up or head injury. Maybe a head restraint system like NASCAR. You could also put in a 5 gal gas tank too. Less gas to burn.

Maybe an electric car. WAIT, didnt they catch on fire too.

Well crap. I'll just lock myself in the house and hope I dont get hit with a storm, earthquake or nuclear annihilation.

Well.... If you don't like the design, don't buy one.
Amen. Sell it if your worried. Or better yet. Take it to the JY and scrap it so other wont be in danger.

Also this will help me find new parts for mine. :)
 
#14 ·
I was rear ended at 40+ mph in A 97 ZJ that already had rear end damage. The gas tank was jammed in to the rear axle leaving an imprint in the front of the tank and locking the rear axle in place. The entire body was bent leaving the top rear corners of the rear doors sticking up and out. For a full month not a drop of fuel came out of a full tank.
 
#15 ·
So if I wanted to buy the part that is the suggested fix by the NHTSA what part would that be? Would a frame mounted class III trailer hitch (not a factory one, one that hangs down a bit) protect the tank?

I had a 1965 and 1969 Mustang, both with "drop-in" gas tanks and now a 2001 Jeep GC. (No Pinto however). Am I pushing my luck?

RockAuto sells skid plates but they look like they just cover the diff.
 
#17 ·
Even if there is a recall, I wouldn't expect a relocation, a skid plate/frame reinforcement (most likely) or possibly a self-sealing tank (what was done on the Pinto) would be far more likely than a relocation since a relocation would require allot more engineering.
 
#19 ·
Then move it.It will require suspension mods and major unibody mods to place it midway like a WK.You could always place a fuel cell inside but that is more likely to cause death then where it is located right now.
 
#22 ·
Yeah, they'll move it for me. NHTSA says so and they are always right.
And these threads keep popping up because this is "news" as in, it's on TV and all over the net. Currently. Right now.
While you're at it, I'll send you a list of other "non technical" WJ threads you can move, starting with the picture thread :laugh:
 
#24 ·
:rolleyes:

How ever will the government protect us all?!

This is stupid, if rear gas tanks were a huge issue we'd have to take pretty much every Jeep produced through 2006 off the road..

There is inherent risk with driving, deal with it. Its no worse in your WJ than in any other vehicle. If you're still concerned, sell your Jeep and get something else.
 
#27 ·
What's stupid is moving the thread to the general board. It should be stickied and consolidated on the WJ forum to prevent hundreds more threads popping up on the WJ board (which is the obvious place to post them). The argument that it's not "technical"? It's at least as technical as a third or more of the threads on the forum currently. Anyway I don't read the general forum so I hope you guys get this all sorted out here. I'm calling the dealer tomorrow to make an appointment for my gas tank relocation, will post pics in the WJ forum when it's done. But then will they be moved here, I wonder?
:laugh:
 
#33 ·
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not NEW news. Their response will be the same response they've given for the past few years. That will be the middle finger. The dealers dont even know what to do about random airbag deployment, let alone a impact-fire issue that is up to what, 51 out of 3.5 million?

Do you remember Fight Club? Ed Norton's character's job was to determine if it was cheaper to pay lawsuits, or fix a safety issue. With as many ZJs and WJs turned over due to the awful Cash 4 Clunkers mess, there's not very many out there. Also, now that the newest one is 9 years old, they are OLD cars that Chrysler doesn't give two ****s about. They're going to pay out a couple million in a lawsuit, not spend tens of millions preventing one.
 
#35 ·
'NHTSA concedes that the Jeeps met federal safety standards when they were built, but says the standards are minimums for vehicle safety. "The existence of a minimum standard does not require NHTSA to ignore deadly problems," the letter said.' This one line would win Jeep any court battle. If they were to retroactively enforce laws here they would have to do it to every vehicle. I am willing to bet not a single vehicle designed before 1990 would pass. This is just a BS action taken by another government agency to shoddily justify their existence...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top