IllustrationTL - THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS COMPLETELY CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 127,000. RK
2004 Chrysler Pacifica
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Pacifica years
Owner complaints for the 2004 Chrysler Pacifica are substantially higher than the model-year median of 189.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Pacifica years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
820–25K
7025–50K
9750–75K
14175–100K
257100–150K
104150K+
751 reports with mileage · 145 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Structure. Review the 323 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine. Review the 141 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Suspension. Review the 125 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
32 crash reports30 fire reports17 injury reports
Engine complaints
141 reportsI AM ALMOST VERBATIM SUBMITTING AN IDENTICAL COMPLAINT THAT YOU RECEIVED A DAY AFTER I WAS SHOWN THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM, AFTER TAKING MY CHRYSLER PACIFICA IN FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TOLD TOO ON MARCH 28, 2014. I WAS TOLD I HAVE A SUBFRAME/ENGINE CRADLE THAT IS SEVERELY CRACKED AND CORRODED ON THE PAS…
Read full complaint
I AM ALMOST VERBATIM SUBMITTING AN IDENTICAL COMPLAINT THAT YOU RECEIVED A DAY AFTER I WAS SHOWN THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM, AFTER TAKING MY CHRYSLER PACIFICA IN FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TOLD TOO ON MARCH 28, 2014. I WAS TOLD I HAVE A SUBFRAME/ENGINE CRADLE THAT IS SEVERELY CRACKED AND CORRODED ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND SHOWING WEAR ON THE DRIVER SIDE. I WAS NOT INFORMED OF THIS SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE WITH MY VEHICLE. I HAVE SUBMITTED AN EMAIL TO CHRYSLER AND AM WAITING THEIR RESPONSE BUT UNDERSTAND THAT CUSTOMERS ARE MOST OFTEN TOLD THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO TO ASSIST WITH THE NEARLY $3000 COST OF REPLACEMENT, BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT MADE IN THE NARROW WINDOW OF PRODUCTION THAT THEY CLAIM WAS AFFECTED AND SUBJECT TO RECALL. AND MAY I ECHO THE ENTIRE LAST COMPLAINT THAT WAS SUBMITTED THAT I JUST READ BECAUSE IT'S EXACTLY HOW I FEEL TOO. I HAVE READ THAT CHRYSLER ALSO SELECTIVELY DECIDES WHO TO HELP WITH THE COST OF REPAIRS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RECALL WINDOW AND WARRANTY, AFTER THE CUSTOMER MAKES ENOUGH NOISE. IF IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT, WHY ARE THEY DOING THAT? THE NBC REPORT ALSO INDICATES THAT NHTSA SEES NO PATTERN WITH THE NUMEROUS CLAIMS YOU HAVE RECEIVED OUTSIDE OF THE SUPPOSED RECALL WINDOW, LIKE THIS ONE, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO BE PUT AT GRAVE RISK BEFORE YOU SEE A PATTERN? YOU MIGHT SEE A PATTERN IF MORE PEOPLE KNEW THEY ARE DRIVING UNSAFE PACIFICAS, SO THAT THEY COULD REPORT IT. PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR RECALL DECISION, AS CHRYSLER'S LIABILITY IS CERTAINLY MORE THAN A COUPLE MONTHS OF PRODUCTION. " *TR
ON MARCH 29, 2014, MY 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA, PURCHASED IN AUGUST 2003, WAS INSPECTED AND DIAGNOSED, BY THE DEALERSHIP WHERE IT WAS PURCHASED, TO HAVE A SUBFRAME/ENGINE CRADLE THAT IS "ROTTING" OR IN OTHER WORDS, SEVERELY CRACKED AND CORRODED. I WAS NOT INFORMED OF THIS SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE WITH MY VEHICLE BY CHRYSLER. I WAS I…
Read full complaint
ON MARCH 29, 2014, MY 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA, PURCHASED IN AUGUST 2003, WAS INSPECTED AND DIAGNOSED, BY THE DEALERSHIP WHERE IT WAS PURCHASED, TO HAVE A SUBFRAME/ENGINE CRADLE THAT IS "ROTTING" OR IN OTHER WORDS, SEVERELY CRACKED AND CORRODED. I WAS NOT INFORMED OF THIS SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE WITH MY VEHICLE BY CHRYSLER. I WAS INFORMED BY A RECENT INVESTIGATIVE STORY ON THE LOCAL CHICAGO NBC STATION, FOLLOWED BY INTERNET RESEARCH OF THE ISSUE. I CALLED THE CUSTOMER SERVICE NUMBER GIVEN TO ME FOR CHRYSLER AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO TO ASSIST WITH THE $2600 COST OF REPLACEMENT, BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT MADE IN THE NARROW WINDOW OF PRODUCTION THAT THEY CLAIM WAS AFFECTED AND SUBJECT TO RECALL. CHRYSLER TOLD ME THE WARRANTY THEY OFFERED, RELATED TO THE RECALL, WAS EXPIRED FOR MY VEHICLE ANYWAY. I NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM OR THAT WARRANTY, BECAUSE THEY WERE KEEPING THIS PROBLEM A SECRET TO MOST OF THEIR AFFECTED CUSTOMERS. I HAVE READ THAT CHRYSLER ALSO APPARENTLY SELECTIVELY