IllustrationSUB FRAME COMPLETELY RUSTED APART, RESULTING IN DANGEROUS FRONT END CONDITIONS AND EXPENSIVE REPAIR. FOUND SIMILAR ISSUES FOR OTHER PACIFICA OWNERS THROUGH RESEARCH AND BELIEVE THIS IS A DEFECTIVE PART AND SHOULD BE COVERED AND RECALLED BEFORE SOMEONE GETS HURT OR KILLED. *TR
2004 Chrysler Pacifica
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Pacifica years
Owner complaints for the 2004 Chrysler Pacifica are substantially higher than the model-year median of 189.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Pacifica years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
820–25K
7025–50K
9750–75K
14175–100K
257100–150K
104150K+
751 reports with mileage · 145 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Structure. Review the 323 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine. Review the 141 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Suspension. Review the 125 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
32 crash reports30 fire reports17 injury reports
Suspension complaints
125 reportsI TOOK THE CAR TO MY MECHANIC FOR FRONT END NOISE. IT WAS DETERMINED THE FRONT SUSPENSION FRAME WAS RUSTED AND THE CAR WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. CONTACTED CHRYSLER AND WAS TOLD TO TAKE TO DEALER. TOOK CAR TO DOAN DODGE IN GREECE NY. AFTER SEVERAL CALLS CHRYSLER HAS REFUSED TO REPAIR. THE COST OF THE REPAIR IS $1600 AND IT IS A K…
Read full complaint
I TOOK THE CAR TO MY MECHANIC FOR FRONT END NOISE. IT WAS DETERMINED THE FRONT SUSPENSION FRAME WAS RUSTED AND THE CAR WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. CONTACTED CHRYSLER AND WAS TOLD TO TAKE TO DEALER. TOOK CAR TO DOAN DODGE IN GREECE NY. AFTER SEVERAL CALLS CHRYSLER HAS REFUSED TO REPAIR. THE COST OF THE REPAIR IS $1600 AND IT IS A KNOWN PROBLEM. I AM TOLD THEY ARE QUIETLY REPAIRING SOME COMPLAINTS. THIS CAR WAS OVER $34,000 NEW AND SHOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS PROBLEM!! *TR
I TOOK MY VEHICLE IN TO THE SHOP TO GET NEW TIRES AND THE MECHANIC INFORMED ME THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED IN HALF. HE TOLD ME THAT I WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE FRAME OR THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT BE SAFE TO DRIVE. *TR
I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE USED WITH VERY LOW MILEAGE. IT IS IN GREAT CONDITION UNTIL I STARTED HEARING A NOISE IN THE FRONT END. I TOOK INTO THE GARAGE TO HAVE NEW TIRES AND BRAKES PUT ON IT. WHEN THE MECHANIC PUT IT ON THE RACK, HE SAID THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED THROUGH. SO, INSTEAD OF NEW TIRES AND BRAKES I NOW NEED A NEW FRA…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE USED WITH VERY LOW MILEAGE. IT IS IN GREAT CONDITION UNTIL I STARTED HEARING A NOISE IN THE FRONT END. I TOOK INTO THE GARAGE TO HAVE NEW TIRES AND BRAKES PUT ON IT. WHEN THE MECHANIC PUT IT ON THE RACK, HE SAID THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED THROUGH. SO, INSTEAD OF NEW TIRES AND BRAKES I NOW NEED A NEW FRAME. I AM JUST THANKFUL THAT I WAS NOT DRIVING WHILE THIS HAPPEN. I WAS WONDERING IF THIS PROBLEM AS AFFECTED OTHER OWNERS ALSO. *TR
MY 2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA MAKES A LOUD POPPING NOISE WHEN TURNING. IT DOESN'T DO IT ALL OF THE TIME, BUT IF YOU TURN RIGHT, THEN TURN LEFT IT WILL POP. IF YOU'RE DRIVING AROUND A SMALL TURN AND IT POPS THE VEHICLE BODY WILL SHIFT AND YOU MOMENTARILY LOSE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. *TR
