Oyaji

What's fair is that defective parts that are the subject of a safety recall be repaired or replaced to function as designed without expense to the owner. If you are going to set yourself up to satisfy Chrysler's liability, you should not only provide the parts free of charge but also install them, as well as warranty them against future failure and any resulting consequences (like crashes, deaths and injuries, property damage, and all resulting claims arising therefrom). You're in over your head - think about it... although I bet Chrysler would love you for it. :)

Links to topics at the ecomodder.com fuel economy site I suggested you visit: 65+ Efficiency Mods - http://ecomodder.com/forum/fuel-economy-mpg-modifications.php 100+ Hypermiling Tips - http://ecomodder.com/forum/EM-hypermiling-driving-tips-ecodriving.php

Thank you Cruiser - that would be very helpful.

If you are not going to go read for yourself any of the uncounted links on the search page I posted for you that state that safety recalls have no time limit, kindly shut up and let people who want to use this forum for help in getting resolution of this issue continue without your interference. Thank you.

The only tap-dancing being done here is by you. I don't see how the terms of the wager can be any more clear. You quoted JeepcoMJ and agreed, calling it an "amusing" "exercise in futility" when he said: "... and realize the fact that NO ONE honors a recall on a 22-23 year old vehicle." I wager that a safety recall will be honored, regardless of how much time has passed. That as plain as I can make it. You hold that makers are free of such responsibility if a vehicle is too old. The only thing left to agree upon are the stakes. Since this is over the Internet and I don't see any way for the winner to collect tangible assets, it seems we should agree on something that can be accomplished here on this forum. What would you suggest? Interesting night last. An elderly neighbor lady called my wife around midnight complaining of chest pains and we took her to the hospital. Turned out to be a false alarm, and she's fine, but had to stay overnight. Back to the subject below. ... and realize the fact that NO ONE honors a recall on a 22-23 year old vehicle." The terms of this bet are way too vague and need to be quantified. As stated above, Oyaji-san could drag up a recall that was honored decades after the vehicle's manufactured date that pertained to anything. For example a recall the Stanley Steamer company issued for replacement of possibly defective boiler pressure relief valves on the car's boiler. We are betting on the outcome of this specific recall, a potential failure of the parking brake mechanism in an 86 Jeep Comanche, nothing else. Honoring is defined as Chrysler repairing or replacing the assembly, or offering a mutually agreed upon cash settlement to all claimants of this specific recall, as in a class action suit. I'd love to see someone get "honored" to their satisfaction for this specific recall, but Chrysler has a difficult time keeping up with their current recalls, let alone one from 27 years ago. I'm done with this now........ I actually had in mind driving my brother's beater 1989 CRX (he is here for the hollidays with it, he burned an exhaust valve on the trip and drove the last 150 miles only running on 3 cylinders... 300k on the engine and never a single valve adjustment - what can I say, he is an artist *lol*) down to the Honda dealer, videotaping them honoring the safety recall on the seatbelts, and posting the vid here after the holidays. It would certainly demolish your agreement of the assertion that "that NO ONE honors a recall on a 22-23 year old vehicle." Resolution of a defective parking brake pawl safety recall on 1986 MJs will take longer, even though Chrysler has officially recognized their responsibility in an email to our fellow member, onlyinajeep726, right here in this thread (see post #59 on page 3). Let's just wait and see then, shall we? Still need to settle the stakes. ;)

^^^ Nice story, unfortunately typical of "the dealership experience". But that story has nothing whatsoever to do with a safety recall. You still don't seem to get the difference. I don't doubt that other dealerships will take a similar tack. If/as/when they do, it will be time to contact NHTSA, after which it is just a matter of time before the recall is honored.

:agree: As with all similar stuff, that is a great idea. Maybe he would even consider making parts for sale.

Roger that. I have an idea that might be very worthwhile. Before final assembly, could you make templates of your adapters? Measurements of all dimensions (diameters and hole placements etc) would be easy to transfer to a CAD program. Such might come in very handy sometime in the future... Use of aluminum for the flywheel adapter seems potentially sketchy, I dunno. I guess maybe it is perfectly suitable for a low RPM application, less so for high rpm, but something about that bothers me. First and second order vibrations inherent in the I-4 engine make me wonder about durability issues resulting from metal fatigue, too. I know your application has been done before, so that is comforting, but how would you (or even the fabricator) find out about long-term failure of the same custom parts, outside of your own experience?