DECIDES WHO TO HELP WITH THE COST OF REPAIRS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RECALL WINDOW AND WARRANTY, AFTER THE CUSTOMER MAKES ENOUGH NOISE. IF IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT, WHY ARE THEY DOING THAT? ISN'T THIS THE SAME TYPE OF BEHAVIOR THAT TOYOTA AND CHEVROLET HAVE EXHIBITED? THE NBC REPORT ALSO INDICATES THAT NHTSA SEES NO PATTERN WITH THE NUMEROUS CLAIMS YOU HAVE RECEIVED OUTSIDE OF THE SUPPOSED RECALL WINDOW, LIKE THIS ONE, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO BE PUT AT GRAVE RISK BEFORE YOU SEE A PATTERN? YOU MIGHT SEE A PATTERN IF MORE PEOPLE KNEW THEY ARE DRIVING UNSAFE PACIFICAS, SO THAT THEY COULD REPORT IT. SORRY IF I AM BEING A BIT POINTED HERE, BUT THE I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW CHRYSLER AND NHTSA CAN IGNORE THIS ISSUE. PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR RECALL DECISION, AS CHRYSLER'S LIABILITY IS CERTAINLY MORE THAN A COUPLE MONTHS OF PRODUCTION. *TR
DISCOVERED ENGINE SUPPORT HAS A RUST THROUGH HOLE APPROX. 1 3/4 X 3/4. ALSO SHOWING OTHER AREAS OF RUST DAMAGE. THIS AUTO IS LOW MILEAGE & GARAGE KEPT. HAVE PHOTOS WITH TAPE MEASURE IF DESIRED. *TR
DURING AN INSPECTION MY MECHANIC INFORMED ME THAT THE ENGINE CRADLE IS RUSTED THRU. THE CRADLE IS SO RUSTED THAT HE IS AFRAID THAT THE ENGINE WILL FALL OUT OF THE CAR. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A CHRYSLER GUY BUT THIS IS BAD! *TR
I HAVE HAD THIS CAR FOR SIX YEARS BOUGHT IT USED. I HAVE HAD THE FRONT MOTOR MOUNTS REPLACED FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES. IF I TURN SHARP THEY BREAK. THE FIRST TWO TIMES THE WARRANTY COVERED THEM. I THINK THIS IS A RECALL ISSUE AND CHRYSLER SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR REPAIR CHARGES. I JUST PRAY NO ONE GETS KILLED BEFORE THEY INVESTIGATE THE …
Read full complaint
I HAVE HAD THIS CAR FOR SIX YEARS BOUGHT IT USED. I HAVE HAD THE FRONT MOTOR MOUNTS REPLACED FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES. IF I TURN SHARP THEY BREAK. THE FIRST TWO TIMES THE WARRANTY COVERED THEM. I THINK THIS IS A RECALL ISSUE AND CHRYSLER SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR REPAIR CHARGES. I JUST PRAY NO ONE GETS KILLED BEFORE THEY INVESTIGATE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS JUST LIKE TOYOTA. *TR
ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 30TH, MY 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA WAS TAKEN TO JACK WILLIAMS TIRE AND AUTO SERVICE CENTER IN CAMP HILL, PA BECAUSE OF A DRIVABILITY VIBRATION AND/OR SHAKE. THE MECHANIC CALLED AND SAID, YOU WERE LUCKY TO GET THE VEHICLE HERE IN ONE PIECE; THE ENGINE CRADLE IS SO BADLY CORRODED THAT YOU ARE LUCKY THAT THE ENGI…
Read full complaint
ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 30TH, MY 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA WAS TAKEN TO JACK WILLIAMS TIRE AND AUTO SERVICE CENTER IN CAMP HILL, PA BECAUSE OF A DRIVABILITY VIBRATION AND/OR SHAKE. THE MECHANIC CALLED AND SAID, YOU WERE LUCKY TO GET THE VEHICLE HERE IN ONE PIECE; THE ENGINE CRADLE IS SO BADLY CORRODED THAT YOU ARE LUCKY THAT THE ENGINE DID NOT DROP OUT OF THE VEHICLE. HE WOULD NOT RELEASE THE VEHICLE UNTIL THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS REPLACED BECAUSE OF THIS SEVERE SAFETY ISSUE. ON SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2014, I DID SOME RESEARCH ONLY TO FIND THAT THIS IS NOT NEWS TO THE CHRYSLER GROUP LLC . . . . IN A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 9, 2010, CHRYSLER GROUP LLC STATES THIS IS AN ISSUE WITH SOME VEHICLES, ESPECIALLY THOSE DRIVEN IN AREAS OF HIGH SALT USAGE ON ROADWAYS. THE LETTER INFORMS OWNERS THAT THE WARRANTY PERIOD FOR THE FRONT ENGINE CRADLE (OF CHRYSLER PACIFICA MODEL YEARS 2004 THRU 2005) HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO 10 YEARS OR 150,000 MILES WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. I DID EMAIL CHRYSLER GROUP LLC CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE ABOUT MY SITUATION AND MY REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED WAS: THE VEHICLE HAS EXCEEDED THE TIME AND/OR MILEAGE LIMITATIONS OF THE WARRANTY. SINCE MY VEHICLE IS 2004 AND UNDER 150,000 MILES I SENT A LETTER TO THEM ASKING THEM TO PLEASE REVIEW THEIR DECISION AND IN A LETTER DATED 2/21/2014 I RECEIVED A LETTER WITH ONE SENTENCE STATING "AFTER THOROUGHLY REVIEWING YOUR REQUEST AND OUR FILES ON THIS MATTER, WE RESPECTFULLY CONCUR WITH OUR PREVIOUS DECISION." THIS IS AN EXTREME SAFETY ISSUE. THE MECHANIC SAID THAT OUR ENGINE COULD HAVE DROPPED OUT WHILE WE WERE DRIVING AND I HAVE 3 CHILDREN - - I WOULD HATE TO EVEN THINK ABOUT WHAT WOULD OR COULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED! *TR
