NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
896 reportsMileage unknown · Apr 19, 2014
Suspension
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
NHTSA ODI #10583683
Mileage unknown · Apr 15, 2014
Engine
I HAVE SUSPICION THAT MY 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA'S MOTOR MOUNTS ARE BELOW EXPECTED STANDARDS. I MONITOR MY VEHICLES FOR COMPLAINTS AND RECALLS TO INSURE THAT IF I HAVE TO HAVE WORK DONE ON MY CARS IT IS FOR EXPECTED WEAR AND TEAR OF ANY VEHICLE. IT IS THROUGH THIS MONITORING THAT I HAVE NOTICED THAT I AM NOT THE ONLY PERSON TO …
Read full complaint
I HAVE SUSPICION THAT MY 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA'S MOTOR MOUNTS ARE BELOW EXPECTED STANDARDS. I MONITOR MY VEHICLES FOR COMPLAINTS AND RECALLS TO INSURE THAT IF I HAVE TO HAVE WORK DONE ON MY CARS IT IS FOR EXPECTED WEAR AND TEAR OF ANY VEHICLE. IT IS THROUGH THIS MONITORING THAT I HAVE NOTICED THAT I AM NOT THE ONLY PERSON TO EXPERIENCE WHAT SOUNDS LIKE SUBSTANDARD MOTOR MOUNTS. THIS HAS BEEN MY 1ST VEHICLE OF ANY KIND TO REQUIRE REPLACEMENT MOTOR MOUNTS.MY 2005 PACIFICA WITH 200K MILES HAS HAD TO HAVE BOTH MOTOR MOUNTS REPLACED. IT SEEMS THAT BEFORE THEY WERE REPLACE THEY WERE NO LONGER FUNCTIONING AND THE MOTOR WAS BEING HELD IN PLACE BY 3 OTHER MINOR MOUNTS. APPARENTLY, THE BACKORDER IS SO BAD THAT IT COULD NOT BE GUARANTEED WITHIN 2 MONTHS. I HAD TO ORDER THEM THROUGH A 3RD PARTY IN ORDER TO REPLACE BEFORE ANY MAJOR DAMAGE WAS CAUSED. THIS RAISES RED FLAGS: ARE THESE FAULTY MOUNTS? DO THEY NO LONGER MAKE THESE MOUNTS FOR OTHER VEHICLES? IF SO, IS IT DUE TO SUBSTANDARD DESIGN? WHY HAS THERE NOT BEEN AN INVESTIGATION? THIS IS NOT RIGHT. WHAT CAN I DO? READ MORE: HTTP://WWW.FAQS.ORG/CAR/CHRYSLER-PACIFICA-2005/STRUCTURE/#IXZZ2YZEIS2HS *TT
NHTSA ODI #10582962
85,000 miles · Apr 15, 2014
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUB CRADLE ON THE VEHICLE WAS COVERED WITH AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF RUST. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER OR A LOCAL MECHANIC. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE DEFECT. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 85,000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 87,000.
NHTSA ODI #10582863
210,000 miles · Apr 14, 2014
Electrical System
THE HORN FOR THE CAR WILL SOUND INDISCRIMINATELY. IT WILL SOUND AT ANY SPEED, ANY TIME OF DAY, AND EVEN WHEN THE VEHICLE ISN'T RUNNING OR HAS A KEY IN THE IGNITION. WHEN THE HORN SOUNDS, OTHER DRIVERS GET DISTRACTED OR CONFUSED BY THE SOUND. DRIVING WITH THE HORN ON IS ALSO VERY DISTRACTING. I AM UNCERTAIN IF PULLING THE FUSE…
Read full complaint
THE HORN FOR THE CAR WILL SOUND INDISCRIMINATELY. IT WILL SOUND AT ANY SPEED, ANY TIME OF DAY, AND EVEN WHEN THE VEHICLE ISN'T RUNNING OR HAS A KEY IN THE IGNITION. WHEN THE HORN SOUNDS, OTHER DRIVERS GET DISTRACTED OR CONFUSED BY THE SOUND. DRIVING WITH THE HORN ON IS ALSO VERY DISTRACTING. I AM UNCERTAIN IF PULLING THE FUSE FOR THE HORN WILL AFFECT THE AIRBAG OPERATION. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10579702
126,000 miles · Apr 14, 2014
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH ALL OF THE WARNING LAMPS ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY MODULE WAS DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH ALL OF THE WARNING LAMPS ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY MODULE WAS DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 126,000.
