Forum Discussion

Perrysburg_Dodg's avatar
Jul 29, 2015

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 , London, UK - Certain press reports have misconstrued the scope and therefore the estimated costs of certain remedies contemplated by the consent order entered into by FCA US with NHTSA and announced today. FCA intends to clarify the scope of such remedies.

In the consent order, FCA US has agreed to additional remedies for three recall campaigns covering approximately half a million vehicles, primarily 2008 through 2012 chassis cab, 2009 through 2011 light duty and 2008 through 2012 heavy duty Ram Trucks. In each of those campaigns, FCA US will offer to owners whose vehicles have not yet been remedied, as an alternative remedy, to repurchase those vehicles at a price equal to the original purchase price less a reasonable allowance for depreciation plus ten percent. However, customers responding to the recall may continue to keep their vehicles and have them repaired in accordance with the original recall. As of this date, repairs have been completed on well over 60% of the subject vehicles, leaving less than two hundred thousand eligible vehicles. As is expressly provided for under the consent order, FCA intends that any vehicles repurchased will be remedied and resold.

In addition, FCA US is offering consumer incentives to encourage owners of vehicles subject to the structural reinforcement campaign to participate in the campaign. With respect to the 1993 through 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee ZJs, FCA US is also offering to increase the trade-in allowance to be applied to the purchase of another FCA product, service or parts for those owners of these very old vehicles who would prefer this alternative over the installation of a trailer hitch.

All premiums paid to repurchase vehicles in the three recall campaigns and customer incentives will be applied as credits to the $20 million that FCA US has agreed to spend on industry outreach amounts included in the $105 million referred to in the consent order.

While such amounts may exceed the $20 million, contrary to certain reports, FCA US does not expect that the net cost of providing these additional alternatives will be material to its financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

Don

39 Replies

  • The two issues that FCA got there backside redden were the tie rods on the Rams and the Jeep fuel tank issue that was under ****-Lair not FCA. How or why FCA should be on the hook is beyond me. They should make ****-Liar foot the bill for that IMO.

    As for pop corn and beer I'll take some after I get off work. :p

    Don
  • rjxj wrote:
    Well, it's too early for popcorn and beer but this should be a good one. Carry on


    its past noon somewhere
  • Well, it's too early for popcorn and beer but this should be a good one. Carry on
  • I don't get it. If that is an official press release from the company that clearly states what is going to happen, then aren't they compelled by several factors to keep to that plan of action?

    With the front suspension issue, personal injury lawyers are involved. Need I say more? Ok, I will. They're foaming at the mouth waiting for an excuse to pounce on Fiat/Chrysler en masse the second someone dies because the death wobble wasn't fixed on their truck after all these announcements. That in and of itself is incentive enough to make good on promises laid out in a press release.
  • JIMNLIN wrote:
    Thanks Don for posting from the actual source instead of the usual blown out proportion unchecked hype we get from the press much of the time.

    Now that's really ironic Jimlin. When you want to believe something one way, then it's the press that always lies and hides the truth. When you want to believe something the other way, then it's corporations always lie and hide the truth. So who am I supposed to believe? Or does it depend on which side the fence you're on?
  • Ductape wrote:
    That is a PR statement by a business under a consent order.

    Posted by someone with a financial interest in the outcome.

    IMO forum members will need to determine the facts to their own satisfaction. Which will be challenging with all the brand advocacy we know and love.

    I owned a 2011 that was recalled and inspected for a tie rod issue. I have since traded it in; I had no dislikes of the truck, it was a nice ride. It did develop DW around 40k miles. Traded in so I didn't get that diagnosed.

    Entirely uncalled for remark against the OP and his intent. Just because some one works for that particular company does not mean he has any input regarding corporate policy. Posts like yours helps no one. The mad/adm needs to remove it IMO.

    Thanks Don for posting from the actual source instead of the usual blown out proportion unchecked hype we get from the press much of the time.

    Maybe some one can post what exactly the issues are for each year model truck like we use to pull or carry our RV with and what the actual fix is.
    We sure don't need anymore posturing or other immature remarks like we've had so far.
  • Thanks Don. I did not mean to imply you are not transparent, your handle is a clear sign. ;)

    Just pointing out that everyone has some agenda. Facts need peer review and so forth. And even then lots of people deny the science.

    I hope FCA hangs in there.
  • It was posted to show the facts of what is and is not going to happen. Unlike the many posts talking about 300,000 to 500,000 trucks, cars and or SUV's.

    As always I have never hide the fact that I work for FCA US not one time.
  • That is a PR statement by a business under a consent order.

    Posted by someone with a financial interest in the outcome.

    IMO forum members will need to determine the facts to their own satisfaction. Which will be challenging with all the brand advocacy we know and love.

    I owned a 2011 that was recalled and inspected for a tie rod issue. I have since traded it in; I had no dislikes of the truck, it was a nice ride. It did develop DW around 40k miles. Traded in so I didn't get that diagnosed.