I HAVE A MAJOR CORROSION PROBLEM ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ENGINE CRADLE. I COMPLAINED OF A NOISE COMING FROM THAT SIDE AND ASKED MY MECHANIC TO TAKE A LOOK AS HE WAS FIXING A TIRE. WHAT HE FOUND WAS STARTLING TO SAY THE LEAST. I'M IN FEAR OF MY LIFE AND POSSIBLY OTHERS, IF THIS ENGINE WERE TO BREAK THROUGH THE REST OF THE CORROS…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A MAJOR CORROSION PROBLEM ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ENGINE CRADLE. I COMPLAINED OF A NOISE COMING FROM THAT SIDE AND ASKED MY MECHANIC TO TAKE A LOOK AS HE WAS FIXING A TIRE. WHAT HE FOUND WAS STARTLING TO SAY THE LEAST. I'M IN FEAR OF MY LIFE AND POSSIBLY OTHERS, IF THIS ENGINE WERE TO BREAK THROUGH THE REST OF THE CORROSION. HE WARNED ME NOT TO DRIVE IT AND TO GET ANOTHER CAR. I CALLED CHRYSLER TODAY FEBRUARY 24TH TO FIND OUT WHAT MY OPTIONS WERE AND WAS TOLD I'M OUT OF WARRANTY AND TO GO TO THE LOCAL CHRYSLER DEALER FOR ASSISTANCE.TOMORROW I WILL GO THERE AND FIND OUT WHAT COULD BE DONE. THE FEELING I'M GETTING IS THE COST WILL BE IN THE THOUSANDS. MONEY I DON'T HAVE. I SEARCH THE WEB FOR INFORMATION AND FOUND THAT MANY OTHERS HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM YET CHRYSLER WON'T ISSUE A RECALL. SOME OWNERS WERE INFORMED AND SOME CHRYSLER SHARED THE EXPENSE. IF CHRYSLER WANTED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC I WOULD THINK CHRYSLER SHOULD ISSUE A RECALL. PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE AT RISK. *TR
WE HAD OUR 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA LOOKED OVER BY A MECHANIC AROUND MARCH OF 2012 BECAUSE OUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER GOT HER DRIVERS PERMIT. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CAR WAS SAFE FOR HER TO DRIVE. HE LOOKED OVER THE CAR AND TOLD US THAT WE SHOULD START THINKING ABOUT REPLACING THE ENGINE CRADLE. HE SAID THAT ENGINE CRADLES IN…
Read full complaint
WE HAD OUR 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA LOOKED OVER BY A MECHANIC AROUND MARCH OF 2012 BECAUSE OUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER GOT HER DRIVERS PERMIT. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CAR WAS SAFE FOR HER TO DRIVE. HE LOOKED OVER THE CAR AND TOLD US THAT WE SHOULD START THINKING ABOUT REPLACING THE ENGINE CRADLE. HE SAID THAT ENGINE CRADLES IN THE CHRYSLER PACIFICA WERE KNOWN FOR CORROSION. WE CONTINUED TO DUE OUR NORMAL MAINTENANCE ON THE CAR AND AS OF TODAY WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DRIVE THE CAR UNTIL WE GET THE ENGINE CRADLE FIXED. THE CAR IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE AND IT ONLY HAS 107,000 MILES. THIS IS VERY EXPENSIVE TO FIX. I DID RESEARCH ONLINE AND DISCOVERED THAT CHRYSLER GROUP LLC PACIFICA'S FRONT ENGINE CRADLES WARRANTY HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO 10 YEARS OR 150,000 MILES, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST IN 2004 - 2005 MODEL YEARS. I CALLED CHRYSLER CUSTOMER SERVICE AND READ THEM OFF MY VIN # AND THEY SAID IT WAS NOT COVERED. I ASKED WHY AND WAS TOLD RECALLS ARE BASED OFF OF VIN # NOT WHAT WAS PRINTED IN THE LETTER. I ASKED TO SPEAK TO A SUPERVISOR AND THEY WOULD NOT GIVE CONNECT ME TO ONE BUT WOULD HAVE ONE CALL ME BACK. I CALLED BACK AND FILED A COMPLAINT WITH CHRYSLER CUSTOMER SERVICE ON 2/19/14. WE WORK VERY HARD FOR OUR MONEY AND TO HAVE CHRYSLER NOT COVER OUR CAR IS UPSETTING. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND I IT IS BEING IGNORED. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS CORRODED AND THE ENGINE HAD BECOME PARTIALLY DETACHED FROM THE ENGINE CRADLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS SEVERE CORRODED AND WOULD NEED REPLACING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS CORRODED AND THE ENGINE HAD BECOME PARTIALLY DETACHED FROM THE ENGINE CRADLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS SEVERE CORRODED AND WOULD NEED REPLACING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 105,000. UPDATED 3/14/14*CN
Official recalls
204V113000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)
Mar 4, 2004
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A NGC-1 POWERTRAIN CONTROL MODULE, THE SOFTWARE PROTOCOLE USED TO TEST THE VEHICLE EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION (EGR) SYSTEM MAY LEAD TO ENGINE STALLING UNDER CERTAIN OPERATING CONDITIONS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD CAUSE A CRASH WITHOUT WARNING.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPROGRAM THE POWERTRAIN CONTROL MODULE SOFTWARE. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON MARCH 15, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT DAIMLERCHRYSLER AT 1-800-853-1403.
