IllustrationOUR CAR SUFFERED FROM A SEVERELY RUSTED FRONT SUB FRAME (ENGINE CRADLE) THAT REQUIRED REPLACEMENT. WE HAD THE SUB FRAME REPLACED, CHRYSLER REFUSED TO HELP OR COMPENSATE IN ANY WAY. *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 reportsSUB FRAME RUSTED OUT
OCTOBER 31, 2012; THE CHRYSLER DEALER SERVICE DEPARTMENT NOTED THE OWNER THAT THE ENGINE SUBFRAME (ENGINE CRADLE) HAD RUSTED THROUGH AND ADVISED THE OWNER THAT THIS COULD CAUSE A SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE AND POSSIBLE INJURY OR DEATH DUE TO LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL. THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED NEW AT THIS DEALERSHIP, REGISTERE…
Read full complaint
OCTOBER 31, 2012; THE CHRYSLER DEALER SERVICE DEPARTMENT NOTED THE OWNER THAT THE ENGINE SUBFRAME (ENGINE CRADLE) HAD RUSTED THROUGH AND ADVISED THE OWNER THAT THIS COULD CAUSE A SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE AND POSSIBLE INJURY OR DEATH DUE TO LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL. THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED NEW AT THIS DEALERSHIP, REGISTERED, SERVICED, AND DRIVEN IN THE CHRYSLER DESIGNATED "SALT BELT" STATE OF OHIO FOR ITS ENTIRE SERVICE LIFE (STILL IN SERVICE, STILL IN OHIO, STILL OWNED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER). APPARENTLY THERE WAS A CHRYSLER CUSTOMER SATISFACTION CAMPAIGN LETTER IN NOV. 2010 THAT WENT OUT TO VEHICLE OWNERS IN THIS AREA FOR THIS YEAR-MODEL VEHICLE, REGARDING THIS POTENTIAL CONDITION. HOWEVER, THIS OWNER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. WHEN THIS LETTER WAS ISSUED, THE VEHICLE WOULD HAVE BEEN INSIDE THE 10 YEAR/150,000 MILE SERVICE WINDOW AND QUALIFIED UNDER THE EXTENDED CHRYSLER WARRANTY. FORTUNATELY, NO CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OCCURRED BEFORE THIS CONDITION WAS CORRECTED. THE CHRYSLER DEALER MADE AN OFFER TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE FOR $798, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED AND THE VEHICLE MADE ROADWORTHY ONCE AGAIN. CHRYSLER SHOULD REIMBURSE THE OWNER FOR THE REPAIR CHARGES SINCE NO NOTIFICATION WAS EVER RECEIVED BY THE OWNER REGARDING THE WARRANTY EXTENSION, THE RISK IF NOT REPAIRED, OR THE PROCEDURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THE DEFECT. *TR
ADDING TO PREVIOUS COMPLAINT. I FIND THERE IS AN INTERNAL RECALL GRANTED TO ONLY A FEW. I AM OVER THE MILEAGE DUE TO MECHANIC'S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM. TOOK FOR A SECOND OPINION, WAS TOLD THAT THE CAR IS UNSAFE AND THAT THE CORROSION WAS OBVIOUSLY THERE FOR SOME TIME. CAR IS DANGEROUS THAT ENGINE CAN FALL OUT AT ANYT…
Read full complaint
ADDING TO PREVIOUS COMPLAINT. I FIND THERE IS AN INTERNAL RECALL GRANTED TO ONLY A FEW. I AM OVER THE MILEAGE DUE TO MECHANIC'S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM. TOOK FOR A SECOND OPINION, WAS TOLD THAT THE CAR IS UNSAFE AND THAT THE CORROSION WAS OBVIOUSLY THERE FOR SOME TIME. CAR IS DANGEROUS THAT ENGINE CAN FALL OUT AT ANYTIME. DID CALL CHRYSLER AND THEY MADE NO MENTION OF RECALL LETTER OR BULLETINS RELEASED ON THIS PROBLEM. BASICALLY SAID SOL THAT THERE IS NO RECALL. THERE ARE HOW MANY PACIFICAS ON THE ROADS WITH DRIVERS UNAWARE THAT THEIR VEHICLE IS A DEATH TRAP TO THEMSELVES AND OTHERS ON THE ROADS. THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL ISSUED IMMEDIATELY. *TR
