IllustrationTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 NISSAN MURANO. WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE DRIVER SEAT INDEPENDENTLY MOVED FORWARD AND BACK. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED. NEITHER THE DEALER NOR THE MANUFACTURER WERE MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 114,000.
2004 Nissan Murano
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Murano years
Owner complaints for the 2004 Nissan Murano are substantially higher than the model-year median of 110.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Murano 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
810–25K
8725–50K
12250–75K
11075–100K
122100–150K
46150K+
568 reports with mileage · 110 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.
- Power Train. Review the 143 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Visibility. Review the 124 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 110 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
14 crash reports6 fire reports18 injury reports
Seats complaints
94 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 NISSAN MURANO. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE FRONT DRIVERS SEAT SUDDENLY COLLAPSED AND LEANED TO THE LEFT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE SEAT TRACT WAS INOPERABLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MI…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 NISSAN MURANO. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE FRONT DRIVERS SEAT SUDDENLY COLLAPSED AND LEANED TO THE LEFT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE SEAT TRACT WAS INOPERABLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
DRIVERS SEAT, LEFT REAR SIDE OF SEATING AREA DROPPED ALONG WITH UPRIGHT BACK SUPPORT RECLINING BACKWARDS CREATING A MOST UNSTABLE SITUATION. INSPECTION REVEALED COMPLETE CLEAN BREAK OF ADJUSTING SUPPORT BRACKET. RESEARCH REVEALS THIS TO BE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH NISSAN MURANO VEHILCES 2003 THRU POSSIBLY 2008. NO KNOWN RECALLS TH…
Read full complaint
DRIVERS SEAT, LEFT REAR SIDE OF SEATING AREA DROPPED ALONG WITH UPRIGHT BACK SUPPORT RECLINING BACKWARDS CREATING A MOST UNSTABLE SITUATION. INSPECTION REVEALED COMPLETE CLEAN BREAK OF ADJUSTING SUPPORT BRACKET. RESEARCH REVEALS THIS TO BE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH NISSAN MURANO VEHILCES 2003 THRU POSSIBLY 2008. NO KNOWN RECALLS THAT I AM AWARE OF. ESTIMATES FROM NISSAN DEALERS ARE REPORTED IN THE $1,200.00 RANGE FOR REPAIR. UNLESS THE FACTORY STEPS UP TO THE PLATE, I HAVE PURCHASED MY LAST NISSAN VEHICLE.............EVER....... *TR
MAKING A TURN ONTO A CROSS STREET AND HEARD A LOUD POPPING NOISE, FOLLOWED BY THE DRIVER SEAT BECOMING UNSTABLE. WHEN THE TURN WAS COMPLETED, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THE DRIVER SEAT WAS BROKEN. I DID SOME RESEARCH AND FOUND THAT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM WITH THE MURANO, AND HAS BEEN REPORTED NUMEROUS TIMES ACROSS MULTIPLE MODEL YEARS. …
Read full complaint
MAKING A TURN ONTO A CROSS STREET AND HEARD A LOUD POPPING NOISE, FOLLOWED BY THE DRIVER SEAT BECOMING UNSTABLE. WHEN THE TURN WAS COMPLETED, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THE DRIVER SEAT WAS BROKEN. I DID SOME RESEARCH AND FOUND THAT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM WITH THE MURANO, AND HAS BEEN REPORTED NUMEROUS TIMES ACROSS MULTIPLE MODEL YEARS. APPEARS THAT THERE WAS EVEN AN ATTEMPT TO FORCE A RECALL, BUT THAT WAS NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH. FILED A COMPLAINT WITH NISSAN - REQUIRED A DETAILED SERVICE REPORT (~$125) BEFORE THEY WOULD DO ANYTHING. FOUND THAT THEY WOULD NOT FIX FOR ANY CAR OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY (AND THIS APPARENTLY USUALLY HAPPENS AFTER THE WARRANTY PERIOD HAS EXPIRED). TYPICAL DEALER COST TO REPAIR IS $800 TO $1200. CAN ALSO BE SELF-FIXED BY REPLACING A BRACKET ($100) OR WELDING THE BROKEN PIECE (~$80). TO ME, THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION AS THE SEAT CAN BREAK AT ANY TIME WHEN THE METAL HAS FATIGUED. I FELT FORTUNATE TO NOT HAVE THIS HAPPEN AT A HIGHER SPEED. *TR