03V471000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
Nov 10, 2003
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, THE CHASSIS FUEL SUPPLY TUBE MAY HAVE BEEN INCORRECTLY MANUFACTURED.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: UNDER CERTAIN ENGINE AND VEHICLE DYNAMIC CONDITIONS, THE FUEL LINE MAY SEPARATE, RESULTING IN A FUEL LEAK AND AN INCREASED RISK OF A VEHICLE FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A SECONDARY RETENTION CLIP TO THE FUEL LINE QUICK CONNECT. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON DECEMBER 15, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT DAIMLERCHRYSLER AT 1-800-992-1997.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
3EA06010 · Fuel Tank Punctures
Opened Jun 15, 2006 · Closed Oct 11, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage; Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly; Fuel System, Other:storage; Fuel System, Other:storage:tank Assembly
EA06-010 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION GATHERED IN PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE06-009.PE06-009 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED IN A PEER INFORMATION REQUEST AS PART OF A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE05-050) OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.IN JANUARY 2006, NISSAN SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO ODI THAT IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE FUEL TANK SHIELDING IN APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MY 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, NISSAN INSTALLED SHIELDS ON THE EXPOSED FRONT SURFACES OF THE RECALLED VEHICLES.PEER DATA COLLECTED FOR MY 2004 THROUGH 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES DURING PE05-050 INCLUDED 120 FIELD REPORTS DOCUMENTING TANK REPLACEMENTS DUE TO PUNCTURE OR DAMAGE BY ROAD DEBRIS AS PART OF A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM CONDUCTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE TANK SUPPLIER (INERGY). ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CHRYSLER DURING PE05-050, PE06-009 AND EA06-010 SHOW THAT THE FRONT SURFACE OF THE FUEL TANKS IN THE SUBJECT PACIFICA VEHICLES IS NOT COMPLETELY PROTECTED FROMROAD DEBRIS BY THE FLOOR PAN OR OTHER BODY STRUCTURE.THE TANKS WERE COMPARED WITH PEER VEHICLES, INCLUDING SEVERAL IDENTIFIED BY CHRYSLER AS SHARING SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS (UNSHIELDED HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FUEL TANKS IN A SADDLEBAG CONFIGURATION).SOME OF THE PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI PACKAGED THE TANKS IN RECESSED CAVITIES IN THE FLOOR PAN OR USED SHIELDS TO PROTECT EXPOSED SURFACES ON THE FRONT OF THE TANK.IN GENERAL, THESE TANKS HAD THE LOWEST COMPLAINT RATES FOR TANK PUNCTURE BY ROAD DEBRIS. HOWEVER, OTHER PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI HAD PACKAGING SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND SOME OF THESE ALSO HAD SOME COMPLAINTS OF TANK PUNCTURE.NONE OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED BY ODI HAD TANKS PUNCTURE DATA COMPARABLE TO CHRYSLER'S FIELD REPORTS FROM ITS PART RESTRICTION PROGRAMS, SO THAT DATA COULD NOT BE USED IN PEER COMPARISONS. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA SHOWS THAT THE RATE FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS ABOUT HALF THAT OBSERVED IN THE RECALLED MURANO VEHICLES AND NOT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN SOME OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED WITH SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.TESTING BY THE NHTSA VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TESTING CENTER (VRTC) SHOWED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MURANO AND PACIFICA FUEL TANK PACKAGING AND EXPOSURE TO ROAD DEBRIS THROWN BY THE FRONT TIRES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Fuel System, Gasoline:storage