I WAS HAVING PACIFICA SERVICED AT GOODYEAR STORE IN NEWPORT, KY PRIOR TO DRIVING TO FLORIDA. MECHANIC CALLED ME TO SERVICE AREA TO SEE SERIOUS RUST THROUGH ON FRONT FRAME RAILS AND ENGINE CRADLE. HE SAID "DO NOT DRIVE THE CAR TO FLORIDA. THE ENGINE COULD DROP IF FRAME BREAKS". I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO WYLER CHRYSLER AND HAD THE …
Read full complaint
I WAS HAVING PACIFICA SERVICED AT GOODYEAR STORE IN NEWPORT, KY PRIOR TO DRIVING TO FLORIDA. MECHANIC CALLED ME TO SERVICE AREA TO SEE SERIOUS RUST THROUGH ON FRONT FRAME RAILS AND ENGINE CRADLE. HE SAID "DO NOT DRIVE THE CAR TO FLORIDA. THE ENGINE COULD DROP IF FRAME BREAKS". I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO WYLER CHRYSLER AND HAD THE RUSTED FRAME REPLACED. I LATER FOUND THAT CHRYSLER HAD EXTENDED THEIR WARRANTY TO SPECIFICALLY COVER THIS PROBLEM. I DID FILE A CLAIM WITH CHRYSLER AND THEY DID REIMBURSE ME 80% OF THE REPAIR COST. I AM NOW SEEING, ON EDMUNDS.COM CHAT SITE THAT THERE ARE MANY MORE OWNERS HAVING THIS SAME RUST OUT PROBLEMS WITH THEIR PACIFICAS. A RUSTED FRAME BREAKING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS COULD BE DISASTROUS. *TR
I BOUGHT THIS 2004 PACIFICA FROM A DEALER ABOUT A MONTH AGO. TOOK IT TO THE SHOP TO GET MY SHOCKS LOOKED AT AND THEY TOLD ME THEY WOULDN'T DO ANY WORK ON IT BECAUSE THE SUB FRAME WAS ROTTED SO BADLY THEY ADVISED ME NOT TO DRIVE OR PUT ANY MONEY INTO THE VEHICLE BECAUSE IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE. ALSO THERE IS CLICKING COMING FROM THE…
Read full complaint
I BOUGHT THIS 2004 PACIFICA FROM A DEALER ABOUT A MONTH AGO. TOOK IT TO THE SHOP TO GET MY SHOCKS LOOKED AT AND THEY TOLD ME THEY WOULDN'T DO ANY WORK ON IT BECAUSE THE SUB FRAME WAS ROTTED SO BADLY THEY ADVISED ME NOT TO DRIVE OR PUT ANY MONEY INTO THE VEHICLE BECAUSE IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE. ALSO THERE IS CLICKING COMING FROM THE STEERING WHEEL WHEN YOU TURN LEFT OR RIGHT. AND ALSO A WEEK AFTER I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE THE BLOWER MOTOR RESISTER IS BAD. *TR
DEALER SERVICE DEPARTMENT CLAIMED THAT THE SUBFRAME IS ROTTING AND NEEDS REPLACEMENT (@$1890 + TAX). THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN REPORTED BY CONSUMERS NUMEROUS TIMES. CHRYSLER WILL COVER THE COSTS FOR SOME CARS -- THOSE BUILT IN WINDSOR, ONTARIO FROM 2/23/2004 THROUGH 3/31/2004, BUT MY VEHICLE WAS BUILT IN WINDSOR ON 6/2/2003 AND SO…
Read full complaint
DEALER SERVICE DEPARTMENT CLAIMED THAT THE SUBFRAME IS ROTTING AND NEEDS REPLACEMENT (@$1890 + TAX). THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN REPORTED BY CONSUMERS NUMEROUS TIMES. CHRYSLER WILL COVER THE COSTS FOR SOME CARS -- THOSE BUILT IN WINDSOR, ONTARIO FROM 2/23/2004 THROUGH 3/31/2004, BUT MY VEHICLE WAS BUILT IN WINDSOR ON 6/2/2003 AND SO IS NOT COVERED. *TR
DRIVING AROUND 40 THE VEHICLE STARTED TO SHAKE. I THOUGHT MAYBE A WHEEL BEARING OR TIE ROD WAS THE ISSUE. UPON TAKING IT TO THE SHOP TO GET CHECKED I WAS TOLD THAT THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS RUSTED TO THE POINT OF ALMOST FAILING. I AM CURRENTLY HAVING THE CRADLE REPLACED. HAD THAT OCCURRED AT A HIGHER SPEED I HAT TO THINK WHAT MAY H…
Read full complaint