MY MECHANIC HAS ADVISED THAT MY CAR HAS A RUSTED SUBFRAME, PARTS OF WHICH HAVE RUSTED THROUGH. IT IS DUE FOR INSPECTION BY THE END OF THE MONTH, AND I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT IT IS RUSTED BAD ENOUGH TO FAIL INSPECTION. I NEED THIS VEHICLE, AND HAVE TAKEN GREAT CARE OF IT. I CHANGED THE TIMING BELT LAST YEAR, AND HAVE KEPT IT I…
Read full complaint
MY MECHANIC HAS ADVISED THAT MY CAR HAS A RUSTED SUBFRAME, PARTS OF WHICH HAVE RUSTED THROUGH. IT IS DUE FOR INSPECTION BY THE END OF THE MONTH, AND I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT IT IS RUSTED BAD ENOUGH TO FAIL INSPECTION. I NEED THIS VEHICLE, AND HAVE TAKEN GREAT CARE OF IT. I CHANGED THE TIMING BELT LAST YEAR, AND HAVE KEPT IT IN A GARAGE. I CANNOT AFFORD TO PURCHASE ANOTHER VEHICLE OR REPLACE THE SUBFRAME. THIS IS NOT NORMAL RUSTING. MY LOCAL CHRYSLER DEALERS, NATURALLY, HAVE TOLD ME THAT THE CAR HAS TOO MANY MILES AND IS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY. I HAVE DONE MY RESEARCH ON THIS. CHRYSLER HAS BEEN REPLACING SUBFRAMES IN SOME PACIFICAS, PARTICULARLY CANADA. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THIS MODEL; THE METAL WAS NOT PROPERLY COATED OR SOMETHING. IT IS TIME FOR CHRYSLER TO ISSUE A RECALL AND REPLACE THESE SUBFRAMES. WHEN VEHICLES RUST, IT SHOULD NOT START IN THE SUBFRAME. I AM A SINGLE MOTHER; I NEED THIS CAR TO DRIVE TO WORK AND FOR FAMILY USE. MY KIDS AND I ARE NOT SAFE IN IT, AND IF IT CAN'T PASS INSPECTION I WILL BE WITHOUT A VEHICLE! *TR
TOOK CAR TO THE SHOP FOR ROUTINE SCHEDULE MAINTENANCE. THE MECHANIC SAID THAT THE SUBFRAME WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED BY RUST AND RECOMMENDED REPLACING IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. HE STATED THAT IS VERY DANGEROUS DRIVING A CAR IN THIS CONDITION. I GOOGLED " PACIFICA SUBFAME RUST" AND FIND OUT THAT THIS ISSUE IS HUGE. THE MECHANIC SAID TH…
Read full complaint
TOOK CAR TO THE SHOP FOR ROUTINE SCHEDULE MAINTENANCE. THE MECHANIC SAID THAT THE SUBFRAME WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED BY RUST AND RECOMMENDED REPLACING IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. HE STATED THAT IS VERY DANGEROUS DRIVING A CAR IN THIS CONDITION. I GOOGLED " PACIFICA SUBFAME RUST" AND FIND OUT THAT THIS ISSUE IS HUGE. THE MECHANIC SAID THAT THIS DETERIORATION IS NOT NORMAL. THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL CAMPAIGN TO MAKE CHRYSLER AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM. *TR
IN GOING TO MECHANIC TO GET OIL CHANGE. I WAS NOTIFIED THAT SUBFRAME WAS RUSTED OUT AND CAR IS VERY DANGEROUS TO BE DRIVEN. I HAVE YET TO CONTACT DEALERSHIP BUT ON DOING A SEARCH ON LINE I FOUND THIS TO BE A MAJOR ISSUE WITH THIS CAR. I LIVE IN THE SUBURBS OF CHICAGO. *TR
I TOOK MY CARE INTO THE SEAR AUTO CENTER IN ANNAPOLIS, MD FOR A TUNE UP AND ALSO ASKED THEM TO CHECK FOR THE KNOCKING NOISE UNDER MY HOOD AS IS WAS AFFECTING MY STEERING AND MAKING THE CAR HARD TO STEER WHEN GOING AROUND CURVES. I WAS TOLD THAT THE FRONT END SUSPENSION NEEDED TO BE REPLACED BADLY AS THE PARTS WERE SEVERELY RUST…
Read full complaint