THE DRIVER'S SEAT ADJUSTMENTS ARE NO LONGER WORKING. IT APPEARS THE TRACK ON THE LEFT OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE SEAT IS STUCK THEREFORE THE SEAT IS STUCK IN A SLIGHT SIDEWAYS POSITION. *TR
THE DRIVER SEAT BRACKET BROKE ON THE LEFT SIDE. THE SEAT NOW TILTS TO THE LEFT. WHEN DISCOVERED VEHICLE WAS PARKED AND NOT USED. ON THAT DAY I JUST SIT IN THE CAR AND SEAT TILTED TO THE LEFT. LOOKED UNDER NEAT THE SEAT AND SAW THAT THE MEAT BRACKET THAT HOLDS THE SEAT BROKE IN TWO. THIS IS SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE FOR ME AS A DRIVE…
Read full complaint
THE DRIVER SEAT BRACKET BROKE ON THE LEFT SIDE. THE SEAT NOW TILTS TO THE LEFT. WHEN DISCOVERED VEHICLE WAS PARKED AND NOT USED. ON THAT DAY I JUST SIT IN THE CAR AND SEAT TILTED TO THE LEFT. LOOKED UNDER NEAT THE SEAT AND SAW THAT THE MEAT BRACKET THAT HOLDS THE SEAT BROKE IN TWO. THIS IS SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE FOR ME AS A DRIVER. I AM JUST GLAD THAT THE BRACKET DID NOT BREAK WHILE DRIVING THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. READ SEVERAL FORUMS ON INTERNET WHERE PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT SAME PROBLEM. NISSAN NEEDS TO FIX THIS ISSUE. RECALL IS NEEDED. *TR
WHILE GOING AROUND A TURN I HEARD A SNAP AND THE DRIVERS SEAT FELL TO THE SIDE. UPON MECHANIC INSPECTION FOUND BROKEN FRAME. *TR
SEAT BRACKET BROKE WHEN MY WIFE WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD. THIS CAUSED THE SEAT TO TILT FORWARD. I CALLED THE LOCAL NISSAN DEALERSHIP AND THEY WANTED 1036.00 DOLLARS FOR A PART, FOR SAFETY REASONS SHOULD BE RECALLED. IF ONE OF THESE BRACKETS(THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FRONT AND BACK) BREAKS DURING A WRECK, THE SEAT ANGLE COULD EFF…
Read full complaint
SEAT BRACKET BROKE WHEN MY WIFE WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD. THIS CAUSED THE SEAT TO TILT FORWARD. I CALLED THE LOCAL NISSAN DEALERSHIP AND THEY WANTED 1036.00 DOLLARS FOR A PART, FOR SAFETY REASONS SHOULD BE RECALLED. IF ONE OF THESE BRACKETS(THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FRONT AND BACK) BREAKS DURING A WRECK, THE SEAT ANGLE COULD EFFECT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AIRBAGS. MY WIFE IS SCARED TO DRIVE IT. THIS SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM WITH THESE VEHICLES. CALLED NISSAN CORP. THEY SAID THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO BECAUSE THERE IS NO ACTIVE CAMPAIGN TO RECALL. *TR
THE DRIVER SEAT FRAME RAILING (LEFT SIDE OF FRAME) HAS BROKEN CAUSING THE SEAT TO DROP DOWN A FEW INCHES. THE LEFT OF THE SEAT CAN ACTUALLY BE LIFTED UP DUE TO THE FRAME SEPARATION. THE SEAT IS NO LONGER BEING ATTACHED TO TWO TRACKS BUT ONLY ONE. I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS DEFECT HAS OCCURRED. THE FIRST T…
Read full complaint
THE DRIVER SEAT FRAME RAILING (LEFT SIDE OF FRAME) HAS BROKEN CAUSING THE SEAT TO DROP DOWN A FEW INCHES. THE LEFT OF THE SEAT CAN ACTUALLY BE LIFTED UP DUE TO THE FRAME SEPARATION. THE SEAT IS NO LONGER BEING ATTACHED TO TWO TRACKS BUT ONLY ONE. I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS DEFECT HAS OCCURRED. THE FIRST TIME AND SECOND TIME DEFECTS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. *TR
