Now for the "rest of the story"
First and foremost here is the link to the facts gentlemen, not he said she said and they wrote :R CLICKY CLICKY FCA Clarifies Scope of Remedies in NHTSA Consent Order July 27, 2015 , Lon...
Forum Discussion
travelnutz wrote:
Someone's own words they had posted several times a couple years ago have come back to bite them hard!
Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
"Mich800 agreed but this was under Daimler and the fuel cell had meet the requirements at the time of manufacturer. If they lied or misrepresented the fuel cells specs and tests that is one thing. To my knowledge they (Daimler) did not. So how can the NHTSA come back and say it is defective? No fuel tank is going to take a 55+MPH hit without leaking."
Golly, I wonder who railed in posts against GM for having their truck fuel tanks mounted outside the frame rails which was also approved over and over and years later GM was sued and fined which was incredibly expensive to GM and caused a huge loss in sales? Perhaps, the shoe in on the other foot now. It that it?
The differnce is FCA has not lied nor have they hide documents about any of this. To bad GM can't say the samething with their fuel cell issue. Then add the ignition switch and their lies and hiding/changing documents. Would you care to talk about that?
Very interesting that you have glossed over and re-wrote/cherrypicked the actual NHTSA published report and virtually called dozens of news/media reports lies and the writers liars! Most to all forum readers can read too and words actually have meanings. Going to be very interesting as to what happens soon and NO forum posts will change it!
If you are talking about me I copied 100% of the document sir!
Yes, we all know you work for FCA and have a vested interest but is that a vaild excuse? Fiat knew the history of Chrysler, Daimler, Cerberus, ownerships of Chrysler and the bankruptcies etc before they bought Chrysler and acquired it's past, liabilities, assets, and the present also and then changed their name to FCA.
And FCA is footing the bill, just IMO (incase you don't know what that means "In My Opinion" so it is MY OPINION not FCA's. BTW wasn't you and a few others that was saying how the owners of older Chrysler vehicles were going to get shafted because of the bankruptcy? The "Old Car Company" pre-bankruptcy would no longer have to pay warranty claims.
Just stay tuned!
Do tell TN what are we staying tuned for? LOL
Don