I TOOK MY CARE INTO THE SEAR AUTO CENTER IN ANNAPOLIS, MD FOR A TUNE UP AND ALSO ASKED THEM TO CHECK FOR THE KNOCKING NOISE UNDER MY HOOD AS IS WAS AFFECTING MY STEERING AND MAKING THE CAR HARD TO STEER WHEN GOING AROUND CURVES. I WAS TOLD THAT THE FRONT END SUSPENSION NEEDED TO BE REPLACED BADLY AS THE PARTS WERE SEVERELY RUSTED. I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT I WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE THE CAR AT THE FACILITY OVERNIGHT AS THEY WERE HAVING PROBLEMS REMOVING THE OLD PARTS DUE TO HEAVY CORROSION ON THE OLD PARTS AND IT WOULD TAKE MORE TIME TO GET THE PARTS OFF AND REPLACE THEN WITH NEW PARTS. IN DECEMBER OF 2011, I PURCHSED NEW TIRES AND WAS ALSO TOLD THAT I NEEDED TO PURCHSE NEW WHEELS BECAUSE THE CURRENT WHEELS ON THE VEHICLE WERE STARTING TO RUST. IN SEPTEMBER, I HAD MY BRAKE PADS REPLACED AND WAS ALSO TOLD THAT I NEEDED NEW ROTORS BECAUSE THOSE WERE ALSO RUSTING. I DO NOT LIVE IN A FLOOD ZONE, NOR HAVE I EVER HAD MY CAR IN A FLOOD. I WAS MADE AWARE OF A RECALL BY CHRYSLER YESTERDAY OF ITS 2004-2005 JEEP BRAND DUE TO CORROSION AND WANTED TO SUBMIT THIS AS THERE MAY ALSO ME CHRYSLERS SUCH AS MINE THAT HAVE HAD CORROSION ISSUES FROM NORMAL USAGE. A FEW YEARS AGO, I ALSO HAD TO HAVE THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL SERVICED DUE TO A LEAK AND THIS MAY HAVE ALSO BEEN DUE TO CORROSION. *TR
2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA TAKEN TO MECHANIC AFTER PURCHASING USED WITH 69,500 MILES FOR "CLUNKING" NOISE IN FRONT-END. REPLACED PARTS INCLUDED: SWAY BAR LINKAGES, TIE ROD ENDS, AND STRUTS AND MOUNTS ALL OF WHICH NEEDED REPLACING. BUT THE NOISE WAS STILL THERE. THE MECHANIC THEN USED A TOOL HE CALLED "CHASSIS EARS" TO PINPOINT TH…
Read full complaint
2004 CHRYSLER PACIFICA TAKEN TO MECHANIC AFTER PURCHASING USED WITH 69,500 MILES FOR "CLUNKING" NOISE IN FRONT-END. REPLACED PARTS INCLUDED: SWAY BAR LINKAGES, TIE ROD ENDS, AND STRUTS AND MOUNTS ALL OF WHICH NEEDED REPLACING. BUT THE NOISE WAS STILL THERE. THE MECHANIC THEN USED A TOOL HE CALLED "CHASSIS EARS" TO PINPOINT THE SOURCE OF THE NOISE. HE FOUND THAT THE SUBFRAME (ENGINE CRADLE) WAS RUSTED AT THE POINT THAT IT MOUNTS TO THE BODY, JUST UNDER THE FRONT PASSENGER-SIDE FLOORBOARD. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION RUST WAS APPARENT ON THE DRIVERS-SIDE ALSO. THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE!!! THE ENTIRE FRONT-END OF THE VEHICLE INCLUDING: ENGINE, TRANSMISSION, AND ALL FRONT-END SUSPENSION AND STEERING IS HELD IN PLACE BY THIS SUBFRAME (ENGINE CRADLE). WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THIS TOTALLY FAILS WHILE DRIVING WITH SIX PEOPLE IN THE VEHICLE? WHY HAS THIS NOT BECOME A MANDATORY SAFETY RECALL? DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO GET KILLED BEFORE THIS GETS SOMEONES ATTENTION? THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT AS CAN BE SEEN BY THIS WEBSITE. NHTSA PLEASE HELP!!! *TR
Official recalls
204V113000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)
Mar 4, 2004
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A NGC-1 POWERTRAIN CONTROL MODULE, THE SOFTWARE PROTOCOLE USED TO TEST THE VEHICLE EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION (EGR) SYSTEM MAY LEAD TO ENGINE STALLING UNDER CERTAIN OPERATING CONDITIONS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD CAUSE A CRASH WITHOUT WARNING.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPROGRAM THE POWERTRAIN CONTROL MODULE SOFTWARE. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON MARCH 15, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT DAIMLERCHRYSLER AT 1-800-853-1403.