THE DRIVER SIDE SEAT BRACKET FAILED DURING ROUTINE CORNERING. THE SEAT NOW SITS SEVERAL INCHES LOWER TO THE LEFT AND ROCKS DURING CORNERING. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS SAFETY SITUATION IF THIS HAD OCCURRED AT HIGHS SPEEDS. THIS APPEARS TO BE COMMON PROBLEM WITH THIS VEHICLE, AND I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT NISSAN HAS N…
Read full complaint
THE DRIVER SIDE SEAT BRACKET FAILED DURING ROUTINE CORNERING. THE SEAT NOW SITS SEVERAL INCHES LOWER TO THE LEFT AND ROCKS DURING CORNERING. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS SAFETY SITUATION IF THIS HAD OCCURRED AT HIGHS SPEEDS. THIS APPEARS TO BE COMMON PROBLEM WITH THIS VEHICLE, AND I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT NISSAN HAS NOT ISSUED A RECALL. *TR
Official recalls
409V169000 · Engine And Engine Cooling
May 19, 2009
NISSAN IS RECALLING 362,891 MY 2003-2007 MURANO VEHICLES. THE INTAKE AIR DUCTS, WHICH ARE CONNECTED TO THE INTERMEDIATE RESONATOR IN THE AIR INTAKE SYSTEM OF THE ENGINE, MAY SEPARATE FROM THE RESONATOR WITH ENGINE MOVEMENT. THIS SEPARATION OCCURS DUE TO THE PREMATURE AGING OF THE MATERIAL USED IN THE INTAKE AIR DUCTS WHICH CAUSES EXCESSIVE SHRINKING.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: ENGINE MAY STALL INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND REPLACE/REPAIR THE APPROPRIATE COMPONENTS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT NISSAN AT 1-800-647-7261.
06V048000 · Seat Belts:rear/other
Feb 13, 2006
ON SOME SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, IN CERTAIN HIGH SPEED FRONTAL CRASHES, THE WEBBING OF A REAR OUTBOARD SEAT BELT MAY CONTACT THE REAR SEAT BACK HINGE WHERE IT CAN BE CUT BY THE SHARP EDGE OF THE METAL PORTION OF THE HINGE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE WEBBING IS COMPLETELY SEPARATED, IT CAN INCREASE THE RISK OF INJURY TO AN OCCUPANT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL PROTECTORS OVER THE WEBBING OF THE REAR SEAT BELTS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON MARCH 20, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT NISSAN AT 1-800-647-7261.
06V003000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
Jan 10, 2006
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE FORWARD EDGE OF THE FUEL TANK, IN THE EVENT THAT A VEHICLE FRONT TIRE RUNS OVER A SMALL, SHARP OBJECT IN THE ROAD, CATCHES IT AND PROPELS IT TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE, IT MAY STRIKE AND PUNCTURE THE FUEL TANK.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A PUNCTURED TANK COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF A FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL PROTECTORS IN FRONT OF THE TANK FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON MARCH 20, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT NISSAN AT 1-800-647-7261.
05V319000 · Electrical System:alternator/generator/regulator
Jul 14, 2005
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT A WIRE BREAKING INSIDE THE ALTERNATOR COULD STOP THE BATTERY FROM CHARGING.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS HAPPENS, THE CHARGER WARNING AND BRAKE WARNING LAMPS WILL IMMEDIATELY COME ON AND THE BATTERY WILL BEGIN TO DISCHARGE. AFTER A SHORT TIME, THE ENGINE WILL GO INTO A "FALL SAFE" CONDITION WHICH WILL LIMIT VEHICLE SPEED. THE ENGINE WILL STOP RUNNING WHICH COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND REPLACE THE ALTERNATOR WITH A NEW VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO PREVENT MOVEMENT OF THE COIL. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 1, 2005. OWNERS MAY CONTACT NISSAN AT 1-800-647-7261.
