Chrysler refuses recall request

On 6/5/2013 4:40 PM, bob wrote:
> http://www.impomag.com/news/2013/06/...ecall-vehicles
>
>
> could not be worse than a crown vic or pinto i suppose..
>
> bob

well, wonder of wonders....

http://www.impomag.com/news/2013/06/...eeps-risk-fire

bob

On 06/21/2013 07:48 AM, bob wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 4:40 PM, bob wrote:
>> http://www.impomag.com/news/2013/06/...ecall-vehicles
>>
>>
>>
>> could not be worse than a crown vic or pinto i suppose..
>>
>> bob
>
> well, wonder of wonders....
>
> http://www.impomag.com/news/2013/06/...eeps-risk-fire
>
> bob

washington* at its finest - by the time fiat realized how many palms
were out waiting to be greased to make this problem go away, they
figured the recall would be cheaper. but it'll be an expensive decision
in the long run though - the sharks smell blood, and they'll get paid
one way or another. it'll be cheaper to pay squeeze and be done with it
rather than do the recall and then still end up paying squeeze later.


* or should i say, "chicago"?


--
fact check required

On 06/21/2013 10:48 AM, bob wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 4:40 PM, bob wrote:
>> http://www.impomag.com/news/2013/06/...ecall-vehicles
>>
>>
>>
>> could not be worse than a crown vic or pinto i suppose..
>>
>> bob
>
> well, wonder of wonders....
>
> http://www.impomag.com/news/2013/06/...eeps-risk-fire
>
> bob

Of course my vehicle is not covered... and I just spent a lot of time
fighting with old fasteners to install a trailer hitch.

The proposed "fix" makes a lot more sense now, the stock bumper is made
of poop and fail. But wouldn't this "issue" occur with any pickup sold
without a rear bumper which is completely legal?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 10:42:53 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>On 06/21/2013 10:48 AM, bob wrote:
>> On 6/5/2013 4:40 PM, bob wrote:
>>> http://www.impomag.com/news/2013/06/...ecall-vehicles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> could not be worse than a crown vic or pinto i suppose..
>>>
>>> bob
>>
>> well, wonder of wonders....
>>
>> http://www.impomag.com/news/2013/06/...eeps-risk-fire
>>
>> bob
>
>Of course my vehicle is not covered... and I just spent a lot of time
>fighting with old fasteners to install a trailer hitch.
>
>The proposed "fix" makes a lot more sense now, the stock bumper is made
>of poop and fail. But wouldn't this "issue" occur with any pickup sold
>without a rear bumper which is completely legal?
>
>nate


The whole thing is the media hysteria/media circus effect combined
with the complete ignorance on the part of the public (and the media)
about statistics. Back when Ford Explorers were being vilified as
rolling over death traps the actual accident rates showed that several
Mercedes Benz cars had higher rollover fatality rates then the
explorer did. Also that several other SUV's had higher rollover
fatality rates then the Explorer. The American public has never let
facts interfere with their irrational emotional responses and the
media has never let an opportunity pass where they can fan the flames
started by the idiots.