03V471000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
Nov 10, 2003
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, THE CHASSIS FUEL SUPPLY TUBE MAY HAVE BEEN INCORRECTLY MANUFACTURED.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: UNDER CERTAIN ENGINE AND VEHICLE DYNAMIC CONDITIONS, THE FUEL LINE MAY SEPARATE, RESULTING IN A FUEL LEAK AND AN INCREASED RISK OF A VEHICLE FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A SECONDARY RETENTION CLIP TO THE FUEL LINE QUICK CONNECT. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON DECEMBER 15, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT DAIMLERCHRYSLER AT 1-800-992-1997.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
3EA06010 · Fuel Tank Punctures
Opened Jun 15, 2006 · Closed Oct 11, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage; Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly; Fuel System, Other:storage; Fuel System, Other:storage:tank Assembly
EA06-010 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION GATHERED IN PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE06-009.PE06-009 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED IN A PEER INFORMATION REQUEST AS PART OF A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE05-050) OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.IN JANUARY 2006, NISSAN SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO ODI THAT IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE FUEL TANK SHIELDING IN APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MY 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, NISSAN INSTALLED SHIELDS ON THE EXPOSED FRONT SURFACES OF THE RECALLED VEHICLES.PEER DATA COLLECTED FOR MY 2004 THROUGH 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES DURING PE05-050 INCLUDED 120 FIELD REPORTS DOCUMENTING TANK REPLACEMENTS DUE TO PUNCTURE OR DAMAGE BY ROAD DEBRIS AS PART OF A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM CONDUCTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE TANK SUPPLIER (INERGY). ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CHRYSLER DURING PE05-050, PE06-009 AND EA06-010 SHOW THAT THE FRONT SURFACE OF THE FUEL TANKS IN THE SUBJECT PACIFICA VEHICLES IS NOT COMPLETELY PROTECTED FROMROAD DEBRIS BY THE FLOOR PAN OR OTHER BODY STRUCTURE.THE TANKS WERE COMPARED WITH PEER VEHICLES, INCLUDING SEVERAL IDENTIFIED BY CHRYSLER AS SHARING SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS (UNSHIELDED HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FUEL TANKS IN A SADDLEBAG CONFIGURATION).SOME OF THE PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI PACKAGED THE TANKS IN RECESSED CAVITIES IN THE FLOOR PAN OR USED SHIELDS TO PROTECT EXPOSED SURFACES ON THE FRONT OF THE TANK.IN GENERAL, THESE TANKS HAD THE LOWEST COMPLAINT RATES FOR TANK PUNCTURE BY ROAD DEBRIS. HOWEVER, OTHER PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI HAD PACKAGING SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND SOME OF THESE ALSO HAD SOME COMPLAINTS OF TANK PUNCTURE.NONE OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED BY ODI HAD TANKS PUNCTURE DATA COMPARABLE TO CHRYSLER'S FIELD REPORTS FROM ITS PART RESTRICTION PROGRAMS, SO THAT DATA COULD NOT BE USED IN PEER COMPARISONS. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA SHOWS THAT THE RATE FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS ABOUT HALF THAT OBSERVED IN THE RECALLED MURANO VEHICLES AND NOT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN SOME OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED WITH SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.TESTING BY THE NHTSA VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TESTING CENTER (VRTC) SHOWED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MURANO AND PACIFICA FUEL TANK PACKAGING AND EXPOSURE TO ROAD DEBRIS THROWN BY THE FRONT TIRES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Fuel System, Gasoline:storage
