IllustrationDEFECTIVE SEAT BELT RETRACTOR, CAUSING INJURY DURING COLLISION.
1980 Plymouth Arrow
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Limited comparison data
There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.
Counts are not adjusted for sales, age, mileage exposure or reporting. A lower count does not establish that a car is problem-free.
About this comparison →1Owner complaints
Model-year median: 0
0Recall campaignsView recall details →
1InvestigationsView investigation details →
Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗ Model-level counts do not show whether a particular VIN is affected or repaired.
Inspection summary
1980 Plymouth Arrow
NHTSA snapshot: September 18, 2026. 1 owner complaints · 0 recall campaigns · 1 investigations.
Counts are not failure probabilities and are not adjusted for sales, age, mileage exposure or reporting. One report may name several categories. Comparison method and limitations.
Top reported categories (up to 5)
- Seat Belts: 1 reports
Full reported-category list and vehicle report
Recall links
No recall campaigns in this snapshot.
Check a VIN with NHTSA. Model-level history does not establish whether a particular VIN is affected or repaired.
Print the top reported categories, recall links, snapshot date and comparison limits.
How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Arrow years →Counts vary with age, sales, mileage exposure and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
Limited mileage data: 0 of 1 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
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.
- Seat Belts. Review the 1 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
0 crash reports0 fire reports1 injury reports
What owners actually said
1 reportsRecall campaigns
0No recalls in this snapshot.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
Defect investigations
1PE87037 · Pitman Arm Failure
Opened Jul 1, 1987 · Closed Nov 3, 1987
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM MANUFACTURER:BOTH CHRYSLER AND MITSUBISHIINDEPENDENTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE FAILURES WERE DUE TO SEVERE IMPACT LOADINGTRANSMITTED TO THE SHAFT BY THE STEERING LINKAGE SYSTEM -- IN OTHER WORDSSHAFT FAILURE IS THE RESULT, NOT THE CAUSE, OF THE ALLEGED COLLISIONCIRCUMSTANCES.MITSUBISHI DID STRENGTHEN THE SHAFT DURING THE 1984 MODELYEAR BY INCREASING THE SPLINE AND BEARING JOURNAL DIAMETERS.ANALYSIS:FAILING COMPONENT IS THE STEERING BOX CROSS SHAFT (OUTPUT SHAFT)WHICH BREAKS BETWEEN THE BOTTOM BEARING IN THE STEERING BOX AND THE PITMANARM.KNOWN FAILURES INVOLVE 4 WHEEL DRIVE UNITS EQUIPPED WITH POWERSTEERING.CROSS SHAFT AND PITMAN ARM SALES ARE CONSIDERABLY HIGHER ON 4WHEEL DRIVE UNITS THAN 2 WHEEL DRIVE UNITS.CHRYSLER REPORTS THE CROSSSHAFT DIAMETER WAS INCREASED IN APRIL, 1984, FOR INCREASED SHAFT STRENGTHTO IMPROVE ITS CAPABILITY TO WITHSTAND SEVERE IMPACT LOADS.PROPOSED ACTION:UPGRADE THIS PE TO AN EA.CONTACT MITSUBISHI FORINFORMATION ON COMPARABLE VEHICLES.===
An investigation is not a finding of a defect, and closure does not prove a vehicle is problem-free.