Actually, we can. And they don't cover the MJ for ANYTHING. Go out, tell a dealer you have a pinto and the gas tank has exploded. It's a known issue. Know what they will do? laugh at you. it's too old. Go out and tell a Yamaha dealer that your mint condition 1981 SRX with 300 miles has blown the bottom end. Know what they will do? laugh at you. Recalls have a shelf life and timeframe in which to act on them. That time has passed. You are doing readers a disservice by spreading misinformation. You really don't know what you are talking about. I do, because not only do I have special background in a related field (as some readers have doubtless guessed by now), but also because I can be bothered to search - here, let me Google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=automotive+safety+recall+time+limit

The dealer probably will say "no". That does not release the parent company from responsibility. It is not necessary to get on the phone with Chrysler - email works too. If you read the whole thread you will see it has been done - successfully - but only after first getting 2 denials. Before service is completed, more escalation may well be required. No one in this thread ever said there was a Comanche parking brake recall for anything besides the 1986 model. Go back and read the thread again. It doesn't matter that Chrysler has no records of MJ production numbers. When they bought AMC they became responsible for it. A certain base level of record keeping is required by statute. If Chrysler failed to maintain AMC's records, that is not the fault of the vehicle owners and does not release Chrysler from responsibility for safety recalls. I don't doubt that Chrysler will try to dodge responsibility: they have done so as was already evidenced in this thread. In fact I would not be at all surprised for them to do so in every similar case that comes before them. But if they adopt that strategy as a corporate policy to drive away claims for remediation of a safety recall, they can get into some serious trouble. Not just financial trouble from paying settlements, either, but also the kind that sends people to jail.

Umm, yeah, I mentioned driveshaft clearance in the 6th sentence of the original post. Thank you for your thoughts though.

And after a hurricane, I've had 6 flats in one day. I carry a small air compressor and a plug kit, and sometimes get a lot of use out of it: shingles and roofing nails are everywhere after a storm and tires pick them up readily. It's best to stay home, but I have supervised debris cleanup under FEMA and local municipalities since 2005 and may end up doing it again any year. I like the transfer pump idea, it's my default solution unless someone else comes up with a better one. I actually have a use for just a body, so this may sit for a while before becoming roadworthy. Thank you for your constructive ideas.

That's a bet you lose. They were a client.

It has indeed - but it is worthwhile if it helps spread the word that you don't have to "just keep your mouth shut and your head down" and quietly accept that "no means no" when you are owed service. I look forward to hearing details of your experience when you hit up your dealer for recall remediation. :)

Yes indeed - but do you really think they would use their arms to protect us from/shoot at our politicians who seem to hate us for what freedom they haven't yet taken away? Oh well, let's be thankful for them anyway! ;) Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. :)

Thanks, but no thanks. I really want dual tanks or a custom tank because I want to have the capacity. I also want to keep my bed free. That's why I am not keen on giving up the stock spare tire location. We used to get fuel delivered here to the farm by truck - still have 3 6,000 gallon tanks plus a half-dozen or so 500s, but only use a couple 250s now that we don't do large-scale commercial farming anymore (never even used the 6,000 gallon tanks, but we still have the capacity) Somewhere out in the weeds is a 250 gallon tank mounted to a trailer - if I needed to haul fuel, I'd just put on new tires and use it. I just want the long range/runtime capability for other reasons now.

The only tap-dancing being done here is by you. I don't see how the terms of the wager can be any more clear. You quoted JeepcoMJ and agreed, calling it an "amusing" "exercise in futility" when he said: "... and realize the fact that NO ONE honors a recall on a 22-23 year old vehicle." I wager that a safety recall will be honored, regardless of how much time has passed. That as plain as I can make it. You hold that makers are free of such responsibility if a vehicle is too old. The only thing left to agree upon are the stakes. Since this is over the Internet and I don't see any way for the winner to collect tangible assets, it seems we should agree on something that can be accomplished here on this forum. What would you suggest?

JeepcoMJ - sounds like you want to pony up some money on this bet, too. How much are you in for, then?

