NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Structure complaints
323 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Aug 6, 2016
Structure
SUB-FRAME (ENGINE CRADLE) CORRODED AND ROTTED, ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION METAL SUPPORT STRUCTURES ARE SEVERELY WEAKENED BY RUST THROUGH SUB BODY FRAMING. CHRYSLER IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM AND HAS ISSUED A VERY LIMITED RECALL WHICH EXCLUDES MANY OF THE CARS DIRECTLY AFFECTED IN THIS MODEL/YEAR. WHEN I CONTACTED CHRYSLER I WAS TOLD …
Read full complaint
SUB-FRAME (ENGINE CRADLE) CORRODED AND ROTTED, ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION METAL SUPPORT STRUCTURES ARE SEVERELY WEAKENED BY RUST THROUGH SUB BODY FRAMING. CHRYSLER IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM AND HAS ISSUED A VERY LIMITED RECALL WHICH EXCLUDES MANY OF THE CARS DIRECTLY AFFECTED IN THIS MODEL/YEAR. WHEN I CONTACTED CHRYSLER I WAS TOLD THAT MY VIN# WAS EXCLUDED. THE BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR THE EXCLUSION WERE CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITRARY, (IE.) PRODUCTION DATE.
NHTSA ODI #10893728
146,125 miles · Jul 18, 2016
Structure
TOOK PACIFICA INTO THE SERVICE SHOP FOR A ROUTINE CHECK OF THE AIR CONDITIONING NOT WORKING. UPON PUTTING THE CAR ONTO THE CAR RACK, THE MECHANIC DISCOVERED THAT THE SUB FRAME UNDER THE CAR AND UNDER THE ENGINE, WAS SERIOUSLY RUSTED AND HAS A LARGE CRACK. HE ADVISED THAT THE CAR CAN EITHER BE FIXED BY WELDING ANOTHER FRAME FOR …
Read full complaint
TOOK PACIFICA INTO THE SERVICE SHOP FOR A ROUTINE CHECK OF THE AIR CONDITIONING NOT WORKING. UPON PUTTING THE CAR ONTO THE CAR RACK, THE MECHANIC DISCOVERED THAT THE SUB FRAME UNDER THE CAR AND UNDER THE ENGINE, WAS SERIOUSLY RUSTED AND HAS A LARGE CRACK. HE ADVISED THAT THE CAR CAN EITHER BE FIXED BY WELDING ANOTHER FRAME FOR $1500 OR TO GET RID OF THE CAR AS IT IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. WE HAVE 2 KIDS AND WITH ALL THE DRIVING AROUND TOWN WE DO, THIS CAR SHOULD BE FIXED BY CHRYSLER GIVEN THE RECENT HISTORY OF ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
NHTSA ODI #10885692
126,000 miles · Jul 14, 2016
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING SERVICED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AT AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE SUBFRAME OF THE VEHICLE WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE AND SHOULD NOT BE DRIVEN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE D…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING SERVICED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AT AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE SUBFRAME OF THE VEHICLE WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE AND SHOULD NOT BE DRIVEN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER TO BE DIAGNOSED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 126,000.
NHTSA ODI #10884861
168,300 miles · Jul 12, 2016
Structure
FRONT FRAME SEPARATED FROM CHASSIS. WE HAD THE SUB FRAME REPLACED ON JUNE 18TH 2014 AT 151178 MILES NOW ON MAY 17TH 2016 AT 168326 MILES THE SUBFRAME HAS SEPARATED FROM THE BODY OF THE CAR. I AM VERY LUCKY THIS HAPPENED AT A LOW RATE OF SPEED 25 MPH ON MY STREET AND NOT ON THE HIGHWAY. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALER HOW SOLD…
Read full complaint
FRONT FRAME SEPARATED FROM CHASSIS. WE HAD THE SUB FRAME REPLACED ON JUNE 18TH 2014 AT 151178 MILES NOW ON MAY 17TH 2016 AT 168326 MILES THE SUBFRAME HAS SEPARATED FROM THE BODY OF THE CAR. I AM VERY LUCKY THIS HAPPENED AT A LOW RATE OF SPEED 25 MPH ON MY STREET AND NOT ON THE HIGHWAY. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALER HOW SOLD US THE CAR AND WHO HAS DONE ALL THE WORK ON IT FROM NEW. I WAS ADVISED THE REPAIR FROM 2014 IS OUR OF WARRANTY. I HAD THE CAR REPAIRED BY A 3RD PARTY AFTER THE DEALER TOLD US THE REPAIR COULD NOT BE DONE. WHEN THE CAR WAS BEING REPAIRED I WAS ADVISED BY THE SHOP THE DEALER REPAIR WAS MISSING KEY PARTS. AFTER LOOKING AT THE REPAIR INVOICE ONE OF THE FIVE PARTS NEED FOR THE REPAIR WAS NOT LISTED ON THE INVOICE LOWER REBOUND PLATE.