NHTSA ODI #10579516
Mileage unknown · Apr 12, 2014
Structure
A FRAME SUPPORT (CROSS MEMBER) HAS A HOLE BIG ENOUGH TO PUT PART OF YOUR HAND INTO. THIS WHOLE ALSO GOES RIGHT OUT THE BACK SIDE OF THE SUPPORT. THIS SUPPORT NOT ONLY HOLDS UP THE ENGINE BUT ALSO GIVES STABILITY TO THE FRONT END. RISKS ARE LOSS OF LIFE,COMPLETE LOSS OF CONTROL AND OR SEVERE ENGINE DAMAGE SHOULD SUPPORT FAIL. …
Read full complaint
A FRAME SUPPORT (CROSS MEMBER) HAS A HOLE BIG ENOUGH TO PUT PART OF YOUR HAND INTO. THIS WHOLE ALSO GOES RIGHT OUT THE BACK SIDE OF THE SUPPORT. THIS SUPPORT NOT ONLY HOLDS UP THE ENGINE BUT ALSO GIVES STABILITY TO THE FRONT END. RISKS ARE LOSS OF LIFE,COMPLETE LOSS OF CONTROL AND OR SEVERE ENGINE DAMAGE SHOULD SUPPORT FAIL. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10579377
105,000 miles · Apr 10, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingStructure
I TOOK MY CAR TO MY MECHANIC FOR REQUIRED ANNUAL STATE SAFETY INSPECTION, WHICH IT FAILED BECAUSE THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS RUSTED THROUGH WITH HOLES, AND THE ENGINE MOUNTING LOOSE. THERE HAD BEEN NO EVIDENCE OF THIS AT HIS PREVIOUS SERVICING OF THE CAR, WHICH IS DONE REGULARLY. I RESEARCHED ONLINE AND FOUND MANY POSTINGS OF OTHER …
Read full complaint
I TOOK MY CAR TO MY MECHANIC FOR REQUIRED ANNUAL STATE SAFETY INSPECTION, WHICH IT FAILED BECAUSE THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS RUSTED THROUGH WITH HOLES, AND THE ENGINE MOUNTING LOOSE. THERE HAD BEEN NO EVIDENCE OF THIS AT HIS PREVIOUS SERVICING OF THE CAR, WHICH IS DONE REGULARLY. I RESEARCHED ONLINE AND FOUND MANY POSTINGS OF OTHER PACIFICA OWNERS WITH THE SAME ISSUES, AND A COPY OF A LETTER FROM CHRYSLER TO SOME ORIGINAL OWNERS REGARDING AN EXTENDED WARRANTY FOR THE REPAIRS. MANY PEOPLE STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT GET CHRYSLER TO COMPLY WITH THEIR REQUESTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT DUE TO THE SPECIFIC MANUFACTURING TIME LIMITATIONS OUTLINED IN THAT WARRANTY (26). I CALLED CHRYSLER AND WAS TOLD BY REPRESENTATIVE [XXX] THAT MY CAR WOULD BE COVERED, EVEN THOUGH MY CAR WAS NOT MANUFACTURED BETWEEN THOSE SPECIFIED DATES, AND TO TAKE MY CAR TO A CHRYSLER DEALER SO THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR REIMBURSEMENT, AND THAT IF THEY HAD A PROBLEM THEY COULD CALL CHRYSLER. I DID SO. THE DEALER CALLED CHRYSLER, AND WAS TOLD THAT CHRYSLER WOULD NOT HONOR THE ORIGINAL DETERMINATION TO COVER MY CAR. I CALLED CHRYSLER A SECOND TIME, AND WAS TOLD BY [XXX] THAT A SUPERVISOR HAD DECIDED THAT [XXX] HAD BEEN WRONG IN TELLING ME THEY WOULD COVER MY CAR'S REPAIRS, AND THAT THIS DECISION WAS FINAL. I WAS NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK WITH ANY SUPERVISOR, AND [XXX] REFUSED TO GIVE ME HER LAST NAME. SHE ADMITTED THAT MY CASE FILE (NUMBER 24783867) SHOWED THAT I HAD BEEN TOLD MY CAR WOULD BE COVERED, AND THAT THE CALL HAD BEEN RECORDED. I WAS THEN TOLD THAT THE REPAIRS WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE AT MY OWN EXPENSE, FOR WHICH I HAVE BEEN QUOTED AN APPROX. AMOUNT OF $2100.00. CHRYSLER DOES NOT INTEND ANY RECALLS FOR THIS ISSUE. MY CAR IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE, AND WILL NOT PASS STATE SAFETY INSPECTION, UNLESS THE REQUIRED REPAIRS ARE MADE. CHRYSLER SHOULD BE MADE TO MAKE AMENDS FOR THEIR UNSAFE PRODUCT. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10578797
