1993 Jeep Wrangler Yj Lifted Hardtop ****no Reserve!!!!***** on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Fires, deaths continue after Jeep fuel tank recall

As Kayla White slowed her SUV behind two other cars to exit a suburban Detroit freeway on Veterans Day, it was rammed from behind by a Cadillac STS. Her red 2003 Jeep Liberty bounced off a Nissan in front of it, rolled onto its side and exploded in flames. Other drivers ran to help but were forced back by the heat. Firefighters arrived in just three minutes but were too late. White, a 23-year-old restaurant hostess who was eight months pregnant, died of burns and smoke inhalation. White is one of more than 70 people killed in fires involving older Jeeps with plastic fuel tanks mounted behind the rear axle. Fiat Chrysler, which makes Jeeps, recalled 1.56 million of them in June 2013 under pressure from US safety regulators. But only 12 percent of the SUVs have been repaired in the 18 months since the recall, a much slower pace than usual. And White's Jeep was not among those fixed. Last week, prosecutors charged the Cadillac driver with committing a moving violation that caused a death. But safety advocates and the lawyer for White's family say the blame belongs as much, if not more, on Chrysler and an auto-industry safety system that moves too slowly to prevent tragedy. The rear-mounted tanks have little structure to protect them if struck from behind, making them susceptible to punctures and fires. Moving the gas tank in front of the axle would be expensive and difficult. So Chrysler's remedy involved installing trailer hitches on the rear of the Jeeps as an extra layer of protection. Government testing showed the hitches protected the tanks in crashes up to 40 mph when stationary Jeeps were hit from behind. But at higher speeds, they wouldn't help. White tried to get the repair done a few weeks before her death but was told by a Jeep dealer that parts weren't available, according to Gerald Thurswell, her family's lawyer. He wouldn't identify the dealership, and his contention could not be independently verified by The Associated Press. Thurswell contends the gas tank ruptured, spilling fuel that touched off the fire. A Chrysler spokesman expressed sympathy to White's family but said the company had no written proof that she asked a dealer about the recall. Two crash reconstruction experts interviewed by the AP say gas wouldn't have spilled from White's Jeep if the tank had been mounted in front of the rear axle. Both say a hitch might have prevented the tank from being damaged, but because both vehicles were in motion, neither expert could say for sure.

Fiat Chrysler recalls 650,000 Dodge, Jeep SUVs for brake issue

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles said Tuesday it's voluntarily recalling nearly 650,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango SUVs to ensure that brake-booster shields were properly installed. The recall affects mostly vehicles sold in the U.S. but also roughly 60,000 combined in Canada and Mexico. The shields were installed in 2014 in conjunction with a recall involving the same set of vehicles, which cover the model years 2011 through 2014. A review of warranty data led to an FCA U.S. investigation that discovered the problem. FCA says it is aware of one potentially related accident, but no injuries. The shields are designed to keep water away from the boosters, lest it cause corrosion or freeze in cold temperatures and negatively affect brake performance. Brakes will still function even if boosters are compromised by water, FCA says, but drivers may experience brake-pedal firmness. In some cases, a potential booster issue may trigger a warning light or activation of the anti-lock brakes. Customers who've observed any of those conditions are urged to contact their dealers. The automaker says it plans to notify affected owners that free service to check and repair the issue if necessary will be available in early November. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Recalls Dodge Jeep Safety SUV FCA

Ram and Jeep diesel emissions allegations spur class action lawsuits

This shouldn't come as a surprise. Last week, the EPA issued a notice of violation to FCA after it determined that Jeep and Ram installed eight undisclosed auxiliary emissions control devices on diesel vehicles. Since then US law firm Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC and Canadian firm Sotos LLP have launched class action suits on behalf of owners. These latest lawsuits are unrelated to a previous class action suit brought against FCA and Cummins over NOx emissions in 2007 to 2012 Ram models. The violation notice – and the subsequent lawsuits – covers 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models equipped with the 3.0-liter turbodiesel V6, a total of about 104,000 vehicles in the US. The EPA says that while the emissions control devices aren't necessarily illegal, installing them without disclosing them to the EPA is, as they produce more emissions in real world use than in testing. Skirting certification in this way might be a violation of the Clean Air Act. FCA could see fines of up to $45,000 per vehicle, depending on the outcome of the EPA investigation. FCA denies that these are cheat devices, and has proposed software updates to bring the vehicles into compliance. As for the lawsuits, Heninger Garrison Davis says that "Fiat Chrysler marketed those vehicles as environmentally friendly with enhanced fuel efficiency, better performance, and lower emissions. Although the diesel vehicles were successfully marketed as 'clean,' their environmentally-friendly representations were deceptive to consumers." The suit seeks an undisclosed amount of compensation for owners of these vehicles. In Canada, Sotos LLP is seeking $250 million in damages on behalf of owners. This suit, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, also claims deception on the part of FCA, "resulting in losses and damage" to owners. These are similar claims to group actions against Volkswagen with regard to its diesel emissions cheating scandal. While VW is fixing or buying back many of the affected vehicles, the company is defending itself against some suits on behalf of owners, saying it expects " no decline in the residual values of the affected vehicles as a result of this issue." Don't be surprised if FCA mounts a similar defense.