IllustrationCORRODED FRONT SUBFRAME. *TR
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
Suspension complaints
125 reportsI HAVE HAD THIS VEHICLE INTO THE DEALERSHIP AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR OVER THE LAST 3 YEARS FOR VARIOUS REASONS. THE RUSTING OF THE CRADLE WAS NEVER MENTIONED. I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT NOW IT IS OVER THE 150K MILEAGE LIMIT THAT CHRYSLER ALERTS ME THAT THE CRADLE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED TO THE TUNE OF SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS. I HAVE O…
Read full complaint
I HAVE HAD THIS VEHICLE INTO THE DEALERSHIP AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR OVER THE LAST 3 YEARS FOR VARIOUS REASONS. THE RUSTING OF THE CRADLE WAS NEVER MENTIONED. I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT NOW IT IS OVER THE 150K MILEAGE LIMIT THAT CHRYSLER ALERTS ME THAT THE CRADLE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED TO THE TUNE OF SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS. I HAVE OWNED SEVERAL CARS IN EXCESS OF 10+ YEARS EACH AND NEVER HAD A CRADLE RUST PROBLEM. I ALSO HAVE COME TO FIND OUT THAT THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE AMONG PACIFICA OWNERS. I AM CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT CHRYSLER'S INTENTIONS ARE TO CURE THIS SITUATION GIVEN THE SEVERITY AND DANGER PRESENT IF UNRESOLVED...NOT ONLY FOR ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL BUT OTHER PACIFICA OWNERS AS WELL. *TR
THE WELL-KNOWN ISSUE WITH MODEL YEARS 2004-2005 INVOLVING PREMATURE FAILURE DUE TO RUST ON THE ENGINE CRADLE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED ON MY OWN 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THIS VEHICLE IN 12 YEARS OLD WITH A FAULTY SUBFRAME AND IS TOO DANGEROUS TO BE DRIVEN. THERE ARE TWO EXTENSIVE AREAS OF RUST, ONE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ENGINE CRADLE TH…
Read full complaint
THE WELL-KNOWN ISSUE WITH MODEL YEARS 2004-2005 INVOLVING PREMATURE FAILURE DUE TO RUST ON THE ENGINE CRADLE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED ON MY OWN 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THIS VEHICLE IN 12 YEARS OLD WITH A FAULTY SUBFRAME AND IS TOO DANGEROUS TO BE DRIVEN. THERE ARE TWO EXTENSIVE AREAS OF RUST, ONE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ENGINE CRADLE THAT EXTEND FROM IN FRONT OF, TO THE REAR OF THE CONTROL ARMS. THE RUSTED AREAS ARE ALREADY SO BAD, I AM ABLE TO FIT FINGERS THROUGH THE HOLES IN THE ENGINE CRADLE. IT IS CRACKED AND COMPLETELY COMPROMISED OF ANY STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THIS PART SHOULD NOT BE COATED IN A CORRECT MANNER TO REJECT CORROSION IN SUCH AN AGGRESSIVE FORM. THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT CHRYSLER IS AWARE OF AND YET THEY REFUSE TO FIX IT. THERE IS NO INTEGRITY IN THAT DECISION AND VERY LITTLE RESPECT TO BE HAD FOR A CORPORATION THAT HANDLES SUCH A WELL-KNOWN SITUATION IN SUCH A POOR MANNER. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS PROBLEM AND I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THIS SHOULD BE REPLACED BY CHRYSLER. *JS
WHILE GETTING AN OIL CHANGE MY MECHANIC POINTED OUT THAT I HAVE A FIVE TO SIX INCH LONG BY ABOUT 1 INCH WIDE RUST THROUGH GASH IN THE ENGINE CRADLE. HE SAYS THIS CAN BE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE ENGINE COULD FALL THROUGH THE FRAME WHILE DRIVING. *JS
I WENT TO GET A FRONT END ALIGNMENT ON MY VEHICLE AND WAS INFORMED THAT MY VEHICLES SUB FRAME IS COMPLETELY RUSTED THROUGH. I WAS TOLD MY VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND THAT MY ENGINE COULD FALL OUT AT ANY TIME. I CALLED CHRYSLER AND WAS TOLD THERE ARE NO RECALLS ON MY CAR SPECIFICALLY AND THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY OUT OF POCKET …
Read full complaint
I WENT TO GET A FRONT END ALIGNMENT ON MY VEHICLE AND WAS INFORMED THAT MY VEHICLES SUB FRAME IS COMPLETELY RUSTED THROUGH. I WAS TOLD MY VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND THAT MY ENGINE COULD FALL OUT AT ANY TIME. I CALLED CHRYSLER AND WAS TOLD THERE ARE NO RECALLS ON MY CAR SPECIFICALLY AND THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY OUT OF POCKET FOR REPAIRS. I HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH REGARDING THIS PROBLEM AND HAVE FOUND THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH MY MAKE MODEL AND YEAR VEHICLE. I CALLED CHRYSLER BACK AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS STILL NOTHING THEY COULD DO EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE. ONLY 6 WEEKS WORTH OF MY MAKE MODEL AND YEAR VEHICLE WERE RECALLED AND THAT MINE DID NOT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT 4 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE RECALL DATES. THIS PART SHOULD BE RECALLED AS THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM AND AS MY MECHANIC POINTED OUT IT IS MOST DEFINITELY A DEFECT IN THE SUB FRAME. IF THE DEALER DOES NOT WISH TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE I WILL BE CONTACTING A LAWYER. *TR
SUB FRAME (K FRAME) RUST. BROUGHT CAR TO DEALER WHERE PURCHASED AND MAINTAINED FOR REGULAR SCHEDULED SERVICE. WE WERE ADVISE BY SERVICE PERSON THAT THE K-MEMBER HAD RUST HOLES AND WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. HE HAD A QUOTE OF $7000 TO REPLACE WITH NEW SUB FRAME. I FOUND A SERVICE BULLETIN AND BROUGHT IT TO THE DEALER, I WAS ADVISED THA…
Read full complaint
SUB FRAME (K FRAME) RUST. BROUGHT CAR TO DEALER WHERE PURCHASED AND MAINTAINED FOR REGULAR SCHEDULED SERVICE. WE WERE ADVISE BY SERVICE PERSON THAT THE K-MEMBER HAD RUST HOLES AND WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. HE HAD A QUOTE OF $7000 TO REPLACE WITH NEW SUB FRAME. I FOUND A SERVICE BULLETIN AND BROUGHT IT TO THE DEALER, I WAS ADVISED THAT MY VIN WAS NOT PART OF THE RECALL. THIS CAR WAS BOUGHT NEW AND HAS HAD ALL SERVICE AT THIS DEALERSHIP. *TR
ENGINE CRADLE IS ROTTTED CAR IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE HOW DOES DISABLED WIFE GET AROUND SHE HAS CHF HEART FAILURE. *TR
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 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
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.