OK, Chrysler went bankrupt and had to be bought out to survive - I may be corrected (and that's fine) but my point has still been made. Obama didn't make them go bankrupt (he kept people employed) - Obama did what he could to stop them from dissolving altogether. He could have done nothing and watched every Chrysler employee loose their jobs, from the factories, to the mechanics to the sales teams, to all the little companies that manufacture parts.

A few years back, we had a factory in my town as well. White Western Star. They manufactured diesel trucks and they were the largest employer in town.

They were bought out by Freightliner (a US company - a foreign company) a subsidiary of Daimler Trucks, (A German company - also a foreign company).

The factory was shut down when Freightliner acquired them. Putting half the town out of business that catered parts and services to the factory. Times were tough and we are still recovering.

My point is, I know how it could have gone in the US and on a much larger scale. Obama didn't let this happen. But Romney is making it look like Obama was the one at fault here - which is pure lies.
>> ^deedub81:

Chrysler DID go through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. A foreign auto manufacturer bought the majority of the shares from the U.S. (Fiat) and the new chairman of the newly formed Chrysler Group, LLC has said that they will be moving "Jeep output" to China as demand rises. >> ^Sagemind:
"Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy" WTF - Obama bailed them out so they wouldn't go bankrupt.
Most people were against it but he helped them out anyway to keep them afloat and their workers employed. So how does this attack make any sense?

@deedub81 I absolutely think they ran with a story that followed their narrative, in spite of facts. They were corrected after Romney brought it up at a rally, and then they ran with it and created a 30 second TV spot to double-down on the falsehood.

It's also causing a serious back-lash in the state that it was most carefully constructed to manipulate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-romneys-jeep-to-china-lie-earns-brutal-headlines-in-ohio/2012/10/30/6ca63574-227e-
11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/29/ad-watch-autos-art-givk09ct-1.html

Also, Fiat said they "may eventually make all of [Jeep's] models in [China]."

I don't think that this was an attempt at deception by the Romney campaign, but the result of a VERY poorly worded article. The reporter meant to say that Jeep will be manufacturing Jeeps in China for the Asian market, and that all Jeep models may be available to Asian consumers at some point.

Chrysler DID go through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. A foreign auto manufacturer bought the majority of the shares from the U.S. (Fiat) and the new chairman of the newly formed Chrysler Group, LLC has said that they will be moving "Jeep output" to China as demand rises. >> ^Sagemind:

"Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy" WTF - Obama bailed them out so they wouldn't go bankrupt.
Most people were against it but he helped them out anyway to keep them afloat and their workers employed. So how does this attack make any sense?

She's thinking Jeeps are capable of operating off-road, so why not take advantage of it.

>> ^spoco2:

Wow, those are some seriously poorly 'busted' myths.
Ride height. Seems that 11 is ludicrously low, and 16cm is still really low
Fuel Consumption. My god, she's actually trying to suggest those figures are reasonable? A Jeep Wrangler uses half that, a Ford Focus uses 6.2L/100km city, a Prius uses 3.9. My bloody people mover, an 8 seater Kia Carnival, uses 9.5.... that's an 8 seater vehicle using less than HALF the petrol this does. 22Litres per 100km is the same as a Hummer H1. It's just brainless to try to suggest this thing is not anything but ridiculously thirsty.
The car was made for everyday life? Erm... Um... She gives no evidence at all to counter that one
Not much room: 110 Litre boot hey? Tiny little hatchbacks have 3 TIMES that boot space.

Really, what a stupid video.
If the point is to have an (apparently) attractive woman draping herself over a car, just have that.
If you are going to pretend to have 'information' with your scantily clad woman, make is actual information. Even just a run down of the specs and capabilities of the car would have been better. Trying to suggest that this car is anything but a ridiculously overpowered, impractical beast for those who want to show off is missing the point of what it is.


That video was many things, but poorly busted isn't one of them.

Wow, those are some seriously poorly 'busted' myths.

* Ride height. Seems that 11 is ludicrously low, and 16cm is still really low
* Fuel Consumption. My god, she's actually trying to suggest those figures are reasonable? A Jeep Wrangler uses half that, a Ford Focus uses 6.2L/100km city, a Prius uses 3.9. My bloody people mover, an 8 seater Kia Carnival, uses 9.5.... that's an 8 seater vehicle using less than HALF the petrol this does. 22Litres per 100km is the same as a Hummer H1. It's just brainless to try to suggest this thing is not anything but ridiculously thirsty.
* The car was made for everyday life? Erm... Um... She gives no evidence at all to counter that one
* Not much room: 110 Litre boot hey? Tiny little hatchbacks have 3 TIMES that boot space.