DRIVING AROUND 40 THE VEHICLE STARTED TO SHAKE. I THOUGHT MAYBE A WHEEL BEARING OR TIE ROD WAS THE ISSUE. UPON TAKING IT TO THE SHOP TO GET CHECKED I WAS TOLD THAT THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS RUSTED TO THE POINT OF ALMOST FAILING. I AM CURRENTLY HAVING THE CRADLE REPLACED. HAD THAT OCCURRED AT A HIGHER SPEED I HAT TO THINK WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED. I CALLED CHRYSLER AND WAS TOLD THERE IS A REPLACEMENT PROGRAM FOR VEHICLES BUILT BETWEEN FEB 23RD AND MAR31ST 2004. BECAUSE MY VEHICLE WAS BUILT JANUARY 23RD 2004 IT WAS NOT COVERED AND I RECEIVED NO LETTER. DESPITE THE FACT I WAS DRIVING A VEHICLE WITH THE SAME PROBLEM IN A VERY DANGEROUS STATE. THERE SHOULD BE A NATIONWIDE SAFETY RECALL. *TR
MY MECHANIC CALLED TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE SUB-FRAME ON MY 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA HAD RUSTED THROUGH AND DEVELOPED CRACKS ADJACENT TO THE RUSTED AREA. I WAS ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE AND THAT THE SUB-FRAME REQUIRED REPLACEMENT. THE LOCAL CHRYSLER DEALER WAS UNAWARE OF ANY RECALL, BUT CHECKING THE INTERNET I FOUND TH…
Read full complaint
MY MECHANIC CALLED TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE SUB-FRAME ON MY 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA HAD RUSTED THROUGH AND DEVELOPED CRACKS ADJACENT TO THE RUSTED AREA. I WAS ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE AND THAT THE SUB-FRAME REQUIRED REPLACEMENT. THE LOCAL CHRYSLER DEALER WAS UNAWARE OF ANY RECALL, BUT CHECKING THE INTERNET I FOUND THIS CONDITION TO HAVE OCCURRED TO NUMEROUS OTHER PACIFICAS. I CONTACTED CHRYSLER CUSTOMER SERVICE WHO INFORMED ME THAT AN EXTENDED WARRANTY HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR 2004-2005 CHRYSLER PACIFICA PRODUCED DURING A SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD AND ORIGINALLY LICENSED IN "SNOW STATES". THE WARRANTY COVERS SUB-FRAME REPLACEMENT UP TO 10 YEARS AND 150,000 MILES. UNFORTUNATELY MY VEHICLE WAS PRODUCED A FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO THE WARRANTY COVERAGE PERIOD. IT IS QUITE UNLIKELY THAT THE SUB-FRAME WAS PRODUCED SATISFACTORILY AND THEN IT BECAME SUBSTANDARD - ESPECIALLY SINCE THE EARLIER PRODUCTION ON MY VEHICLE HAS RUSTED THROUGH. IT IS SHAMEFUL AND IRRESPONSIBLE THAT A COMPANY WITH AS MUCH HISTORY AND ENGINEERING CAPABILITIES HAS DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED A VEHICLE THAT BECOMES UNSAFE IN LESS THAN 10 YEARS OR 100,000 MILES. IF THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTING LIABILITY TO REPLACE THIS INFERIOR PART THEY SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE DECENCY TO HAVE CONTACTED OWNERS TO MAKE THEM AWARE THAT THERE IS A 'POTENTIAL FOR THE SUB-FRAME TO HAVE RUSTED TO A CONDITION THAT PRESENTS A SAFETY HAZARD.' *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED A RATTLING NOISE FROM THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE TECHNICIAN ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE INNER TIE ROD AND SWAY BAR LINKS FOR THE FRONT SUSPENSION WOULD HAVE TO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED A RATTLING NOISE FROM THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE TECHNICIAN ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE INNER TIE ROD AND SWAY BAR LINKS FOR THE FRONT SUSPENSION WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 96,000.
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.