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
4PE08065 · Driver Seat Anchor Failure
Opened Nov 18, 2008 · Closed Jul 2, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seats
THIS INVESTIGATION CONCERNS STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF THE ANCHOR/BRACKET ON THE LEFT REAR SIDE OF THE DRIVER'S SEAT.THE CONCERN IS THAT SUCH FAILURES MAY ALTER THE DRIVER'S SEATED POSITION SO AS TO REDUCE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE OCCUPANT PROTECTION SYSTEM OR POTENTIALLY COMPROMISE VEHICLE CONTROL.FAILURE OF THE SUBJECT ANCHOR BRACKET RESULTS FROM METAL FATIGUE AND CAUSES REARWARD TILTING OF THE DRIVER'S SEAT.THESE FAILURES USUALLY OCCUR DURING DRIVER INGRESS BUT MAY ALSO OCCUR WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING OPERATED.THE SAFETY RELATED CONCERNS DURING ACTUAL VEHICLE USE WERE NOT VALIDATED BY THIS INVESTIGATION.WHILE THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS OF THIS PROBLEM IS RELATIVELY HIGH, ONLY THREE VERY MINOR, UNDOCUMENTED INJURIES WERE REPORTED.THE REPORTED INJURIES OCCURRED DURING DRIVER INGRESS, NOT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION.INVESTIGATION DISCLOSED THAT THE APPARENT RISK OF COMPROMISE TO VEHICLE CONTROL HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED.INVESTIGATION ALSO DISCLOSED THAT THE APPARENT RISK OF COLLAPSE OF THE DRIVER'S SEAT BACK HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATEDA SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND WAS NOT IDENTIFIED AND THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CLOSED.
PE05050 · Fuel Tank Punctures From Road Debris
Opened Sep 13, 2005 · Closed Jan 31, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly; Fuel System, Other:storage:tank Assembly
ODI OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION BASED ON FOUR VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQ'S) INDICATING THAT THE FUEL TANKS WEREPUNCTURED BY ROAD DEBRIS UNDER NORMAL, NON OFF-ROAD DRIVING CONDITIONS.AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 2005, THE COMPLAINT TOTAL INCREASED TO 12.NISSAN SUPPLIED ODI WITH 31 COMPLAINTS OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURES, INCLUDING 26 NOT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN TO ODI FROM THE VOQ RECORDS. IN A LETTER DATED JANUARY 9, 2006, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. NOTIFIED ODI OF ITS PLAN TO RECALL APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MODEL YEAR 2003 - 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES BUILT FROM APRIL 24, 2002 (START OF PRODUCTION OF MY 2003) THROUGH NOVEMBER 24, 2005 (INCLUDING A PORTION OF MY 2006 VEHICLES) TO CORRECT A DEFICIENCY IN FUEL TANK SHIELDING FROM ROAD DEBRIS.THIS RECALL HAS BEEN DESIGNATED NHTSA NO. 06V-003.RECALLED VEHICLES WILL BE FITTED WITH PROTECTIVE SHIELDING FOR THE FRONTAL PORTION OF THE FUEL TANK TO REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF PUNCTURE BY PROJECTILES FROM THE FRONT WHEELS.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CLOSED.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
ODI OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION BASED ON FOUR VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQ'S) INDICATING THAT THE FUEL TANKS WEREPUNCTURED BY ROAD DEBRIS UNDER NORMAL, NON OFF-ROAD DRIVING CONDITIONS.AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 2005, THE COMPLAINT TOTAL INCREASED TO 12.NISSAN SUPPLIED ODI WITH 31 COMPLAINTS OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURES, INCLUDING 26 NOT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN TO ODI FROM THE VOQ RECORDS. IN A LETTER DATED JANUARY 9, 2006, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. NOTIFIED ODI OF ITS PLAN TO RECALL APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MODEL YEAR 2003 - 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES BUILT FROM APRIL 24, 2002 (START OF PRODUCTION OF MY 2003) THROUGH NOVEMBER 24, 2005 (INCLUDING A PORTION OF MY 2006 VEHICLES) TO CORRECT A DEFICIENCY IN FUEL TANK SHIELDING FROM ROAD DEBRIS.THIS RECALL HAS BEEN DESIGNATED NHTSA NO. 06V-003.RECALLED VEHICLES WILL BE FITTED WITH PROTECTIVE SHIELDING FOR THE FRONTAL PORTION OF THE FUEL TANK TO REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF PUNCTURE BY PROJECTILES FROM THE FRONT WHEELS.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CLOSED.