Really, what a stupid video.

If the point is to have an (apparently) attractive woman draping herself over a car, just have that.

If you are going to pretend to have 'information' with your scantily clad woman, make is actual information. Even just a run down of the specs and capabilities of the car would have been better. Trying to suggest that this car is anything but a ridiculously overpowered, impractical beast for those who want to show off is missing the point of what it is.

>> ^jimnms:

...Jeep removed weight not added. They worded it strange, but read it again, it says "Jeep-Chrysler loaded the car with 470 kilos (1 036 lbs), 132 kilos (291 lbs) under the official maximum payload." The previous tests were performed at the maximum official payload the car can carry.
It looks like Jeep could fix it with a suspension upgrade. The Jeep compared to the other two vehicles rolls farther into the turn and bounces where the other two roll into the turn without the bounce.


I was quite confident that you were wrong ...and then I actually read the documentation from the link in the description. It does seem that the initial tests were performed with the vehicle at maximum payload and then they (Jeep engineers or the testing company? both?) removed weight (100kg) for followup tests. So, thanks for setting me straight! In particular, it makes me more impressed with the other vehicles that apparently can handle the increased stress on the tires even at full payload.

That being said, some of this just doesn't seem to add up to me. It seems that after they subtracted weight, they blew the tire in a great majority of the tests (7 in 10?). That kind of failure rate, at or even below the "maximum payload" suggests that the official load ratings are screwed up. The information from the testing team says that there was some discrepancy between Jeep's listed curb weight and the actual curb weight of their test vehicle, and other weird stuff. Suffice it to say that I'm much more confused about their test procedure, the actual sequence of events, and why they were hoping to improve the results from the first (?) test by removing weight.

Interesting comments thread here all around.

@Stu If a kid runs out in front of your Jeep, are you going to "pink mist" it too? It should be renamed to the high speed avoidance test. We have lots of deer down here and they say the same thing about deer too, to just hit the breaks and take the hit. Of course that never happens as you instinctively want to avoid the crash, so we get a lot of good 'ole boys rolling their trucks over swerving to avoid hitting a deer.

@charliem and @MilkmanDan Jeep removed weight not added. They worded it strange, but read it again, it says "Jeep-Chrysler loaded the car with 470 kilos (1 036 lbs), 132 kilos (291 lbs) under the official maximum payload." The previous tests were performed at the maximum official payload the car can carry.

It looks like Jeep could fix it with a suspension upgrade. The Jeep compared to the other two vehicles rolls farther into the turn and bounces where the other two roll into the turn without the bounce.

I have a jeep wrangler and I can tell you from experience that you don't swerve. The bumper is pure steel attached to the frame. The deer that walked into the road got pink misted without much damage to the jeep itself. Some cars aren't made to swerve.

>> ^Fransky:
And incidentally, the Grand Cherokee is an off-road truck.
True, but that's not why most people buy them.

Anyone from moose country knows that you NEVER swerve for an animal, anyway. You pile on the brakes and take the impact. Swerving like that either puts you into oncoming traffic, or the soft shoulder, and compounds the problem.

And incidentally, the Grand Cherokee is an off-road truck. The Touareg and its ilk are/were designed as upsized, slightly more capable cars. The Jeep will fare worse on the tarmac because of its origins. The test isn't really apples to apples.

I find it laughable that they allowed the Jeep engineers to attempt to "fix" the problem on-site. The important variables are: A) vertical center of gravity, B) track (width between wheels), and C) tires and tire pressure (coefficient of friction). Probably in that order.

They can't do much of anything significant to alter any of those variables on-site -- they are design issues. Loading the vehicle down with a shitload of weight to lower the center of gravity (a little) "helped" slightly in terms of the roll, but put way more stress on the tires. Still, it did provide some useful information to the engineers in that they know to focus redesign work on getting the engine mount and other heavy bits lower in the frame.

So the thing to take away from that is that yes, the Jeep needs a redesign (I wouldn't buy one with that problem), but don't read too much into the "failures" caused by their adding weight to the vehicle. I'd wager that if you loaded the same weight into the Volkswagen and Volvo they tested/praised, you'd get a hell of a lot of blowouts also. Kudos to those models for not needing a redesign and handling the test well, but to me I saw the Jeep engineers simply doing what was possible on-site to figure out what needs to be done to address the problem.

Some pretty damning stuff, even the jeep engineers on site couldnt do much to fix it short of adding weight....which just causes blow outs!

Scary that they can sell that car as having 'esc'.

Also, the jeep @ 8:00 isn't fail. It made it out if I recall, cant find link.