Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyJC
The "jist" of the mainstream media sensationalized report I saw on ABC Evening News last night was that the subject Jeeps are somehow faulty because the fuel tanks are located behind the rear axle. Well, guess how many vehicles have been designed with fuel tanks located behind the rear axles? That, in and of itself, is not a design flaw worthy of a recall, IMHO. To me, the whole report smacked of the GM saddle tank pickups back in the 1980s (IIRC) - anyone remember why that furor died down??
Rusty
|
As I recall there was a video done by one of the "Weekly News Shows" on at the time. They weren't taking any chances that during a crash there wouldn't be a spectacular explosion and fire. In their efforts to make it spectacular they actually put blasting caps in the vicinity of the fuel tank and ignited them at the moment of the crash.
Unfortunately for them the whole thing was filmed in high speed. When the film was slowed down you could see the caps ignite a milisecond before the tank ruptured. So much for honest and objective reporting.
Another thing I don't understand is that if the vehicle met the safety standards in force at the time it was built how is it that it can be recalled 20 years later for being unsafe. It seems that as safety features improve on the newer vehicles somehow those that don't have the newest features are considered unsafe. How long will it be before Ford has to recall all the remaining Model T's and Model A's for lack of current day safety features.
This very mentality is what almost bankrupt the private avation business several years ago. Up until a few years ago every time a private plane crashed the lawyers included the manufacturer in the lawsuits. Manufacturers were having to defend themselves against crashes involving planes 40 and 50 years old that had gone through a multitude of owners. Now at least the airplane manufacturers can't be sued in perpituity for something that was built before they were even born.
Linear Mode