EA06-010 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION GATHERED IN PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE06-009.PE06-009 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED IN A PEER INFORMATION REQUEST AS PART OF A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE05-050) OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.IN JANUARY 2006, NISSAN SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO ODI THAT IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE FUEL TANK SHIELDING IN APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MY 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, NISSAN INSTALLED SHIELDS ON THE EXPOSED FRONT SURFACES OF THE RECALLED VEHICLES.PEER DATA COLLECTED FOR MY 2004 THROUGH 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES DURING PE05-050 INCLUDED 120 FIELD REPORTS DOCUMENTING TANK REPLACEMENTS DUE TO PUNCTURE OR DAMAGE BY ROAD DEBRIS AS PART OF A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM CONDUCTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE TANK SUPPLIER (INERGY). ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CHRYSLER DURING PE05-050, PE06-009 AND EA06-010 SHOW THAT THE FRONT SURFACE OF THE FUEL TANKS IN THE SUBJECT PACIFICA VEHICLES IS NOT COMPLETELY PROTECTED FROMROAD DEBRIS BY THE FLOOR PAN OR OTHER BODY STRUCTURE.THE TANKS WERE COMPARED WITH PEER VEHICLES, INCLUDING SEVERAL IDENTIFIED BY CHRYSLER AS SHARING SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS (UNSHIELDED HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FUEL TANKS IN A SADDLEBAG CONFIGURATION).SOME OF THE PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI PACKAGED THE TANKS IN RECESSED CAVITIES IN THE FLOOR PAN OR USED SHIELDS TO PROTECT EXPOSED SURFACES ON THE FRONT OF THE TANK.IN GENERAL, THESE TANKS HAD THE LOWEST COMPLAINT RATES FOR TANK PUNCTURE BY ROAD DEBRIS. HOWEVER, OTHER PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI HAD PACKAGING SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND SOME OF THESE ALSO HAD SOME COMPLAINTS OF TANK PUNCTURE.NONE OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED BY ODI HAD TANKS PUNCTURE DATA COMPARABLE TO CHRYSLER'S FIELD REPORTS FROM ITS PART RESTRICTION PROGRAMS, SO THAT DATA COULD NOT BE USED IN PEER COMPARISONS. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA SHOWS THAT THE RATE FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS ABOUT HALF THAT OBSERVED IN THE RECALLED MURANO VEHICLES AND NOT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN SOME OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED WITH SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.TESTING BY THE NHTSA VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TESTING CENTER (VRTC) SHOWED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MURANO AND PACIFICA FUEL TANK PACKAGING AND EXPOSURE TO ROAD DEBRIS THROWN BY THE FRONT TIRES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
EA06-010 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION GATHERED IN PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE06-009.PE06-009 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED IN A PEER INFORMATION REQUEST AS PART OF A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE05-050) OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.IN JANUARY 2006, NISSAN SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO ODI THAT IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE FUEL TANK SHIELDING IN APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MY 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, NISSAN INSTALLED SHIELDS ON THE EXPOSED FRONT SURFACES OF THE RECALLED VEHICLES.PEER DATA COLLECTED FOR MY 2004 THROUGH 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES DURING PE05-050 INCLUDED 120 FIELD REPORTS DOCUMENTING TANK REPLACEMENTS DUE TO PUNCTURE OR DAMAGE BY ROAD DEBRIS AS PART OF A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM CONDUCTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE TANK SUPPLIER (INERGY). ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CHRYSLER DURING PE05-050, PE06-009 AND EA06-010 SHOW THAT THE FRONT SURFACE OF THE FUEL TANKS IN THE SUBJECT PACIFICA VEHICLES IS NOT COMPLETELY PROTECTED FROMROAD DEBRIS BY THE FLOOR PAN OR OTHER BODY STRUCTURE.THE TANKS WERE COMPARED WITH PEER VEHICLES, INCLUDING SEVERAL IDENTIFIED BY CHRYSLER AS SHARING SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS (UNSHIELDED HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FUEL TANKS IN A SADDLEBAG CONFIGURATION).SOME OF THE PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI PACKAGED THE TANKS IN RECESSED CAVITIES IN THE FLOOR PAN OR USED SHIELDS TO PROTECT EXPOSED SURFACES ON THE FRONT OF THE TANK.IN GENERAL, THESE TANKS HAD THE LOWEST COMPLAINT RATES FOR TANK PUNCTURE BY ROAD DEBRIS. HOWEVER, OTHER PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI HAD PACKAGING SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND SOME OF THESE ALSO HAD SOME COMPLAINTS OF TANK PUNCTURE.NONE OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED BY ODI HAD TANKS PUNCTURE DATA COMPARABLE TO CHRYSLER'S FIELD REPORTS FROM ITS PART RESTRICTION PROGRAMS, SO THAT DATA COULD NOT BE USED IN PEER COMPARISONS. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA SHOWS THAT THE RATE FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS ABOUT HALF THAT OBSERVED IN THE RECALLED MURANO VEHICLES AND NOT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN SOME OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED WITH SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.TESTING BY THE NHTSA VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TESTING CENTER (VRTC) SHOWED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MURANO AND PACIFICA FUEL TANK PACKAGING AND EXPOSURE TO ROAD DEBRIS THROWN BY THE FRONT TIRES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Fuel System, Other:storage
