Fuel “spit back” through the filler neck has been a longstanding problem in several Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep models, caused by the Inlet Check Valve (ICV) mounted in the fuel tank. Despite some limited recalls and at least one extended lifetime warranty, this defect, which first surfaced in 2001, continues to plague a number of models. Tens of thousands of vehicles are outside of any campaign, forcing owners to pay for a repair that requires replacement of the entire tank assembly.

Numerous Dodge Durango owners have complained to NHTSA and Chrysler. Others have commiserated about “spit back” on Internet blogs and enthusiast websites, and posted dramatic video footage showing geysers of gasoline or significant fuel dumps into the concrete around the pump.

And yet, NHTSA has walked away from the problem. Citing the absence of a safety defect trend, the Office of Defects Investigations last month closed a Preliminary Evaluation into fuel spills and spit backs from the filler neck in 2007 and 2008 Model Year Jeep Wranglers. ODI had logged 895 failure reports, including 473 complaints directly to the agency, but dismissed those complaints as influenced by internet related publicity before and during the investigation. (See The Hype Hypothesis, p. 1).

More relevant to the agency’s reasoning was a Chrysler technical service bulletin issued five days before the inquiry officially closed, initiating a lifetime warranty program for 135,000 2007-2008 Jeep Wranglers built between March 2007 and April 2008. Owners of other problematic vehicles, however – namely the 2005-2006 Jeep Wrangler and the 2005-2008 Dodge Durango/ Chrysler Aspen were on their own.

NHTSA initiated investigation PE10-032 on August 23, 2010 based on 217 consumer complaints involving 2007-2008 Jeep Wranglers related to fuel spilling out during the refueling process. NHTSA’s letter to Chrysler, notifying them of the investigation, indicated that it had received similar VOQs (Vehicle Owner Questionnaire) on earlier generation 2005 and 2006 Wranglers, as well as 2005 though 2008 Dodge Durangos.

Bad Check Valve? Check.

These Jeeps suffer from a defective Inlet Check Valve, incorporated into the fuel tank at the top where the fuel enters from the fuel filler tube neck during the refueling process. The ICV is designed to close when the fuel level in the tank reaches a near full level to prevent the air pressure created in the top of the fuel tank during refueling from pushing the fuel that is still in the filler neck back out of the filler tube. If the check valve fails, fuel can spill or “spit back” onto the ground or the person refueling the vehicle.

In its response to NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation, Chrysler claimed that it couldn’t find the root cause of the ICV sticking, and blamed it on the ethanol content of the most common form of fuel available to consumers today. The automaker said that gas with ethanol levels higher than 10 percent can cause the components within the valve to swell which would prevent it from properly closing. Chrysler also claimed it performed a dimensional analysis of the ICVs and could find no design problem.

And yet, Chrysler has battled this same fuel spit-back problem three times before. In December 2001, Chrysler initiated a recall covering some 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokees, to remedy fuel inlet check valves that may partially stick in the open position, allowing the fuel to spill out of the fuel tube due to pressure differences between the tank and the atmosphere. Chrysler had determined that certain valve components, combined with fuel swell, could create an interference fit, allowing the valve to remain partially open.

Similarly, in February 2005, Chrysler recalled 2005 Dodge Durangos manufactured from March 2004 to November 2004 for the fuel tank filler tube inlet check valve. Again, the recall noted that the valve may not fully close at the end of refueling which could allow some fuel to escape from the vehicle filler neck. According to Chrysler, this was a manufacturing problem. The automaker alleged that the supplier, Inergy Automotive Systems, had not centered the valve when it was welded to the fuel tank, causing the valve to be distorted by exposure to excessive heat.

Four years later, Chrysler expanded the 2005 recall to include more vehicles, because the corrections in the manufacturing process initiated after the original recall were only partially effective in preventing a failure of the fuel inlet check valve.

Chrysler also had issues with the fuel tanks being difficult to fill and the fuel nozzle shutting off repeatedly during refueling. On September 1, 2009, Chrysler published “TSB 14-001-09 Rev. A” which covers a wide range of Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep vehicles.

To date, Chrysler has gotten away with limited recalls that fail to address the problem. That leaves thousands of vehicle owners to pay for the replacement of the entire fuel tank assembly, if they want to fill up without endangering their health or the environment from a plume of gasoline spewing from the tank.

See The Safety Record Blog to view owner’s videos.

WASHINGTON, D.C – The Center for Auto Safety has called for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to investigate defective fuel tank design in 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees, and to recall any of the popular SUVs with a fuel tank located behind the rear axle.

CAS based its October 2 petition on FARS data showing that Grand Cherokees built prior to 2005, (when DaimlerChrysler redesigned the SUV to move the fuel tank to a more protected location) were involved in 172 fatal fire crashes resulting in 254 fatalities over a 16-year period. CAS Executive Director Clarence Ditlow says that the petition has been in the works since the spring, when the organization decided to highlight the problem against the backdrop of the Chrysler bankruptcy. At the time, the failed automaker had successfully slipped the bounds of successor liability as it was sold to Fiat. (Chrysler has since followed General Motors example and agreed to assume liability for future crashes involving products built by the old company. Crashes that occurred before the bankruptcy are only liable to the old company.)

