Maybe Toyota deserved it and I didn’t agree with the whole GM thing for ignition keys, but isn’t having to buy back 500,000 trucks a little excessive? I’m starting to wonder if the feds really don’t want to see an auto industry at all.
The Ram pickups, which are the company's top-selling vehicle, have defective steering parts that can cause drivers to lose control. Some previous repairs have been unsuccessful, so Fiat Chrysler agreed to the buyback
I fail to see the problem here. Idea for American auto industry: If you don’t want to be embroiled in expensive buybacks due to your crappy designs, stop executing crappy designs. We’ve had cars for more than 120 years now. The vast majority of those cars managed to make the steering work. These trucks should have working steering too.
I do not think the buybacks are excessive. I think selling trucks that are so flawed that they might break badly enough to kill the driver to half a million unsuspecting people is excessive.
I personally find it amazing that the auto industry still hasn’t figured out that paying a little more up front for solid reliability is better than paying a lot on the back end in wrongful death lawsuits and mandated recalls.
I had,a 2000 Ford Windstar that I sold to my son. While he owned the Windstar it waz, recalled for a rear axle that might break, throwing the vehicle out of control. Ford bought back some of these Windstar and my son hoped Ford would buy his as he was in the process of trying to sell it. Unfortunately, Ford elected to repair his Windstar, and he was still faced with having to sell the vehicle. When I think about Toyota replacing frames in Tundra pickup trucks, the problem with the Dodge trucks must really be severe.
Our 2011 Sienna was recalled because the spare tire might fall out of the carrier and onto the road. So far, the permanent repair has not been figured out. In the meantime, the tire was placed in a plastic garbage bag and strapped down behind the rear seat, using up valuable space. However, this is better than having the tire fall on the highway and cause a following motorist to have an accident.
The dealers are allowed to resell buybacks after repairs are made.
NHTSA took a beating from Congress for their poor performance in making the auto industry recall unsafe vehicles. This is their response. The penalties to FCA seem large to us because we are all small fry. But it won’t put FCA out of business, it will just mess seriously with their bottom line. Penalties like these may be needed to push the auto companies into responding more quickly to recall unsafe cars and trucks.
The problem with the ram truck buy back is because
- Chryco attempted to fix the problem with the steering column, but their attempt(s) have failed.
- There are several other safety issues with these trucks that it never should have been built in the first place. Not just ONE safety issue.
As for other companies…If these type of problems happened with Toyota or Nissan then the same decision should be applied. From what I read in the article the Feds believe the auto industry is getting too lax in designing and manufacturing vehicles, so they are starting to crack down harder and more severely.
I don’t know why people are complaining about this. These problems are well documented. I don’t think the feds are over stepping their bounds by requiring the car companies to make a safe vehicle.
At the Dodge dealer today getting my airbag replaced(not Dodges fault)but this 06 Dakota has experienced problems I never had with other vehicles,too bad its not in the buyback.Had a tierod end ready to pop off a little while back,the 99 Frontier,I got rid of to buy this vehicle is still going strong(wish I would have kept it) live and learn.
It boogles the mind,vehicles have been produced for over 100 years,why do they still turn out overpriced joners?
Let’s assume Mopar buys back a truck, repairs it and then it’s for sale at a Dodge dealer
I wonder if Carfax will show that it was bought back . . . ?
As a potential buyer of a used car, I would like to know if a vehicle was bought back, because it was a POS. Kind of makes you wonder what other part of the vehicle is worthless junk
I wonder if the person who convinced Fiat to buy Chrysler still has a job.
I would expect there’s going to be a huge difference of opinion between the Chrysler/dealer and the truck owner when it comes to figuring out the buyback number.
It should also be noted that every car maker on the planet has put cars out there with issues that can affect safety.
One of my sons has a 2006 GM car that is under a recall for the electric power steering. Close to 3 years now and STILL waiting for the recall parts…
I’m a little clueless on this. Is the manufacturer forced to buy back the affected vehicles? Or is that just an option? If the manufacturer elects to repair the vehicles instead of buying them, possibly giving the customer a loaner in the meantime, then return the repaired trucks back to the customer, is that an option still?
From what I understand, the customer has a choice . . .