NHTSA ODI #10884415
100,000 miles · Jul 7, 2016
Structure
IN APRIL 2016 I HAD THE BRAKES REPLACED ON MY CAR, WHILE AT THE REPAIR SHOP THEY NOTICED THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS RUSTED. I WAS TOLD THAT THE MOTOR COULD FALL OUT BUT THE REPAIR SHOULD BE COVERED BY CHRYSLER. I CALLED THE DEALER AND WAS TOLD IT WAS NOT COVERED, I CONTINUED TO LOOK ONLINE AND FOUND A NUMBER TO CALL FOR RECALLS. I…
Read full complaint
IN APRIL 2016 I HAD THE BRAKES REPLACED ON MY CAR, WHILE AT THE REPAIR SHOP THEY NOTICED THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS RUSTED. I WAS TOLD THAT THE MOTOR COULD FALL OUT BUT THE REPAIR SHOULD BE COVERED BY CHRYSLER. I CALLED THE DEALER AND WAS TOLD IT WAS NOT COVERED, I CONTINUED TO LOOK ONLINE AND FOUND A NUMBER TO CALL FOR RECALLS. I CALLED ON JULY 1ST AND WAS TOLD IT WAS BUILT 3 DAYS OUT OF WARRANTY BUT HE WOULD SEE WHAT HE COULD DO AND WOULD CALL ME BACK. ON JULY 6TH AFTER I MADE NUMEROUS PHONE CALLS I WAS TOLD THEY ARE UNWILLING TO HELP ME. I ASKED TO SPEAK TO A SUPERVISOR BUT WAS TOLD THEY COULDN'T TRANSFER CALLS BUT ONE WILL CALL BE BACK. I STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED A PHONE CALL NOR DO I EXPECT ANY HELP FROM THEM. I DO QUESTION HOW THEY CAN PUT A TIME LIMIT ON A WARRANTY WHEN THEY FAILED TO UNDERCOAT MY CAR PROPERLY EVEN IF IT WAS 3 DAYS OUT OF THEIR TIME FRAME. I ALSO DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY I WASN'T NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM EVEN IF THEY WILL NO FIX IT AS IT CAN CAUSE AN ACCIDENT! IF YOU ARE ABLE TO HELP ME IN ANYWAY I WOULD APPRECIATE IT, I TRULY DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I AM UNABLE TO PAY FOR THE REPAIR! THANK YOU, [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10883280
112,067 miles · Jun 22, 2016
Structure
WE TOOK OUR VERY WELL MAINTAINED 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA INTO THE MECHANIC TO REPLACE THE SHOCKS (THINKING THAT MIGHT BE THE CLUNCKING NOISE WE HEARD) AND HE CALLED US AND TOLD US THE CAR'S ENGINE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY ROTTED OUT AND THE CAR WAS HORRIBLY UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND DIDN'T WANT US TO EVEN DRIVE IT HOME. HE TOLD US THE FRAM…
Read full complaint
WE TOOK OUR VERY WELL MAINTAINED 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA INTO THE MECHANIC TO REPLACE THE SHOCKS (THINKING THAT MIGHT BE THE CLUNCKING NOISE WE HEARD) AND HE CALLED US AND TOLD US THE CAR'S ENGINE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY ROTTED OUT AND THE CAR WAS HORRIBLY UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND DIDN'T WANT US TO EVEN DRIVE IT HOME. HE TOLD US THE FRAME REPLACEMENT WOULD BE IN THE RANGE OF $4,000 TO $5,000. OUR CAR WAS IN OTHERWISE PERFECT CONDITION AND PERFECTLY MAINTAINED (I HAVE THE RECORDS TO PROVE IT). MY HUSBAND CALLED CHRYSLER TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SITUATION AND WAS BASICALLY TOLD TO TAKE A HIKE BY A CUSTOMER SERVICE REP THERE NAMED "LEAH" AND WOULDN'T PUT US IN CONTACT WITH ANY SUPERIORS, ETC. NO NOTICE FROM CHRYSLER ABOUT THIS HORRIBLE/DEADLY ISSUES WHATSOEVER. I'VE BEEN DRIVING OUR CHILD AROUND IN THIS CAR WITH ALL OF HIS FRIENDS, ON THE HIGHWAYS ALL AROUND CHICAGOLAND. THIS IS A VEHICLE THAT IS PURCHASED BY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN CHRYSLER THINK IT'S OK TO NOT WARN PEOPLE THEY ARE DRIVING AROUND A TIME BOMB THAT COULD KILL THEIR ENTIRE FAMILY AND POSSIBLE EVERYONE DRIVING AROUND THEM. WE HAD TO RUN OUT AND IMMEDIATELY BUY A NEW VEHICLE WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SELL THE PACIFICA. THIS IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE FOR OUR FAMILY. I CAN ONLY BE GRATEFUL SOMETHING MUCH WORSE DIDN'T HAPPEN AND OUR MECHANIC PROBABLY SAVED OUR LIVES. THIS CAR NEEDS TO BE RECALLED IMMEDIATELY!!!!