Ditlow compared this petition to the organization’s 1992 defect and recall petition over fuel tank fires in the General Motors CK pickup trucks with the side-saddle tanks mounted outside the frame rails. An agency investigation showed that the CK was over-involved in side-impact fuel tank fires and that the design of the system was to blame. (Despite this finding, under an intense political campaign by the GM, Ford and Chrysler, the agency closed its investigation, and allowed GM to skip the recall in exchange for a vague $51 million commitment to safety programs.)

“You know there are fires and you know there are lawsuits, but no one has ever connected the dots. We just decided to look into it and see how bad it was and it came up vey bad,” Ditlow said. “In the context of the bankruptcy, we wanted to show what might happen with a common defect and this was one everybody could understand.”

Jeeps and fire hazards are nothing new. In August, NHTSA launched an investigation into the possibility that 2007 and 2008 Jeep Wranglers with automatic transmissions may burst into flames –apparently due to the transmission overheating and leaking transmission fluid. After the Office of Defect investigations opened a probe into dashboard fires, Chrysler recalled about 150,000 2006 Jeep Liberty vehicles in March 2007. The automaker said that 12 reports of interior fires that might have been related to a malfunction of the HVAC blower. In 2002, Daimler Chrysler recalled nearly 72,000 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokees because the design of the intake and exhaust manifolds could allow debris to accumulate near the number 3 cylinder, and ignite in a vehicle fire. In 2000, Chrysler recalled 1500 Grand Cherokees with suspect vent tube welds, which could lead to a fuel leak and fire.

But the Jeep has been a standout for its antediluvian design, in which the fuel tank is located behind the rear axle – right in the crush zone of a rear-impact collision. The Center also notes that the plastic fuel tank can rupture and degrade over time, that the fuel filler neck tears off in a range of crashes and that the tank is surrounded by “sharp objects such as suspension bolts that can puncture the tank.” Chrysler does give consumers the option of thwarting its poor design by selling a steel shield called a “skid plate,” ostensibly for off road use.

The apex of bad fuel tank design that still lingers in the public consciousness is the Ford Pinto, which became notorious in the 1970s for fuel tank explosions, inspiring nicknames like, “The Barbeque That Seats Four.” Long after many automakers scrapped that location to better protect the tank in a crash, Chrysler’s Grand Cherokee and Liberty models sported the fiery crash-prone design, with a plastic fuel tank that extends below the rear bumper, leaving it vulnerable to a rollover or a rear collision with a vehicle with a lower front profile. And the data shows that fuel tank fires have been a problem for more than a decade.

In late September, Quality Control Systems Corp. released Model Year 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees in Fatal, Rear Impact Crashes Involving Fire, an analysis of rear-impact fatal crashes involving 1993-2004 small and mid-sized SUVs. Researchers Randy and Alice Whitfield studied a total of 480 MY 1993-1998 small utility vehicles and 1999-2004 midsize utility vehicles, where the principal impact was at 5, 6, or 7 o’clock on the rear of the vehicle. The data showed that the Jeep Grand Cherokee was a standout compared to its peers in fatal rear impact crashes in which a fire occurred.

In crashes where the principal impact was at the rear of the vehicle, the Jeep Grand Cherokees has a much higher rate of fire occurrence, at 16 percent (17 fires in 106 rear impacts) compared to all other 4.8 percent of all utility vehicles studied (18 fires in 374 rear impacts). When all of the other Jeep vehicles are excluded from the analysis, the difference grew, with a 16 percent rate compared to 3.7 percent for other comparable SUVs.

In examining a subset where the initial and the principal impact were both coded at the same rear positions, and the vehicle did not roll over in the crash, Grand Cherokees also has a much higher rate of fire occurrence, 27.3 percent (12 fires in 44 rear impacts) compared to all other utility vehicle studied, 8.7 percent (9 fires in 103 rear impacts). Since the vehicle was re-designed to protect the fuel tank, there has been only one crash involving a 2008 Grand Cherokee resulting in a fuel tank fire and deaths – in that case the occupants died from their injuries after being ejected during a rollover.

The Center believes that the agency should grant its petition because Grand Cherokee’s problems are more pronounced that the Pinto’s in 1978, when the agency issued its initial defect report. (A total of 38 fire crashes resulting in 26 deaths in the Pinto.)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Obama administration’s drive-by bankruptcies have left the victims of defect-related crashes to eat their dust, but consumer advocates are turning to other strategies to force Chrysler and General Motors to do the right thing.

Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, along with Consumer Action, Center for Auto Safety, Center for Justice & Democracy, and National Consumers League, have petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to require labels informing buyers of a used Chrysler’s unique liabilities. The label they’ve suggested goes like this:

“WARNING    This vehicle was produced prior to the date when the Chrysler bankruptcy was approved. If you buy this vehicle and are injured or killed, even if your injuries were caused by the manufacturer, you or your survivors will not be able to recover your losses by taking action against the manufacturer. If your passengers are injured or killed, even if their injuries were caused by the manufacturer, they and their survivors will not be able to recover their losses by taking action against the manufacturer.”

The California-based advocacy group CARS is asking for the designation under the FTC’s 1985 Used Car Rule, which was promulgated to prevent used car dealers from misrepresenting or failing to mention to buyers important facts about warranty coverage, via a Buyer’s Guide sticker displayed on the vehicle.

The bankruptcy and sale of the once-innovative American carmaker Chrysler to Fiat SPA concluded on June 10th, with $6.6 billion in federal financing. In just 42 days, the government pushed the major players over the finish line and successfully fended off attempts from investors and victims of Chrysler defects to re-jigger the deal. The owners of the “new” Chrysler are a union retirees’ trust, with 55 percent, Fiat, with a 20-percent share that could grow to 35 percent, and the U.S. and Canadian governments, which hold minority stakes.

In a June 11 New York Times story, an anonymous Treasury official said: “This morning’s closing represents a proud moment in Chrysler’s storied history. The Chrysler-Fiat alliance has now exited the bankruptcy process and is poised to emerge as a competitive, viable automaker.”

“If shirking your due care responsibilities to customers who trusted you is a source of pride, then Chrysler’s chest must be puffed out so far that the buttons are popping off its pinstriped jacket. The bankruptcy has wiped away all current, pending and future claims against vehicles manufactured by the ‘old Chrysler,’ said Safety Research & Strategies president Sean Kane.

General Motors, which completed its bankruptcy nearly a month later, had sought the same freedoms from product liability. But the company was taken aback by the highly publicized efforts of consumer advocates and attorneys representing defects victims to retain their rights to seek compensation via the state tort system. There were news reports about the victims GM was leaving behind and television advertisements opposing GM’s move to shed all liability. Twelve state attorneys general from Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Vermont, Illinois, California, Kansas and Ohio objected to the sales, arguing that the bankruptcy court overstepped its legal authority in granting the elimination of successor liability.

GM and the White House’s Auto Task Force, headed by Steven Ratner, who has since stepped down, came to an eleventh-hour agreement, in which GM agreed to accept liability for any future claims against vehicles built under its old ownership. Current and pending claims, however, have been wiped off the table.

In a mere 40 days, GM emerged from bankruptcy with fewer brands, fewer workers and a whole lot of taxpayer cash – $50 billion. (GM is keeping its Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC brands and selling or shuttering Hummer, Saturn, Saab and Pontiac.) As of July 10, the majority owners of General Motors are the taxpayers, with a 61 percent stake; and the United Auto Workers health care trust, which owns 17 percent; the Canadian government, which owns 11.7 percent, with the remainder going to bondholders of the old company.

CEO Fritz Henderson told the Associated Press that the revamped automaker will be “faster and more responsive to customers than the old one.”

“Apparently the new GM is doing that by telling the old customers who have been harmed by a GM defect to drop dead,” said Rosemary Shahan of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.

Best feet forward aside, consumer and auto safety advocates are not done demanding that the new companies do something to compensate victims of defects. Indiana Congressman Andre Carson has filed the Jeremy Warriner Consumer Protection Act after Jeremy Warriner, who lost both legs and suffered severe burns in a vehicle fire he alleges was sparked by a faulty brake fluid container on his 2005 Jeep Wrangler. The bill would require the newly-restructured GM and Chrysler to carry liability insurance and force the carmakers to cover claims made against them for any defective products produced by their predecessor company. A consortium of attorneys and consumer groups are working on other avenues of redress.

GM / Chrysler Bankruptcies: What’s In What’s Out

The terms of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies have created arbitrary and artificial classes of claimants. Here are the current parameters for liability:

Chrysler: Date of Bankruptcy Exit: June 10

What’s Out: The new Chrysler has no liability for any vehicles built by the old Chrysler. That means: the liability for all current, pending and future claims of any Chrysler vehicle built before the automaker exited bankruptcy belong to the old company.

Recovery of Unsecured Claims: Projected to be zero (or at most ½ cent/dollar).

General Motors: Date of Bankruptcy Exit: July 10

What’s In: The new GM agreed to assume liability for vehicles built by the old company, if the incident occurs after July 10, when GM exited bankruptcy.

What’s Out: The old GM retains the liability for all current and pending claims. If the incident occurred before July 10th, it is considered a pending claim, even if it has not yet been filed.

Recovery of Unsecured Claims: Unsecured claims in GM are predicted to receive between 10-20 cents on the dollar, several years from now. This is based on projections; there is no guarantee. Cost of administration claims will likely be paid in full for anyone having an accident in the five weeks in between when GM entered and exited bankruptcy, once the old company is liquidated.

For more background on the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies visit www.safetyresearch.net/chrysler-gm-bankruptcy/