Jeeps are dangerous and California lawmakers will save us

[Think4Yourself]

The suspension can be designed better to prevent such roll overs yet still perform just as well. The cost would even be tiny. There is no reason not to improve the design to solve this obvious defect.

[415_s2k]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

The suspension can be designed better to prevent such roll overs yet still perform just as well. The cost would even be tiny. There is no reason not to improve the design to solve this obvious defect.

If that's the case, then this is an issue to take up with aftermarket suspension manufacturers, NOT Chrysler. You can lift basically any truck to the point that it'll become unsafe as described. I was out in Riverside County today and saw lifted Toyotas, Chevys, Fords, Toyotas...

Indicentally, there already are ample parts out there to ensure that your aftermarket, customized, lifted pickup is still safe at freeway speeds. You either get adequately-stiff springs and/or dampers to keep the mass from the body wobbiling about on the axles (as will happen thanks to the laws of kinetic energy), or install wider tires, possibly also wheel spacers and/or a wider axle so that the truck has a wider track which disperses the weight around a wider area and make it more stable on the ground. All of these parts are readily available right now from any of the manufacturers who also make lift kits; most of the time, if they aren't installed, it's because the owner didn't want to spend the extra money for it.

Fact of the matter is that I could go outside right now, get under my S2000, cut the springs so that it sat an inch off the ground, and reroute the fuel line so that it was directly between the chassis and the road. Then, I could load the trunk and passenger's seat full of rare and adorable snuggy baby kittens, and then go drive it down the bumpy patch of Wilshire Blvd. at 60 mph. When it bottomed out, the gas line would break and the sparks would ignite everything, causing the car and all the kittens in it to burn up in a terrible, tearjerking, smelly fireball.

Would the fact that I went out of my way to illegally modify a product made by Honda to be used in a fashion not intended by them mean that they should be held accountable for and subject to stricter regulations, or would it mean that I should have my license to drive revoked?

[Think4Yourself]

No. It's a case of requiring manufacturers to take reasonable measures so that their products are safe and work as advertised.

[415_s2k]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

No. It's a case of requiring manufacturers to take reasonable measures so that their products are safe and work as advertised.

But, the vehicles themselves go to market directly from the manufacturer satisfying all US Department of Transportation and California state requirements for safety.

People buy them, then take them and modify them with aftermarket parts that are not made by, endorsed, or sanctioned by the manufacturer, to perform in such a way that the manufacturer did not advertise it would perform.

How is the manufacturer responsible for this, and what measures do you propose they be required to take to dictate how consumers choose to use their product after they have legally purchased it from the manufacturer and it is no longer in their possession?

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

But, the vehicles themselves go to market directly from the manufacturer satisfying all US Department of Transportation and California state requirements for safety.

People buy them, then take them and modify them with aftermarket parts that are not made by, endorsed, or sanctioned by the manufacturer, to perform in such a way that the manufacturer did not advertise it would perform.

How is the manufacturer responsible for this, and what measures do you propose they be required to take to dictate how consumers choose to use their product after they have legally purchased it from the manufacturer and it is no longer in their possession?

Well, you know, it is just like protecting the homeowners from foreclosure who bought a house costing six times their annual income and didn't pay their mortgage.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

But, the vehicles themselves go to market directly from the manufacturer satisfying all US Department of Transportation and California state requirements for safety.

People buy them, then take them and modify them with aftermarket parts that are not made by, endorsed, or sanctioned by the manufacturer, to perform in such a way that the manufacturer did not advertise it would perform.

How is the manufacturer responsible for this, and what measures do you propose they be required to take to dictate how consumers choose to use their product after they have legally purchased it from the manufacturer and it is no longer in their possession?

Actually, they are. Maybe you missed the part how this applied to mopar lift kits?
How is the manufacturer not responsible for this? They made the vehicle. They made the aftermarket lift kit.

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

But, the vehicles themselves go to market directly from the manufacturer satisfying all US Department of Transportation and California state requirements for safety.

Yes, and the state of California is discussing changing it's state requirements for safety. Isn't that the whole point of the thread?

[415_s2k]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Actually, they are. Maybe you missed the part how this applied to mopar lift kits?
How is the manufacturer not responsible for this? They made the vehicle. They made the aftermarket lift kit.

Yup, I did miss that part If it is sold by the manufacturer or endorsed by them, that's another; that said, I wonder how the Mopar-sourced lift kits fare when it comes to handling versus other, more "hardcore" lift kits?

Originally Posted by think4yourself

Yes, and the state of California is discussing changing it's state requirements for safety. Isn't that the whole point of the thread?

No, the point is that one manufacturer is being singled out versus others, which is perplexing (Toyota's TRD line makes lift kits, for example).

If the state wants to limit how much you can lift a truck that would be used on-road, that's fine - I'm actually, seriously fine with this, especially when you consider what an unnecessarily-lifted-to-six-feet-off-the-ground Excursion hits a CRX.

What I'm not fine with, as a car enthusiast, are idiots who know less about cars than they do about their own importance stepping in to try to legislate them.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

Yes, and the state of California is discussing changing it's state requirements for safety. Isn't that the whole point of the thread?

The only way around it would be to "only" allow shops to do installs. Basically, making it illegal to install yourself. So, who gets sued when they sell a used 4 x 4.

The move could have major implications for Chrysler’s Mopar accessory division, which offers dealer or owner-installed kits capable of lifting the current Jeep Wrangler between two and four inches above factory height.

[jbunniii]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Anna Eschoo and Henry Waxman.

Don't blame me; I voted against that slattern when I lived in her district. This was shortly after she voted in favor of the 2008 bailouts.

In an earlier life, I voted for Henry Waxman, but I promise that will never happen again.