WJ Jeep Grand Cherokee Fuel Tank Test : Part-1

On 14 January 2011 the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) commissioned a crash test at the KARCO Engineering facility in Adelanto, California on a 1999 thru 2004 vintage WJ-Body Jeep Grand Cherokee (JGC) under the 2006 FMVSS-301 NHTSA fuel system crashworthness standard.

In this test, the entire fuel filler hose, which routs below the driver's side frame rail in what is one of the most incompetent designs in automotive history, is completely torn out of the fuel tank. During the roll-over portion of the FMVSS-301 protocol, all fuel will leak from the Jeep Grand Cherokee; a test failure.

Multiple/complete fuel system integrity breaches/failures occcurred during this CAS test.

In a 1978 Chrysler memo, called the "Baker memo," the latter states:

"Chrysler is investigating fuel tank relocation ahead of the rear wheels for vans and multipurpose vehicles, but present plans for pickups through 1983 and for MPV's and vans through 1985 have the fuel tank located behind the rear wheels. In vehicles both with and without bumpers there is a concern with vertical height differences that create a mismatch with passenger car bumpers. Where fuel tank location behind the rear axle is all that is feasible, a protective impact deflection structure may have to be provided whether or not a bumper is provided. An investigation whether to relocate the fuel tank or to provide impact deflecting structures is presently underway."

The WJ Jeep Grand Cherokee retained a rear mounted, unprotected fuel tank. Since introduction of the 2005 WK Jeep Grand Cherokee (designed in-part by MercedesBenz) the death rate from fuel-fed fire is zero, a statisitc that remains valid as of this upload.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Jeep
• NHTSA
• fire
• death
• safety
• Grand
• Cherokee
• FMVSS-301
• crash
• test
• danger
• high speed

[GmTruckCarLove]

I think I shart alittle watching this. Still one of the best SUV's IMO

[niceday2dayman]

Yep...we'll all just drive door stops around like he said below. Because apparently cars that don't crush are the safest. Guess he didn't think about what would happen if two of those collided. Ever played pool?

[Gavichap]

Very disturbing results for a SUV that should be theoretically stronger than a passenger car. Even more distressing is the total failure of the filler hose, leading to fuel spillage and potential reservoir explosion. Very very bad! Reminds me of the tragic Pinto!!

[avochristian]

@zogb9166 Ya the Ford must have been crawling, you know with all that damage to the Jeep.

[zogb9166]

Yeah lets also discuss how fast the ford was going. hmmmmm, doesnt say the speed in the description. Highly suspect.

[damoncaravanman]

Let me say any car can have any type of issue during an accident!

[kevinwilds1]

Can I have the front fenders?

[jacketman22]

@cds417 Can't go wrong with a Volvo or a Saab. Solid as fuck and pretty much the only cars that can survive a head-on collision with a moose (barring pickups and large SUVs)

[cds417]

@jacketman22 yeah dude my friend here at highschool got into a rollover accident in his volvo about 2 months ago in his 2006 volvo s60 and only hurt his c4 and c5 in his neck the car rolled about hmmm 6 times

[jacketman22]

@cds417 I've seen the crash tests for the most popular Toyota and Honda models, and even though I'm not a fan of Japanese cars I'll give credit where credit is due. Up until very recently their smaller offerings performed noticeably better in tests than anything put out by Detroit. But if safety is your concern, buy a Volvo.

[cds417]

@jacketman22 oh yeah and look at toyota and honda for making cars made out of paper look how much damage they get even for getting rear ended your dead

[zhuk24]

бляяяяя....жыпа та как жалка...