EA06-010 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION GATHERED IN PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE06-009.PE06-009 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED IN A PEER INFORMATION REQUEST AS PART OF A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE05-050) OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.IN JANUARY 2006, NISSAN SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO ODI THAT IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE FUEL TANK SHIELDING IN APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MY 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, NISSAN INSTALLED SHIELDS ON THE EXPOSED FRONT SURFACES OF THE RECALLED VEHICLES.PEER DATA COLLECTED FOR MY 2004 THROUGH 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES DURING PE05-050 INCLUDED 120 FIELD REPORTS DOCUMENTING TANK REPLACEMENTS DUE TO PUNCTURE OR DAMAGE BY ROAD DEBRIS AS PART OF A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM CONDUCTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE TANK SUPPLIER (INERGY). ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CHRYSLER DURING PE05-050, PE06-009 AND EA06-010 SHOW THAT THE FRONT SURFACE OF THE FUEL TANKS IN THE SUBJECT PACIFICA VEHICLES IS NOT COMPLETELY PROTECTED FROMROAD DEBRIS BY THE FLOOR PAN OR OTHER BODY STRUCTURE.THE TANKS WERE COMPARED WITH PEER VEHICLES, INCLUDING SEVERAL IDENTIFIED BY CHRYSLER AS SHARING SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS (UNSHIELDED HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FUEL TANKS IN A SADDLEBAG CONFIGURATION).SOME OF THE PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI PACKAGED THE TANKS IN RECESSED CAVITIES IN THE FLOOR PAN OR USED SHIELDS TO PROTECT EXPOSED SURFACES ON THE FRONT OF THE TANK.IN GENERAL, THESE TANKS HAD THE LOWEST COMPLAINT RATES FOR TANK PUNCTURE BY ROAD DEBRIS. HOWEVER, OTHER PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI HAD PACKAGING SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND SOME OF THESE ALSO HAD SOME COMPLAINTS OF TANK PUNCTURE.NONE OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED BY ODI HAD TANKS PUNCTURE DATA COMPARABLE TO CHRYSLER'S FIELD REPORTS FROM ITS PART RESTRICTION PROGRAMS, SO THAT DATA COULD NOT BE USED IN PEER COMPARISONS. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA SHOWS THAT THE RATE FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS ABOUT HALF THAT OBSERVED IN THE RECALLED MURANO VEHICLES AND NOT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN SOME OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED WITH SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.TESTING BY THE NHTSA VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TESTING CENTER (VRTC) SHOWED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MURANO AND PACIFICA FUEL TANK PACKAGING AND EXPOSURE TO ROAD DEBRIS THROWN BY THE FRONT TIRES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
EA06-010 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION GATHERED IN PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE06-009.PE06-009 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED IN A PEER INFORMATION REQUEST AS PART OF A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE05-050) OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.IN JANUARY 2006, NISSAN SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO ODI THAT IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE FUEL TANK SHIELDING IN APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MY 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, NISSAN INSTALLED SHIELDS ON THE EXPOSED FRONT SURFACES OF THE RECALLED VEHICLES.PEER DATA COLLECTED FOR MY 2004 THROUGH 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES DURING PE05-050 INCLUDED 120 FIELD REPORTS DOCUMENTING TANK REPLACEMENTS DUE TO PUNCTURE OR DAMAGE BY ROAD DEBRIS AS PART OF A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM CONDUCTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE TANK SUPPLIER (INERGY). ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CHRYSLER DURING PE05-050, PE06-009 AND EA06-010 SHOW THAT THE FRONT SURFACE OF THE FUEL TANKS IN THE SUBJECT PACIFICA VEHICLES IS NOT COMPLETELY PROTECTED FROMROAD DEBRIS BY THE FLOOR PAN OR OTHER BODY STRUCTURE.THE TANKS WERE COMPARED WITH PEER VEHICLES, INCLUDING SEVERAL IDENTIFIED BY CHRYSLER AS SHARING SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS (UNSHIELDED HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FUEL TANKS IN A SADDLEBAG CONFIGURATION).SOME OF THE PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI PACKAGED THE TANKS IN RECESSED CAVITIES IN THE FLOOR PAN OR USED SHIELDS TO PROTECT EXPOSED SURFACES ON THE FRONT OF THE TANK.IN GENERAL, THESE TANKS HAD THE LOWEST COMPLAINT RATES FOR TANK PUNCTURE BY ROAD DEBRIS. HOWEVER, OTHER PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI HAD PACKAGING SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND SOME OF THESE ALSO HAD SOME COMPLAINTS OF TANK PUNCTURE.NONE OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED BY ODI HAD TANKS PUNCTURE DATA COMPARABLE TO CHRYSLER'S FIELD REPORTS FROM ITS PART RESTRICTION PROGRAMS, SO THAT DATA COULD NOT BE USED IN PEER COMPARISONS. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA SHOWS THAT THE RATE FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS ABOUT HALF THAT OBSERVED IN THE RECALLED MURANO VEHICLES AND NOT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN SOME OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED WITH SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.TESTING BY THE NHTSA VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TESTING CENTER (VRTC) SHOWED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MURANO AND PACIFICA FUEL TANK PACKAGING AND EXPOSURE TO ROAD DEBRIS THROWN BY THE FRONT TIRES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Fuel System, Other:storage