Accept the buyback
Have mopar repair the truck
Considering the typically steep depreciation, and the cost of a new truck, it might make more economic sense to have the truck repaired
I suppose a lot depends on the condition of the truck
I think the buyback thing is supposed to generate new vehicle sales for mopar, to partially offset the losses they will be incurring
I also believe mopar is forced to buy back a vehicle, if the customer doesn’t want to get it repaired. it would be very understandable if a customer had a bad taste in his mouth, didn’t want the truck fixed, and wanted to take the money and wash his hands of mopar
But I’m fairly certain a very significant portion of the trucks that are bought back, will eventually be repaired and offered for sale in the used vehicle section of the various mopar dealers.
The story says that they must offer to buy the truck back but they do not specify the terms.
The example in the story cites a 2010 low end 1500 with 60k miles in “good?” condition at 20 grand and I find it hard to believe a dealer would hand someone 20 grand on a 6 year old truck and let them walk.
Odds are thumbscrews will be applied to the owners to get them to trade it in where actual values and terms gets buried under a cloud of BS.
This is from the NHTSA consent order;
The alternative remedy will be an offer to
eligible owners to refund the purchase price paid by the first purchaser of the vehicle for
purposes other than resale, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation, and not including the
cost of modifications made to the vehicle after first retail sale (“the Purchase Price”). FCA US
will additionally offer a premium of 10% above the Purchase Price to any owner of an unremedied vehicle electing this alternative remedy.
The example given in the news report, “2010 Dodge Ram 1500”, this truck would be involved with the 2009-2012 1500, Dakota and Durango pinion nut recall.
The January 2015 recall report shows that of 278,229 vehicles 193,623 have been completed and 7,931 owners to be “unreachable”. The steering linkage recall shows to be 58% completed.
Some of the remaining 76,675 pinion nut recall vehicles have been repaired since January greatly reducing the 500,000 vehicle count reported in the news story.
Let's assume Mopar buys back a truck, repairs it and then it's for sale at a Dodge dealer
I’m pretty sure if those vehicles are bought back they are not allowed to resell them.
I suspect the order is vague enough that it will generate fights. The article discusses trade-in value. Well, guess what? I don’t want trade-in value because that’s a pittance compared to what I’d have to pay to replace the truck. I want what the dealership would charge me for the truck if it was selling the truck to me today.
I’m pretty sure if those vehicles are bought back they are not allowed to resell them.
Page 1 of the article:
Fiat Chrysler said more than 60 percent of the trucks already have been fixed, and the company is allowed to repair and resell the trucks it buys back.
The article discusses trade-in value
Yeah, they’re just trying to get a rough idea of the financial exposure. Nevada’s reference above shows it is a more equitable arrangement than trade in value alone.
My brother had a GMC pickup that had the gas tank mounted outside the frame rail that led to a “buy back”? Supposedly, the owners of these pickups were to be given a big allowance toward a,new pickup. I think my brother got a letter in the mail with an offer for quite a bit more than the book value. Even so, GM wasn’t losing any money. My brother kept his truck. Even with the gas tank outside the frame rail, I think it was safer than my pickup that had the gas tank inside the cab and behind the seat. That was the arrangement of many trucks through the 1960s–the one notable exception was the Studebaker pickup that put the gas,tank under the cab.
Chrysler also has to repair a whole bunch of Grand Cherokees by installing a trailer hitch to protect the gas tank. You would think that after the Pinto debacle ad then the $7B judgement against GM for exploding gas tanks that they would stop making vehicles with dangerous gas tanks. BTW, the trucks that had the gas tank behind the seat were much safer as far as gas tank explosions are concerned.
I’ve never quite bought into the dangerous Pinto gas tank thing other than FOMOCO whitewashing the issue. Countless other makes and models of cars in that era had similarly mounted fuel tanks and some even worse as to location but did not get the press that the Pinto did.
The worse would be some 70s era Subarus with the tank mounted upright against the back of the rear seat and nothing between passengers and tank except open sheet metal, some springs, and vinyl.
The 80s era Subarus had the tank tucked in right in front of the rear bumper with nothing between the tank and whatever rams them from behind except a very thin, fragile bumper and a piece of sheet metal.
The latter could be considered even more dangerous as the fuel tank sending unit was mounted on the rear side of the tank and one whack from behind would knock the sender loose and send gasoline gushing. Whether this has happened I do not know but the point is that there is very little between the tank and whatever whacks it from behind.