NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Structure complaints
323 reportsClear category filter140,000 miles · May 1, 2013
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR TIRE SERVICE WHEN HE WAS ADVISED THAT THAT THE SUB FRAME WAS RUSTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION AND THEY ADVISED THAT THE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR TIRE SERVICE WHEN HE WAS ADVISED THAT THAT THE SUB FRAME WAS RUSTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION AND THEY ADVISED THAT THE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 140,000.
NHTSA ODI #10510258
120,000 miles · Apr 8, 2013
Structure
WE HAVE JUST FOUND OUT THE SUB FRAME OF OUR 2004 PACIFICA IS SEVERELY RUSTED OUT. IT ONLY HAS 120,000 MILES ON IT AND IT ONLY 9 YEARS OLD! THERE IS NO RUST WHATSOEVER ON THE BODY OF THE CAR BUT UNDERNEATH IS COMPLETELY CORRODED. THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY HAZARD AND FROM WHAT I READ IT'S NOT UNCOMMON. CHRYSLER HAS ONLY ISSUED AN EXTE…
Read full complaint
WE HAVE JUST FOUND OUT THE SUB FRAME OF OUR 2004 PACIFICA IS SEVERELY RUSTED OUT. IT ONLY HAS 120,000 MILES ON IT AND IT ONLY 9 YEARS OLD! THERE IS NO RUST WHATSOEVER ON THE BODY OF THE CAR BUT UNDERNEATH IS COMPLETELY CORRODED. THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY HAZARD AND FROM WHAT I READ IT'S NOT UNCOMMON. CHRYSLER HAS ONLY ISSUED AN EXTENDED WARRANTY FOR THE SUBFRAME FOR A 30 DAY PERIOD OF PRODUCTION BUT APPARENTLY IT'S MORE THEN JUST THE ONES MADE IN THAT MONTH! CHRYSLER SAYS TO KEEP THE RECEIPTS IN CASE THE HAVE A RECALL BUT WHAT GETS ME IS WHY IS THERE NO RECALL YET!?! THIS IS NOT NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR AND AGAIN IT'S EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. THEY MUST OF SKIPPED A COAT OF PROTECTANT OR SOMETHING WENT WRONG BECAUSE IT'S NOT COINCIDENCE THAT THOUSANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THE 2004 / 2005 YEAR. YOU PURCHASE A VEHICLE TRUSTING TO PUT YOUR FAMILIES LIVE IN IT AND MAKE IT FROM POINT A TO B. BUT THE SUBFRAME IT THE LIFE LINE OF THE VEHICLE AND FOR CHRYSLER TO STILL NOT ISSUE A RECALL ON THIS IS PRETTY IRRESPONSIBLE ON THEIR PART! ONE OF THE EVEN SCARIER THINGS IS THAT OTHERS THAT ARE NOT AWARE OF THE PROBLEM ARE OUT THERE DRIVING THEIR VEHICLES ON THE ROAD AND COULD BE A HAZARD FOR OTHERS! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10507538
101,000 miles · Apr 8, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingStructure
LOUD POPPING NOISE COMING FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. TOLD BY THE DEALERSHIP IT IS THE MOTOR MOUNTS. AFTER RESEARCHING THE INTERNET THIS SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM REPORTED BY MANY. EXTENDED WARRANTIES WILL NOT PAY FOR THIS ISSUE. PLEASE LET THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT IS GOING HERE!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10507503
125,000 miles · Apr 2, 2013
Structure
WHEN TAKING THE CAR FOR AN OIL CHANGE, I LEARNED THE ENGINE CRADLE HAD RUSTED THROUGH AND CRACKED. AFTER RESEARCHING THE ISSUE, I DISCOVERED THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE FOR THIS CAR. I CONTACTED CHRYSLER, WHO CLAIMED THAT THE CAR WAS MADE 7 DAYS TOO EARLY TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY SORT OF COVERED REPAIR. THIS IS RIDICULOUS, AS MY VEHIC…
Read full complaint
WHEN TAKING THE CAR FOR AN OIL CHANGE, I LEARNED THE ENGINE CRADLE HAD RUSTED THROUGH AND CRACKED. AFTER RESEARCHING THE ISSUE, I DISCOVERED THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE FOR THIS CAR. I CONTACTED CHRYSLER, WHO CLAIMED THAT THE CAR WAS MADE 7 DAYS TOO EARLY TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY SORT OF COVERED REPAIR. THIS IS RIDICULOUS, AS MY VEHICLE CLEAR SUFFERS FROM THE SAME ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10505348
139,000 miles · Mar 27, 2013
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT END MADE A LOUD NOISE WHEN DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC WHERE THE SUB FRAME WAS FOUND TO BE SEVERELY CORRODED. THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SUB FRAME WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE WAS N…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT END MADE A LOUD NOISE WHEN DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC WHERE THE SUB FRAME WAS FOUND TO BE SEVERELY CORRODED. THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SUB FRAME WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 139,000. ..UPDATED 05/10/13 *BF UPDATED 05/24/2013 *JS
NHTSA ODI #10504738
128,000 miles · Mar 7, 2013
