1999 Jeep Cherokee Se Sport Utility 4-door 4.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Radical 2016 Jeep Wrangler suggested by job listings?

With most inside the industry expecting the next-generation Jeep Wrangler to arrive for the 2016 model year, it makes sense that the automaker would be looking for some choice candidates to to fill program openings as the off-roader goes through its development. A recent ad on Chryslercareers.com suggests to some that the lightweight Wrangler Stitch Concept, revealed just two months ago and shown above, provides some clues about the off-road icon's next iteration.
According to Automotive News, the job descriptions - which don't name the model specifically - hint that the next-generation Wrangler will benefit from a serious diet. The ads appear to seek those familiar with advanced high-strength steels, hinting that lightweight aluminum body panels may appear on the 4x4. In addition, there are suggestions that Jeep may fit the Wrangler replacement with air suspension, as seen on the Ram and Grand Cherokee, to retain ample off-road clearance yet lower that chassis to improve aerodynamics at highway speeds. The job postings reportedly also lend credence to the idea of a diesel Wrangler.
It seems every bit of the next-generation Wrangler is up for review, as it will be the first time this iconic model is redesigned under Fiat ownership. Questions remain whether or not the Jeep will retain its clip-down hood, easy-to-remove door pins and folding front windshield - loyalists expect them, but fuel economy and safety standards may crimp their cases for survival.

Government Ending Jeep Investigation

The government is closing its investigation into older-model Jeeps with fuel tanks that could rupture and cause fires. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Friday it has "no reservations" with Chrysler Group's plans to recall the vehicles. The agency is expected to release a report on its investigation in a few weeks. The decision ends an unusually public struggle between Chrysler and NHTSA. The agency asked Chrysler to recall 2.7 million Jeeps last June, contending that their gas tanks - which are positioned behind the rear axle - were at risk of rupturing and catching fire in rear-end crashes. Involved were Grand Cherokee SUVs from the 1993 to 2004 model years and Liberty SUVs from 2002 to 2007. Chrysler initially refused to recall the vehicles. The company said the rate of fuel leaks and fires after crashes was similar to comparable vehicles that were sold during the time in question. It was the first time in two years that an automaker had refused NHTSA's request for a recall. Chrysler later agreed to recall 1.56 million of the Jeeps and install trailer hitches on them to help protect the gas tanks. The company sent notices to the remaining customers saying their vehicles were fine if they have factory-installed or Chrysler-made trailer hitches. NHTSA said late Friday that it has been in close contact with Chrysler and will monitor the recall as it continues. Chrysler has told customers that it will start installing the hitches soon. "Consumers should have their vehicles serviced promptly once they receive final notification from Chrysler,"NHTSA said in a statement. In its own statement Friday, Chrysler said, "We share NHTSA's commitment to safety." NHTSA's outgoing chief, David Strickland, told The Associated Press in an interview last month that Chrysler had convinced NHTSA that the Jeeps were no more dangerous than similar vehicles sold at that time. "Those vehicles performed at a rate similar to their peers. That is the keystone analysis as to whether something poses an unreasonable risk to safety," Strickland said. Friday was Strickland's last day at NHTSA. He is joining Venable, a law firm. NHTSA began investigating the Jeeps at the request of the Center for Auto Safety, a Washington-based advocacy group. "It is tragic that NHTSA approved Chrysler's sham trailer hitch recall for Jeeps that explode in rear impacts," the Center for Auto Safety's director, Clarence Ditlow, said Friday.

In Michigan, car hackers could face life imprisonment

Car hackers may not want to mess with vehicles in and around the Motor City. A pair of Michigan lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday that would punish anyone who infiltrates a vehicle's electronic systems with penalties as harsh as life imprisonment. Senate bill 927 says that "a person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to an electronic system of a motor vehicle to willfully destroy, damage, impair, alter or gain unauthorized control of the motor vehicle." Offenders will be deemed guilty of a felony, and may be imprisoned for any number of years up to life in prison. The proposed legislation is one of the first attempts nationally to address the consequences for car hacking, which has become a top concern throughout the auto industry. Critics have accused executives of being slow to respond to the threats, which were first known as long as six years ago but gained attention last July when a pair of researchers remotely controlled a Jeep Cherokee. In January, the industry established an Information Sharing and Analysis Center to collectively evaluate security measures and counter breaches. But the Michigan bill isn't noteworthy only because of the life penalty prescribed; it's noteworthy for what's missing in its details. Language in the bill doesn't delineate between independent cyber-security researchers and criminals who intend to inflict harm or havoc. Under its provisions, it's possible Charlie Miller, pictured below, and Chris Valasek, the researchers who demonstrated last summer that the Cherokee could be remotely commandeered and controlled, could face life behind bars. Provisions of the legislation that prevent a person from "altering" the motor vehicle could ensnare car enthusiasts or gearheads who tinker with electronic systems to boost performance, increase fuel efficiency or add aftermarket features. In that context, Senate Bill 927 seems like the latest measure in a running feud between independent researchers, gearheads and big automakers. Car companies don't like third parties poking around their electronic systems and would prefer the researchers not reveal security weaknesses. Researchers, on the other hand, say many carmakers are either slow to fix or unwilling to repair security holes unless they're able to publish their findings.