127,000 miles · Apr 8, 2014
Engine
TL - THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE ENGINE CRADLE WAS COMPLETELY CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 127,000. RK
NHTSA ODI #10578192
68,000 miles · Apr 7, 2014
SteeringWheels
IN JANUARY, THE SUSPENSION ON OUR 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA (PURCHASED 08/2003), SEEMED TO HAVE ISSUES. A WEB SEARCH TO INVESTIGATE, LED ME TO A MUCH MORE SERIOUS ISSUE THAT EFFECTS '04 AND '05 PACIFICAS. I HAD OUR MECHANIC INSPECT THE FRAME AND SURE ENOUGH, WE WERE ONE OF THE MANY AFFECTED. OUR MECHANIC TOLD US THE CAR WAS NO L…
Read full complaint
IN JANUARY, THE SUSPENSION ON OUR 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA (PURCHASED 08/2003), SEEMED TO HAVE ISSUES. A WEB SEARCH TO INVESTIGATE, LED ME TO A MUCH MORE SERIOUS ISSUE THAT EFFECTS '04 AND '05 PACIFICAS. I HAD OUR MECHANIC INSPECT THE FRAME AND SURE ENOUGH, WE WERE ONE OF THE MANY AFFECTED. OUR MECHANIC TOLD US THE CAR WAS NO LONGER SAFE TO DRIVE, AND THAT THE COMPROMISED FRAME CAUSED THE FRONT RIGHT WHEEL TO SHIFT INWARDS. WE WERE QUOTED BETWEEN 4,000 AND 5,000 DOLLARS FOR OUR REPAIRS. THE CAR NOW SITS IN THE GARAGE AS WE HOPE FOR A RESOLUTION. AFTER IN DEPTH RESEARCH, I UNCOVERED THOUSANDS OF COMPLAINTS RELATED TO THE ISSUE, TWO NBC NEWS SEGMENTS, AND A PETITION. I ALSO DISCOVER THAT A FEW YEARS BACK, CHRYSLER EXTENDED THE WARRANTY FOR VEHICLES PRODUCED BETWEEN FEBRUARY AND MARCH OF 2004. HOWEVER, SINCE OUR VEHICLE DID NOT FALL UNDER THIS PROVISION, WE WERE NEVER INFORMED THAT WE MAY HAVE BEEN EFFECTED. I CONTACTED CHRYSLER AND OPENED A CASE. I WAS INSTRUCTED TO WRITE AN EMAIL TO THE CASE MANAGER THAT CONTAINED ALL OF THE INFORMATION WHICH I UNCOVERED ONLINE (AS IF THEY DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW THE ISSUE EXISTED). THIS PROVED TO BE A WASTE OF TIME, AS WE WERE DECLINED ANY ASSISTANCE BECAUSE OUR VEHICLE DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXTEND WARRANTY. WE HAVE BEEN THE ONLY OWNERS OF OUR VEHICLE, WHICH HAS 68,000 MILES, HAS BEEN GARAGE KEPT, AND HAS BEEN DRIVEN ONLY BY MY 85 YEAR OLD GRANDPARENTS. APPARENTLY, CHRYSLER HAS MADE A BUSINESS DECISION NOT TO ADDRESS THIS WIDE SPREAD ISSUE. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF OWNERS DRIVING UNSAFE VEHICLES, MANY OF WHICH ARE COMPLETELY UNAWARE THAT THIS ISSUE EXISTS. US, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER PARTIES EFFECTED ARE DUE APPROPRIATE RECOURSE, BUT I FEAR THAT WE WILL HAVE TO CUT TIES WITH OUR VEHICLE BEFORE THERE IS A RESOLUTION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10578110
127,000 miles · Apr 7, 2014
Suspension
ENGINE CRADLE IS ROTTTED CAR IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE HOW DOES DISABLED WIFE GET AROUND SHE HAS CHF HEART FAILURE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10577843
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