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT UNDER CARRIAGE OF THE VEHICLE WAS SEVERELY RUSTED. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED OF THE FAILURE WHEN HE TOOK THE VEHICLE FOR STATE INSPECTION AND THE VEHICLE FAILED. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH THE MANUFACTURER, BUT WAS TOLD THAT THEY WOULD NOT COVER THE REPA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT UNDER CARRIAGE OF THE VEHICLE WAS SEVERELY RUSTED. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED OF THE FAILURE WHEN HE TOOK THE VEHICLE FOR STATE INSPECTION AND THE VEHICLE FAILED. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH THE MANUFACTURER, BUT WAS TOLD THAT THEY WOULD NOT COVER THE REPAIR. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 128,000. *TR UPDATED 5/28/13 *CN UPDATED 06/05/2013 *JS
NHTSA ODI #10501980
93,900 miles · Mar 1, 2013
StructureSuspension
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
NHTSA ODI #10500955
146,108 miles · Feb 9, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingStructure
TOOK CAR TO DEALER FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. DEALER SAID THAT THE CAR IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND THAT THE ENGINE SUBFRAME WAS CORRODED. AFTER AN INTERNET SEARCH FOUND THAT THIS IS A KNOWN AND COMMON PROBLEM AND THAT APPARENTLY THE PART WAS RECALLED IN CANADA. WHEN I SPOKE WITH CHRYSLER, THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY SUPPO…
Read full complaint
TOOK CAR TO DEALER FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. DEALER SAID THAT THE CAR IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND THAT THE ENGINE SUBFRAME WAS CORRODED. AFTER AN INTERNET SEARCH FOUND THAT THIS IS A KNOWN AND COMMON PROBLEM AND THAT APPARENTLY THE PART WAS RECALLED IN CANADA. WHEN I SPOKE WITH CHRYSLER, THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY SUPPORT, AND THAT HAD I "REPORTED THE PROBLEM WHEN IT STARTED" THEY WOULD HAVE REPAIRED IT UNDER WARRANTY. I HAVE HAD THE CAR REGULARLY SERVICED AT THE DEALER. AS A CONSUMER I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IF THE ENGINE SUBFRAME IS CORRODED. HOWEVER, A DEALER WHO IS MAINTAINING THE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO SO. IN ANY EVENT, THE CAR IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE, I AM EXPECTED TO PAY A SIGNIFICANT SUM, AND THIS PROBLEM IS PERVASIVE. THE DEALER TOLD ME A SIMILAR CAR CAME THIS PAST WEEK WITH AN IDENTICAL PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10496951
130,000 miles · Feb 5, 2013
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE EXHIBITED ABNORMAL NOISES WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION. THE FAILURE WAS LOCATED AT THE SUB FRAME, WHICH WAS CORRODED AND FRACTURED INTO PIECES. THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED THAT THE MANUFACT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE EXHIBITED ABNORMAL NOISES WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION. THE FAILURE WAS LOCATED AT THE SUB FRAME, WHICH WAS CORRODED AND FRACTURED INTO PIECES. THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED THAT THE MANUFACTURER'S EXTENDED WARRANTY REPAIR DID NOT COVER THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 130,000
NHTSA ODI #10496458
77,000 miles · Dec 3, 2012
Structure
THE SUBFRAME OF THE CAR IS RUSTING TERRIBLY. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT IT WILL BECOME A HAZARD TO DRIVE THE CAR IN THE FUTURE. WE WERE ADVISED TO REPLACE THE SUBFRAME FOR SAFETY PURPOSE. I RESEARCHED THIS ONLINE AND FOUND THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THIS YEAR, MAKE AND MODEL. I HAVE NEVER ENCOUNTERED THIS PROBLEM BEF…
Read full complaint
THE SUBFRAME OF THE CAR IS RUSTING TERRIBLY. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT IT WILL BECOME A HAZARD TO DRIVE THE CAR IN THE FUTURE. WE WERE ADVISED TO REPLACE THE SUBFRAME FOR SAFETY PURPOSE. I RESEARCHED THIS ONLINE AND FOUND THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THIS YEAR, MAKE AND MODEL. I HAVE NEVER ENCOUNTERED THIS PROBLEM BEFORE WITH ANY OTHER VEHICLE I HAVE OWNED. I HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED OUR VEHICLES AND HAVE OWNED VEHICLES LONGER THAN THIS. THIS VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO HARSH CONDITIONS AND SHOULD NOT BE SHOWING THIS LEVEL OF DESTRUCTIVE RUST. WE ASK THE NHTSA TO LOOK INTO THIS MATTER AND TO ISSUE A RECALL ON THIS VEHICLE TO HAVE THESE PARTS REPLACED FOR SAFETY PURPOSES. I BELIEVE THAT CHRYSLER IS NOT ALTERING THE PUBLIC TO THIS VERY STRONG POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUE WHICH I AM AFRAID WILL CAUSE HARM OR POTENTIAL DEATH IF THE FRAME ON THESE VEHICLES GIVES OUT. A QUICK GLANCE ON GOOGLE AND ONE CAN READILY FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS A VERY LARGE ONE INDEED. WE ASK FOR YOUR HELP IN PROTECTING US. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10487244
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