EA06-010 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION GATHERED IN PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE06-009.PE06-009 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED IN A PEER INFORMATION REQUEST AS PART OF A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE05-050) OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.IN JANUARY 2006, NISSAN SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO ODI THAT IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE FUEL TANK SHIELDING IN APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MY 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, NISSAN INSTALLED SHIELDS ON THE EXPOSED FRONT SURFACES OF THE RECALLED VEHICLES.PEER DATA COLLECTED FOR MY 2004 THROUGH 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES DURING PE05-050 INCLUDED 120 FIELD REPORTS DOCUMENTING TANK REPLACEMENTS DUE TO PUNCTURE OR DAMAGE BY ROAD DEBRIS AS PART OF A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM CONDUCTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE TANK SUPPLIER (INERGY). ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CHRYSLER DURING PE05-050, PE06-009 AND EA06-010 SHOW THAT THE FRONT SURFACE OF THE FUEL TANKS IN THE SUBJECT PACIFICA VEHICLES IS NOT COMPLETELY PROTECTED FROMROAD DEBRIS BY THE FLOOR PAN OR OTHER BODY STRUCTURE.THE TANKS WERE COMPARED WITH PEER VEHICLES, INCLUDING SEVERAL IDENTIFIED BY CHRYSLER AS SHARING SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS (UNSHIELDED HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FUEL TANKS IN A SADDLEBAG CONFIGURATION).SOME OF THE PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI PACKAGED THE TANKS IN RECESSED CAVITIES IN THE FLOOR PAN OR USED SHIELDS TO PROTECT EXPOSED SURFACES ON THE FRONT OF THE TANK.IN GENERAL, THESE TANKS HAD THE LOWEST COMPLAINT RATES FOR TANK PUNCTURE BY ROAD DEBRIS. HOWEVER, OTHER PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI HAD PACKAGING SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND SOME OF THESE ALSO HAD SOME COMPLAINTS OF TANK PUNCTURE.NONE OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED BY ODI HAD TANKS PUNCTURE DATA COMPARABLE TO CHRYSLER'S FIELD REPORTS FROM ITS PART RESTRICTION PROGRAMS, SO THAT DATA COULD NOT BE USED IN PEER COMPARISONS. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA SHOWS THAT THE RATE FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS ABOUT HALF THAT OBSERVED IN THE RECALLED MURANO VEHICLES AND NOT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN SOME OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED WITH SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.TESTING BY THE NHTSA VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TESTING CENTER (VRTC) SHOWED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MURANO AND PACIFICA FUEL TANK PACKAGING AND EXPOSURE TO ROAD DEBRIS THROWN BY THE FRONT TIRES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Fuel System, Other:storage:tank Assembly
EA06-010 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION GATHERED IN PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE06-009.PE06-009 WAS OPENED BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED IN A PEER INFORMATION REQUEST AS PART OF A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE05-050) OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.IN JANUARY 2006, NISSAN SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO ODI THAT IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE FUEL TANK SHIELDING IN APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MY 2003 THROUGH 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES.TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, NISSAN INSTALLED SHIELDS ON THE EXPOSED FRONT SURFACES OF THE RECALLED VEHICLES.PEER DATA COLLECTED FOR MY 2004 THROUGH 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES DURING PE05-050 INCLUDED 120 FIELD REPORTS DOCUMENTING TANK REPLACEMENTS DUE TO PUNCTURE OR DAMAGE BY ROAD DEBRIS AS PART OF A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM CONDUCTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE TANK SUPPLIER (INERGY). ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CHRYSLER DURING PE05-050, PE06-009 AND EA06-010 SHOW THAT THE FRONT SURFACE OF THE FUEL TANKS IN THE SUBJECT PACIFICA VEHICLES IS NOT COMPLETELY PROTECTED FROMROAD DEBRIS BY THE FLOOR PAN OR OTHER BODY STRUCTURE.THE TANKS WERE COMPARED WITH PEER VEHICLES, INCLUDING SEVERAL IDENTIFIED BY CHRYSLER AS SHARING SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS (UNSHIELDED HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FUEL TANKS IN A SADDLEBAG CONFIGURATION).SOME OF THE PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI PACKAGED THE TANKS IN RECESSED CAVITIES IN THE FLOOR PAN OR USED SHIELDS TO PROTECT EXPOSED SURFACES ON THE FRONT OF THE TANK.IN GENERAL, THESE TANKS HAD THE LOWEST COMPLAINT RATES FOR TANK PUNCTURE BY ROAD DEBRIS. HOWEVER, OTHER PEER DESIGNS REVIEWED BY ODI HAD PACKAGING SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND SOME OF THESE ALSO HAD SOME COMPLAINTS OF TANK PUNCTURE.NONE OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED BY ODI HAD TANKS PUNCTURE DATA COMPARABLE TO CHRYSLER'S FIELD REPORTS FROM ITS PART RESTRICTION PROGRAMS, SO THAT DATA COULD NOT BE USED IN PEER COMPARISONS. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA SHOWS THAT THE RATE FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS ABOUT HALF THAT OBSERVED IN THE RECALLED MURANO VEHICLES AND NOT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN SOME OF THE PEER VEHICLES ANALYZED WITH SIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.TESTING BY THE NHTSA VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TESTING CENTER (VRTC) SHOWED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MURANO AND PACIFICA FUEL TANK PACKAGING AND EXPOSURE TO ROAD DEBRIS THROWN BY THE FRONT TIRES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
RQ06002 · Engine Stalling
Opened Feb 27, 2006 · Closed Jun 22, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Fuel System, Gasoline; Vehicle Speed Control
ON FEBRUARY 27, 2006 RQ06-002 WAS OPENED IN RESPONSE TO 60 COMPLAINTS OF ENGINE STALL, MOSTLY DURING LEFT-HAND TURNS, IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2004 TO 2006 CHRYSLER PACIFICA VEHICLES THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RECALL 04V-113.IN MARCH 2004, DAIMLERCHRYSLER INITIATED RECALL 04V-113 ON 34,561 MY 2004 PACIFICA VEHICLES TO CORRECT A CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL WHILE MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN AFTER A COLD-START.DURING RQ06-002 IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RECALL 04V-113 DID CORRECT THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF THE ENGINE STALLING CONDITION FOR THAT SPECIFIC POPULATION.HOWEVER, TWO OTHER CONDITIONS WERE IDENTIFIED THAT COULD ALSO CAUSE ENGINE STALLING DURING TURNING MANEUVERS:(1) AN ISSUE WITH MISBUILT FUEL PUMPS THAT PRIMARILY AFFECTED ABOUT 17,000 MY 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT DURING AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2004; AND (2) A SOFTWARE CONDITION AFFECTING VAPOR PURGE IN ABOUT 131,000 MY 2005-06 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT FROM JULY 2004 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2005. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA06-013, HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THESE CONDITIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON FEBRUARY 27, 2006 RQ06-002 WAS OPENED IN RESPONSE TO 60 COMPLAINTS OF ENGINE STALL, MOSTLY DURING LEFT-HAND TURNS, IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2004 TO 2006 CHRYSLER PACIFICA VEHICLES THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RECALL 04V-113.IN MARCH 2004, DAIMLERCHRYSLER INITIATED RECALL 04V-113 ON 34,561 MY 2004 PACIFICA VEHICLES TO CORRECT A CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL WHILE MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN AFTER A COLD-START.DURING RQ06-002 IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RECALL 04V-113 DID CORRECT THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF THE ENGINE STALLING CONDITION FOR THAT SPECIFIC POPULATION.HOWEVER, TWO OTHER CONDITIONS WERE IDENTIFIED THAT COULD ALSO CAUSE ENGINE STALLING DURING TURNING MANEUVERS:(1) AN ISSUE WITH MISBUILT FUEL PUMPS THAT PRIMARILY AFFECTED ABOUT 17,000 MY 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT DURING AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2004; AND (2) A SOFTWARE CONDITION AFFECTING VAPOR PURGE IN ABOUT 131,000 MY 2005-06 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT FROM JULY 2004 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2005. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA06-013, HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THESE CONDITIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Fuel System, Gasoline
