Chrysler relents, to recall 2.7 million Jeeps over fuel tanks

DETROIT Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:22pm EDT

The logo on the front of a Jeep vehicle is shown at a Chrysler dealership in Carlsbad, California April 29, 2013. REUTERS/Mike Blake

The logo on the front of a Jeep vehicle is shown at a Chrysler dealership in Carlsbad, California April 29, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Mike Blake

DETROIT (Reuters) - Chrysler Group LLC said it would recall 2.7 million older Jeep models after initially fighting a recall request from U.S. regulators in a dispute over crash protection for their fuel tanks.

The recall will affect Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs from model years 1993 to 2004 and Jeep Liberty SUVs from 2002 to 2007.

Regulators from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the agency will continue to investigate the issue, including a review of new documents provided by Chrysler. NHTSA officials said they were pleased with Chrysler's decision.

While Chrysler stood by its assertion that the vehicles are not defective, the automaker acknowledged consumer concerns about the safety of the vehicles, which have fuel tanks situated behind the rear axle.

Chrysler said its dealers will install trailer hitches on affected vehicles that do not already have company-installed hitches.

"Chrysler Group's analysis of the data confirms that these vehicles are not defective and are among the safest in the peer group," said a statement from Chrysler, controlled by Italy's Fiat (FIA.MI).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on June 3 asked Chrysler to recall the two Jeep models because the placement of the fuel tank leaves them less protected in the event of rear-end crash and could lead to a leak and fire.

The safety agency's data shows that 51 people have been killed in rear-end crashes involving the two Jeep models affected. Chrysler early this month said NHTSA's investigation was flawed, and that fuel leaks and fires were extremely rare.

A company spokesman declined to estimate the cost of the recall.

Sandy Munro, president of consultancy Munro & Associates in suburban Detroit, said a conservative estimate of the recall's cost is $300 million.

Chrysler's net income for the first quarter was $166 million.

Alec Gutierrez, analyst with industry consultant Kelley Blue Book, said consumers have recently been forgiving of automakers who comply with recalls.

"This outcome will not only help consumers, but also Chrysler, as there was also danger that sales could decline if they had refused the recall," said Gutierrez.

Resisting a recall requested by federal regulators is rare in the auto industry. The last time Chrysler fought a recall request for one of its vehicles was in 1997.

Munro said that Chrysler was being forced to "fix something that doesn't need to be fixed" and said the incidence of problems for the Jeep models is low considering how many miles they have been driven.

Chrysler earlier this month said that the Grand Cherokee and Liberty SUVs met safety requirements in effect at the time of their manufacture.

(Reporting by Bernie Woodall; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Tim Dobbyn and Bernard Orr)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
IrfanV wrote:
Thank God my mom didn’t “bought a Jeep”.

Jun 18, 2013 6:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Wulff wrote:
Big brother is bullying again. 20 year old Jeeps have to be recalled. Really? Once again we see the cost of being helped by the nanny state. The recall is estimated to cost twice as much as Chrysler’s net income for the first quarter. And the union and Obama remain the only winners in this one. Wake up America!

Jun 18, 2013 8:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.