EA06-010 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION GATHERED IN PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE06-009.PE06-009 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED IN A PEER INFORMATION REQUEST AS PART OF A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE05-050) OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.IN JANUARY 2006, NISSAN SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO ODI THAT IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE FUEL TANK SHIELDING IN APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MY 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, NISSAN INSTALLED SHIELDS ON THE EXPOSED FRONT SURFACES OF THE RECALLED VEHICLES.PEER DATA COLLECTED FOR MY 2004 THROUGH 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES DURING PE05-050 INCLUDED 120 FIELD REPORTS DOCUMENTING TANK REPLACEMENTS DUE TO PUNCTURE OR DAMAGE BY ROAD DEBRIS AS PART OF A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM CONDUCTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE TANK SUPPLIER (INERGY). ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CHRYSLER DURING PE05-050, PE06-009 AND EA06-010 SHOW THAT THE FRONT SURFACE OF THE FUEL TANKS IN THE SUBJECT PACIFICA VEHICLES IS NOT COMPLETELY PROTECTED FROMROAD DEBRIS BY THE FLOOR PAN OR OTHER BODY STRUCTURE.THE TANKS WERE COMPARED WITH PEER VEHICLES, INCLUDING SEVERAL IDENTIFIED BY CHRYSLER AS SHARING SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS (UNSHIELDED HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FUEL TANKS IN A SADDLEBAG CONFIGURATION).SOME OF THE PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI PACKAGED THE TANKS IN RECESSED CAVITIES IN THE FLOOR PAN OR USED SHIELDS TO PROTECT EXPOSED SURFACES ON THE FRONT OF THE TANK.IN GENERAL, THESE TANKS HAD THE LOWEST COMPLAINT RATES FOR TANK PUNCTURE BY ROAD DEBRIS. HOWEVER, OTHER PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI HAD PACKAGING SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND SOME OF THESE ALSO HAD SOME COMPLAINTS OF TANK PUNCTURE.NONE OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED BY ODI HAD TANKS PUNCTURE DATA COMPARABLE TO CHRYSLER'S FIELD REPORTS FROM ITS PART RESTRICTION PROGRAMS, SO THAT DATA COULD NOT BE USED IN PEER COMPARISONS. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA SHOWS THAT THE RATE FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS ABOUT HALF THAT OBSERVED IN THE RECALLED MURANO VEHICLES AND NOT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN SOME OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED WITH SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.TESTING BY THE NHTSA VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TESTING CENTER (VRTC) SHOWED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MURANO AND PACIFICA FUEL TANK PACKAGING AND EXPOSURE TO ROAD DEBRIS THROWN BY THE FRONT TIRES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Fuel System, Other:storage:tank Assembly
EA06-010 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION GATHERED IN PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE06-009.PE06-009 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED IN A PEER INFORMATION REQUEST AS PART OF A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE05-050) OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.IN JANUARY 2006, NISSAN SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO ODI THAT IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE FUEL TANK SHIELDING IN APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MY 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, NISSAN INSTALLED SHIELDS ON THE EXPOSED FRONT SURFACES OF THE RECALLED VEHICLES.PEER DATA COLLECTED FOR MY 2004 THROUGH 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES DURING PE05-050 INCLUDED 120 FIELD REPORTS DOCUMENTING TANK REPLACEMENTS DUE TO PUNCTURE OR DAMAGE BY ROAD DEBRIS AS PART OF A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM CONDUCTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE TANK SUPPLIER (INERGY). ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CHRYSLER DURING PE05-050, PE06-009 AND EA06-010 SHOW THAT THE FRONT SURFACE OF THE FUEL TANKS IN THE SUBJECT PACIFICA VEHICLES IS NOT COMPLETELY PROTECTED FROMROAD DEBRIS BY THE FLOOR PAN OR OTHER BODY STRUCTURE.THE TANKS WERE COMPARED WITH PEER VEHICLES, INCLUDING SEVERAL IDENTIFIED BY CHRYSLER AS SHARING SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS (UNSHIELDED HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FUEL TANKS IN A SADDLEBAG CONFIGURATION).SOME OF THE PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI PACKAGED THE TANKS IN RECESSED CAVITIES IN THE FLOOR PAN OR USED SHIELDS TO PROTECT EXPOSED SURFACES ON THE FRONT OF THE TANK.IN GENERAL, THESE TANKS HAD THE LOWEST COMPLAINT RATES FOR TANK PUNCTURE BY ROAD DEBRIS. HOWEVER, OTHER PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI HAD PACKAGING SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND SOME OF THESE ALSO HAD SOME COMPLAINTS OF TANK PUNCTURE.NONE OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED BY ODI HAD TANKS PUNCTURE DATA COMPARABLE TO CHRYSLER'S FIELD REPORTS FROM ITS PART RESTRICTION PROGRAMS, SO THAT DATA COULD NOT BE USED IN PEER COMPARISONS. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA SHOWS THAT THE RATE FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS ABOUT HALF THAT OBSERVED IN THE RECALLED MURANO VEHICLES AND NOT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN SOME OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED WITH SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.TESTING BY THE NHTSA VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TESTING CENTER (VRTC) SHOWED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MURANO AND PACIFICA FUEL TANK PACKAGING AND EXPOSURE TO ROAD DEBRIS THROWN BY THE FRONT TIRES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
RQ06002 · Engine Stalling
Opened Feb 27, 2006 · Closed Jun 22, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Fuel System, Gasoline; Vehicle Speed Control
ON FEBRUARY 27, 2006 RQ06-002 WAS OPENED IN RESPONSE TO 60 COMPLAINTS OF ENGINE STALL, MOSTLY DURING LEFT-HAND TURNS, IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2004 TO 2006 CHRYSLER PACIFICA VEHICLES THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RECALL 04V-113.IN MARCH 2004, DAIMLERCHRYSLER INITIATED RECALL 04V-113 ON 34,561 MY 2004 PACIFICA VEHICLES TO CORRECT A CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL WHILE MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN AFTER A COLD-START.DURING RQ06-002 IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RECALL 04V-113 DID CORRECT THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF THE ENGINE STALLING CONDITION FOR THAT SPECIFIC POPULATION.HOWEVER, TWO OTHER CONDITIONS WERE IDENTIFIED THAT COULD ALSO CAUSE ENGINE STALLING DURING TURNING MANEUVERS:(1) AN ISSUE WITH MISBUILT FUEL PUMPS THAT PRIMARILY AFFECTED ABOUT 17,000 MY 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT DURING AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2004; AND (2) A SOFTWARE CONDITION AFFECTING VAPOR PURGE IN ABOUT 131,000 MY 2005-06 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT FROM JULY 2004 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2005. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA06-013, HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THESE CONDITIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON FEBRUARY 27, 2006 RQ06-002 WAS OPENED IN RESPONSE TO 60 COMPLAINTS OF ENGINE STALL, MOSTLY DURING LEFT-HAND TURNS, IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2004 TO 2006 CHRYSLER PACIFICA VEHICLES THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RECALL 04V-113.IN MARCH 2004, DAIMLERCHRYSLER INITIATED RECALL 04V-113 ON 34,561 MY 2004 PACIFICA VEHICLES TO CORRECT A CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL WHILE MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN AFTER A COLD-START.DURING RQ06-002 IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RECALL 04V-113 DID CORRECT THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF THE ENGINE STALLING CONDITION FOR THAT SPECIFIC POPULATION.HOWEVER, TWO OTHER CONDITIONS WERE IDENTIFIED THAT COULD ALSO CAUSE ENGINE STALLING DURING TURNING MANEUVERS:(1) AN ISSUE WITH MISBUILT FUEL PUMPS THAT PRIMARILY AFFECTED ABOUT 17,000 MY 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT DURING AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2004; AND (2) A SOFTWARE CONDITION AFFECTING VAPOR PURGE IN ABOUT 131,000 MY 2005-06 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT FROM JULY 2004 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2005. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA06-013, HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THESE CONDITIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Fuel System, Gasoline