ON FEBRUARY 27, 2006 RQ06-002 WAS OPENED IN RESPONSE TO 60 COMPLAINTS OF ENGINE STALL, MOSTLY DURING LEFT-HAND TURNS, IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2004 TO 2006 CHRYSLER PACIFICA VEHICLES THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RECALL 04V-113.IN MARCH 2004, DAIMLERCHRYSLER INITIATED RECALL 04V-113 ON 34,561 MY 2004 PACIFICA VEHICLES TO CORRECT A CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL WHILE MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN AFTER A COLD-START.DURING RQ06-002 IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RECALL 04V-113 DID CORRECT THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF THE ENGINE STALLING CONDITION FOR THAT SPECIFIC POPULATION.HOWEVER, TWO OTHER CONDITIONS WERE IDENTIFIED THAT COULD ALSO CAUSE ENGINE STALLING DURING TURNING MANEUVERS:(1) AN ISSUE WITH MISBUILT FUEL PUMPS THAT PRIMARILY AFFECTED ABOUT 17,000 MY 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT DURING AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2004; AND (2) A SOFTWARE CONDITION AFFECTING VAPOR PURGE IN ABOUT 131,000 MY 2005-06 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT FROM JULY 2004 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2005. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA06-013, HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THESE CONDITIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Vehicle Speed Control
ON FEBRUARY 27, 2006 RQ06-002 WAS OPENED IN RESPONSE TO 60 COMPLAINTS OF ENGINE STALL, MOSTLY DURING LEFT-HAND TURNS, IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2004 TO 2006 CHRYSLER PACIFICA VEHICLES THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RECALL 04V-113.IN MARCH 2004, DAIMLERCHRYSLER INITIATED RECALL 04V-113 ON 34,561 MY 2004 PACIFICA VEHICLES TO CORRECT A CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL WHILE MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN AFTER A COLD-START.DURING RQ06-002 IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RECALL 04V-113 DID CORRECT THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF THE ENGINE STALLING CONDITION FOR THAT SPECIFIC POPULATION.HOWEVER, TWO OTHER CONDITIONS WERE IDENTIFIED THAT COULD ALSO CAUSE ENGINE STALLING DURING TURNING MANEUVERS:(1) AN ISSUE WITH MISBUILT FUEL PUMPS THAT PRIMARILY AFFECTED ABOUT 17,000 MY 2005 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT DURING AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2004; AND (2) A SOFTWARE CONDITION AFFECTING VAPOR PURGE IN ABOUT 131,000 MY 2005-06 PACIFICA VEHICLES BUILT FROM JULY 2004 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2005. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA06-013, HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THESE CONDITIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
PE06009 · Fuel Tank Punctures
Opened Feb 22, 2006 · Closed Jun 15, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
ON FEBRUARY 22, 2006, ODI OPENED PE06-009 TO INVESTIGATE REPORTS THAT THE FUEL TANKS ON MODEL YEAR (MY) 2004 TO 2005 CHRYSLER PACIFICA VEHICLES MAY BE PUNCTURED BY CONTACT WITH ROAD DEBRIS.THE NUMBER OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY CHRYSLER WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THOSE SUBMITTED BY OTHER MANUFACTURERS WHO WERE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT DATA AS PART OF INVESTIGATION PE05-050 INTO MY 2003 TO 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES THAT MAY HAVE HAD INSUFFICIENT SHIELDING OF THE FUEL TANK TO PREVENT PUNCTURES AFTER CONTACT WITH ROAD DEBRIS.NISSAN ISSUED RECALL 06V-003 INVOLVING INCREASING THE SHIELDING OF THE FUEL TANKS TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF TANK PUNCTURES. CHRYSLER HAS NOTED THAT THEY HAD IN PLACE FROM JANUARY 2003 TO JUNE 2005 A PARTS RESTRICTION PROGRAM ON PACIFICA FUEL TANK REPLACEMENTS WHICH MAY HAVE MADE THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ARTIFICIALLY HIGH IN COMPARISON TO MANUFACTURERS WHICH DID NOT HAVE A SIMILAR PROGRAM IN EFFECT.CHRYSLER ALSO QUESTIONED WHETHER MANY OF THE FIELD REPORTS OF FUEL TANKS REPLACED DUE TO DAMAGE FROM UNKNOWN CAUSE WERE ACTUALLY PUNCTURED. THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-010) TO GATHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.