Fuel System, Other:storage:tank Assembly
ODI OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION BASED ON FOUR VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQ'S) INDICATING THAT THE FUEL TANKS WEREPUNCTURED BY ROAD DEBRIS UNDER NORMAL, NON OFF-ROAD DRIVING CONDITIONS.AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 2005, THE COMPLAINT TOTAL INCREASED TO 12.NISSAN SUPPLIED ODI WITH 31 COMPLAINTS OF FUEL TANK PUNCTURES, INCLUDING 26 NOT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN TO ODI FROM THE VOQ RECORDS. IN A LETTER DATED JANUARY 9, 2006, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. NOTIFIED ODI OF ITS PLAN TO RECALL APPROXIMATELY 209,000 MODEL YEAR 2003 - 2006 NISSAN MURANO VEHICLES BUILT FROM APRIL 24, 2002 (START OF PRODUCTION OF MY 2003) THROUGH NOVEMBER 24, 2005 (INCLUDING A PORTION OF MY 2006 VEHICLES) TO CORRECT A DEFICIENCY IN FUEL TANK SHIELDING FROM ROAD DEBRIS.THIS RECALL HAS BEEN DESIGNATED NHTSA NO. 06V-003.RECALLED VEHICLES WILL BE FITTED WITH PROTECTIVE SHIELDING FOR THE FRONTAL PORTION OF THE FUEL TANK TO REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF PUNCTURE BY PROJECTILES FROM THE FRONT WHEELS.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CLOSED.
EA05006 · Alternator Failure / Engine Stalling
Opened Mar 25, 2005 · Closed Aug 17, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System; Electrical System:alternator/generator/regulator
ODI RECEIVED 14 REPORTS OF ALLEGED ENGINE STALLING DUE TO ALTERNATOR FAILURE ON MY 2003-2004 MURANO (SUBJECT) VEHICLES.ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS REPORTED THAT THE VEHICLE COULD NOT BE RESTARTED AFTER THE STALL OCCURRED.BASED ON THESE COMPLAINTS, ODI OPENED PE04-077 AND LATER UPGRADED TO EA05-006 FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.DURING EA05-006, ADDITIONAL FAILURE DATA WERE IDENTIFIED AS NOTED IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY ABOVE.ON JULY 12, 2005, NISSAN NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT ON MY 2003-2005 MURANO VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM APRIL 8, 2002 AND SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 (RECALL 05V-319).THE NOTIFICATION STATED THAT AN OPEN CIRCUIT IN THE ALTERNATOR CAN OCCUR DUE TO WIRE FATIGUE CAUSED BY MOVEMENT OF THE ROTOR COIL DURING RAPID CHANGES IN ENGINE SPEED IN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A CONTINUOUSLY VARIABLE TRANSMISSION (CVT).HIGHER ENGINE COMPARTMENT TEMPERATURE IN THE MURANO COMPARED TO OTHER NISSAN MODELS MAY ALSO BE A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE WIRE FATIGUE.NISSAN ALSO REPORTED THAT WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THE CHARGE WARNING AND BRAKE WARNING LAMPS WILL ILLUMINATE AND THE BATTERY WILL BEGIN TO DISCHARGE.AFTER A SHORT TIME, THE ENGINE WILL THEN ENTER A FAIL SAFE MODE THAT LIMITS VEHICLE SPEED.VERY SHORTLY AFTER REACHING THIS CONDITION, THE ENGINE WILL STOP.NHTSA'S TESTING, HOWEVER, SHOWED THAT ALTHOUGH THE WARNING LAMPS ILLUMINATE, THE VEHICLE SPEED IS LIMITED TO ONLY 4-7 MPH RATHER THAN WHAT NHTSA CONSIDERS A FAIL SAFE MODE. NISSAN WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO ANY NISSAN DEALER FOR AN ALTERNATOR INSPECTION AND REPLACEMENT, IF REQUIRED.NOTE:SOME VEHICLES MAY HAVE HAD THE NEWLY DESIGNED ALTERNATOR PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED UNDER WARRANTY.CONSEQUENTLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.ODI WILL MONITOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Electrical System:alternator/generator/regulator