ON FEBRUARY 27, 2006 RQ06-002 WAS OPENED IN RESPONSE TO 60 COMPLAINTS OF ENGINE STALL, MOSTLY DURING LEFT-HAND TURNS, IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2004 TO 2006 CHRYSLER PACIFICA VEHICLES THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RECALL 04V-113.IN MARCH 2004, DAIMLERCHRYSLER INITIATED RECALL 04V-113 ON 34,561 MY 2004 PACIFICA VEHICLES TO CORRECT A CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL WHILE MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN AFTER A COLD-START.DURING RQ06-002 IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RECALL 04V-113 DID CORRECT THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF THE ENGINE STALLING CONDITION FOR THAT SPECIFIC POPULATION.HOWEVER, TWO OTHER CONDITIONS WERE IDENTIFIED THAT COULD ALSO CAUSE ENGINE STALLING DURING TURNING MANEUVERS:(1) AN ISSUE WITH MISBUILT FUEL PUMPS THAT PRIMARILY AFFECTED ABOUT 17,000 MY 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT DURING AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2004; AND (2) A SOFTWARE CONDITION AFFECTING VAPOR PURGE IN ABOUT 131,000 MY 2005-06 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT FROM JULY 2004 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2005. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA06-013, HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THESE CONDITIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Vehicle Speed Control
ON FEBRUARY 27, 2006 RQ06-002 WAS OPENED IN RESPONSE TO 60 COMPLAINTS OF ENGINE STALL, MOSTLY DURING LEFT-HAND TURNS, IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2004 TO 2006 CHRYSLER PACIFICA VEHICLES THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RECALL 04V-113.IN MARCH 2004, DAIMLERCHRYSLER INITIATED RECALL 04V-113 ON 34,561 MY 2004 PACIFICA VEHICLES TO CORRECT A CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL WHILE MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN AFTER A COLD-START.DURING RQ06-002 IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RECALL 04V-113 DID CORRECT THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF THE ENGINE STALLING CONDITION FOR THAT SPECIFIC POPULATION.HOWEVER, TWO OTHER CONDITIONS WERE IDENTIFIED THAT COULD ALSO CAUSE ENGINE STALLING DURING TURNING MANEUVERS:(1) AN ISSUE WITH MISBUILT FUEL PUMPS THAT PRIMARILY AFFECTED ABOUT 17,000 MY 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT DURING AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2004; AND (2) A SOFTWARE CONDITION AFFECTING VAPOR PURGE IN ABOUT 131,000 MY 2005-06 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT FROM JULY 2004 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2005. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA06-013, HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THESE CONDITIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
PE06009 · Fuel Tank Punctures
Opened Feb 22, 2006 · Closed Jun 15, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
ON FEBRUARY 22, 2006, ODI OPENED PE06-009 TO INVESTIGATE REPORTS THAT THE FUEL TANKS ON MODEL YEAR (MY) 2004 TO 2005 CHRYSLER PACIFICA VEHICLES MAY BE PUNCTURED BY CONTACT WITH ROAD DEBRIS.THE NUMBER OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY CHRYSLER WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THOSE SUBMITTED BY OTHER MANUFACTURERS WHO WERE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT DATA AS PART OF INVESTIGATION PE05-050 INTO MY 2003 TO 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES THAT MAY HAVE HAD INSUFFICIENT SHIELDING OF THE FUEL TANK TO PREVENT PUNCTURES AFTER CONTACT WITH ROAD DEBRIS.NISSAN ISSUED RECALL 06V-003 INVOLVING INCREASING THE SHIELDING OF THE FUEL TANKS TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF TANK PUNCTURES. CHRYSLER HAS NOTED THAT THEY HAD IN PLACE FROM JANUARY 2003 TO JUNE 2005 A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM ON PACIFICA FUEL TANK REPLACEMENTS WHICH MAY HAVE MADE THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ARTIFICIALLY HIGH IN COMPARISON TO MANUFACTURERS WHICH DID NOT HAVE A SIMILAR PROGRAM IN EFFECT.CHRYSLER ALSO QUESTIONED WHETHER MANY OF THE FIELD REPORTS OF FUEL TANKS REPLACED DUE TO DAMAGE FROM UNKNOWN CAUSE WERE ACTUALLY PUNCTURED. THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-010) TO GATHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.