NHTSA ODI #10875898
59,694 miles · Jun 16, 2016
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING SERVICED, THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE CROSS MEMBER CRADLE WAS FRACTURED AND HAD A LARGE HOLE DUE TO CORROSION. WITHOUT THE CROSS MEMBER CRADLE, THE ENGINE WOULD FAIL TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND COULD CAUSE A CRASH WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING SERVICED, THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE CROSS MEMBER CRADLE WAS FRACTURED AND HAD A LARGE HOLE DUE TO CORROSION. WITHOUT THE CROSS MEMBER CRADLE, THE ENGINE WOULD FAIL TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND COULD CAUSE A CRASH WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 59,694.
NHTSA ODI #10874662
133,000 miles · Jun 14, 2016
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC FOR AN OIL CHANGE AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE SUBFRAME WAS BADLY RUSTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN A RECALL. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 133,000.
NHTSA ODI #10874241
167,500 miles · Jun 2, 2016
Structure
I HAD THE SUB FRAME REPLACED DUE TO RUST. LAST WEEK THE SUB FRAME FELL OFF THE CAR, THE ISOLATORS BUSSHINGS FAILED AND PULLED THRU AND THE FRAME DROPPED. THE FRAME WAS REPLACED 17,000 MILES AGO. I PULLED THE INVOICE AND LOOKED AT THE LIST OF PARTS REPLACED THEN, I LOOKED AT THE PARTS SCHEMATIC ON THE CHRYSLER WEB-SITE. IT APPE…
Read full complaint
I HAD THE SUB FRAME REPLACED DUE TO RUST. LAST WEEK THE SUB FRAME FELL OFF THE CAR, THE ISOLATORS BUSSHINGS FAILED AND PULLED THRU AND THE FRAME DROPPED. THE FRAME WAS REPLACED 17,000 MILES AGO. I PULLED THE INVOICE AND LOOKED AT THE LIST OF PARTS REPLACED THEN, I LOOKED AT THE PARTS SCHEMATIC ON THE CHRYSLER WEB-SITE. IT APPEARS WHEN THE REPAIR WAS DONE THE ISOLATOR. CRADLE, CROSSMEMBER. LOWER REBOUND PLATE, WAS NOT REPLACED. AFTER LOOKING UNDER THE CAR I DO NOT FIND THIS PART. THE FRAME FAILED WHEN MY WIFE WAS DRIVING THE CAR, SHE WAS DRIVING ON A RESIDENTIAL ROAD AT ABOUT 25 MPH.
NHTSA ODI #10872202
140,000 miles · May 20, 2016
Structure
THE PACIFICA BECAME NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO STEER. THE ENGINE CRADLE HAS FAILED DUE TO PREMATURE CORROSION OR MATERIAL FAILURE. DUE TO THIS FAILURE, THE BOLTS AND BUSHINGS HOLDING THE REAR OF THE ENGINE CRADLE HAVE FALLEN THRU AND THE REAR OF THE ENGINE CRADLE IS INCHES FROM THE GROUND CAUSING THE ENGINE TO NO LONGER BE SUPPORTED. …
Read full complaint
THE PACIFICA BECAME NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO STEER. THE ENGINE CRADLE HAS FAILED DUE TO PREMATURE CORROSION OR MATERIAL FAILURE. DUE TO THIS FAILURE, THE BOLTS AND BUSHINGS HOLDING THE REAR OF THE ENGINE CRADLE HAVE FALLEN THRU AND THE REAR OF THE ENGINE CRADLE IS INCHES FROM THE GROUND CAUSING THE ENGINE TO NO LONGER BE SUPPORTED. THIS MAKES THE CAR IMPOSSIBLE TO STEER BECAUSE THE DRIVELINE ANGLE IS CHANGED. ENGINE RESTING ON THE RACK AND PINION DAMAGES THIS DEVICE ALSO. VEHICLE IS NOT DRIVE ABLE. COST ESTIMATE FROM LOCAL CHRYSLER DEALER IS OVER 4000$
NHTSA ODI #10870039
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.
Illustration