Careful, Hornbrod - your plumber's license is showing again. How much would you care to bet, then?

Put money on what? Lay out the details of what you expect to accomplish. I'll always bet on a sure thing. uhhh... the part you quoted, of course, highlighted in large bold green print below: Agree, an exercise in futility. Amusing too. Would either of you like to put money on that? :) I think it is a sure thing alright - just not the outcome that you think. I am certain they will honor the recall by some means, which may go well beyond simple replacement of the defective pawl.

You are right about the recall being only for the 1986 model year. The rest is debatable. The point of talking about parking brake failures on all models AFTER 1986 is to see if there is a demonstrable trend. Hornbrod mentioned earlier that the part numbers for parking brake pawl is the same regardless of year, which leads to the suspicion that there might be a problem with other years that never had a recall issued. The purpose of this thread has drifted towards gathering any evidence of pervasive parking brake failure on model years other than 1986, and if there is, to determine whether further investigation and action is warranted. I will be interested in seeing how Chrysler goes about honoring the recall of 1986 parking brakes. They are bound by law to do so.

Agree, an exercise in futility. Amusing too. Would either of you like to put money on that? :)

I guess there was some miscommunication before when you said you were getting a custom bell housing cast for $650. I thought that was very reasonable for custom casting one, including machining and drilling. Is that a good price for machining an adapter plate from billet stock? (I don't see any reason for casting that since milling and drilling it from flat stock would be so much easier - but I guess cost is the driving factor, whichever is cheaper and still nets the same results.) Seems high for this area... Anyway, congrats on overcoming that hurdle. :)

You have sharp eyes and your Google-fu is impressive: that 5-gallon bucket with the 2 hoses going over the bed rail behind the cab is the current fuel tank. :clapping: . I like your Impala fuel tank idea, but I think I like the idea of keeping a spare in the stock location better... I'll have to think about that one - thanks for the idea, I just might use it. . I asked a lot of questions, and the answers given were less than ideal: it isn't near roadworthy so I'll have to trailer it home. As I mentioned above, that 5-gallon bucket is the current fuel tank. It's 2wd, not 4x4. :( It's a 5-speed, and the driver's side floor pan is gone; so is the exhaust system. Front end is shot, as are the tires. Rims are 2 steel Jeep later-model XJs (?), 2 off some sort of Ranchero. Lacks a battery too. Unsure of the mileage, smokes a bit (valve seals? it has sat for 3 years without running). Dunno if it has a full gauge panel with tach or not; interior is worn, not nice but serviceable. Have not seen it nor heard it run yet, will do a compression check before final decision. . It is absolutely more a project than I want to take on, not because I am disinterested, but rather because I am focused on a different aspect of work on a related truck project... that, plus my back isn't what it was 20 years ago. But provided I can get it going well enough to benchmark certain consistent fuel economy performance targets, I think it will do well enough until I need a "show truck" as a demonstrator of my main project... . One step at a time. :)

Well, when we get a hurricane down here, I can use 250 gallons per week easily, plus another couple hundred gallons of diesel... and after a storm I have a hard time getting it, too. I like to keep a couple 250 gallon tanks full down here; I usually tank up when the price on fuel drops a bit, using it when prices rise so as to rotate my stock. . The extra tank capacity on the truck would also be useful for ferrying fuel locally to other farms in the family when visiting/working/repairing stuff there so I don't have to tote a 55-gallon drum to get tractor and generator fuel, as well as for long trips and certain projects involving fuel economy I am working on. . I definitely would have a use for double (or more) stock fuel capacity. Provided I can achieve it cheaply (and trouble-free) enough, I'll go for it. . I know dual stock tanks have been done by others on their Comanches, but I don't remember the details. I guess I can come up with a solution if I think on it a bit, but if anyone here has solutions or ideas to share, I am all ears - no sense in reinventing the wheel if someone else has done the inventing already and is willing to share. :) . One thing I have been wondering about is why the fuel tanks for SWB are smaller than the LWB? I'm guessing there must be a clearance issue? I am really wondering if dual LWB tank mounts couldn't be easily modified to fit if the exhaust system was re-routed outside the frame rail. Does anyone here have info/ideas to share about fitting LWB tank(s) in a SWB truck and/or about re-routing the exhaust?