ODI RECEIVED 14 REPORTS OF ALLEGED ENGINE STALLING DUE TO ALTERNATOR FAILURE ON MY 2003-2004 MURANO (SUBJECT) VEHICLES.ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS REPORTED THAT THE VEHICLE COULD NOT BE RESTARTED AFTER THE STALL OCCURRED.BASED ON THESE COMPLAINTS, ODI OPENED PE04-077 AND LATER UPGRADED TO EA05-006 FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.DURING EA05-006, ADDITIONAL FAILURE DATA WERE IDENTIFIED AS NOTED IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY ABOVE.ON JULY 12, 2005, NISSAN NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT ON MY 2003-2005 MURANO VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM APRIL 8, 2002 AND SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 (RECALL 05V-319).THE NOTIFICATION STATED THAT AN OPEN CIRCUIT IN THE ALTERNATOR CAN OCCUR DUE TO WIRE FATIGUE CAUSED BY MOVEMENT OF THE ROTOR COIL DURING RAPID CHANGES IN ENGINE SPEED IN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A CONTINUOUSLY VARIABLE TRANSMISSION (CVT).HIGHER ENGINE COMPARTMENT TEMPERATURE IN THE MURANO COMPARED TO OTHER NISSAN MODELS MAY ALSO BE A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE WIRE FATIGUE.NISSAN ALSO REPORTED THAT WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THE CHARGE WARNING AND BRAKE WARNING LAMPS WILL ILLUMINATE AND THE BATTERY WILL BEGIN TO DISCHARGE.AFTER A SHORT TIME, THE ENGINE WILL THEN ENTER A FAIL SAFE MODE THAT LIMITS VEHICLE SPEED.VERY SHORTLY AFTER REACHING THIS CONDITION, THE ENGINE WILL STOP.NHTSA'S TESTING, HOWEVER, SHOWED THAT ALTHOUGH THE WARNING LAMPS ILLUMINATE, THE VEHICLE SPEED IS LIMITED TO ONLY 4-7 MPH RATHER THAN WHAT NHTSA CONSIDERS A FAIL SAFE MODE. NISSAN WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO ANY NISSAN DEALER FOR AN ALTERNATOR INSPECTION AND REPLACEMENT, IF REQUIRED.NOTE:SOME VEHICLES MAY HAVE HAD THE NEWLY DESIGNED ALTERNATOR PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED UNDER WARRANTY.CONSEQUENTLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.ODI WILL MONITOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED.
Electrical System
ODI RECEIVED 14 REPORTS OF ALLEGED ENGINE STALLING DUE TO ALTERNATOR FAILURE ON MY 2003-2004 MURANO (SUBJECT) VEHICLES.ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS REPORTED THAT THE VEHICLE COULD NOT BE RESTARTED AFTER THE STALL OCCURRED.BASED ON THESE COMPLAINTS, ODI OPENED PE04-077 AND LATER UPGRADED TO EA05-006 FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.DURING EA05-006, ADDITIONAL FAILURE DATA WERE IDENTIFIED AS NOTED IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY ABOVE.ON JULY 12, 2005, NISSAN NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT ON MY 2003-2005 MURANO VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM APRIL 8, 2002 AND SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 (RECALL 05V-319).THE NOTIFICATION STATED THAT AN OPEN CIRCUIT IN THE ALTERNATOR CAN OCCUR DUE TO WIRE FATIGUE CAUSED BY MOVEMENT OF THE ROTOR COIL DURING RAPID CHANGES IN ENGINE SPEED IN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A CONTINUOUSLY VARIABLE TRANSMISSION (CVT).HIGHER ENGINE COMPARTMENT TEMPERATURE IN THE MURANO COMPARED TO OTHER NISSAN MODELS MAY ALSO BE A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE WIRE FATIGUE.NISSAN ALSO REPORTED THAT WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THE CHARGE WARNING AND BRAKE WARNING LAMPS WILL ILLUMINATE AND THE BATTERY WILL BEGIN TO DISCHARGE.AFTER A SHORT TIME, THE ENGINE WILL THEN ENTER A FAIL SAFE MODE THAT LIMITS VEHICLE SPEED.VERY SHORTLY AFTER REACHING THIS CONDITION, THE ENGINE WILL STOP.NHTSA'S TESTING, HOWEVER, SHOWED THAT ALTHOUGH THE WARNING LAMPS ILLUMINATE, THE VEHICLE SPEED IS LIMITED TO ONLY 4-7 MPH RATHER THAN WHAT NHTSA CONSIDERS A FAIL SAFE MODE. NISSAN WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO ANY NISSAN DEALER FOR AN ALTERNATOR INSPECTION AND REPLACEMENT, IF REQUIRED.NOTE:SOME VEHICLES MAY HAVE HAD THE NEWLY DESIGNED ALTERNATOR PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED UNDER WARRANTY.CONSEQUENTLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.ODI WILL MONITOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED.
PE04077 · Alternator Failure/ Engine Stalling
Opened Nov 19, 2004 · Closed Mar 25, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System; Electrical System:alternator/generator/regulator
ODI OPENED PE04-077 BASED ON 14 REPORTS OF ALLEGED ENGINE STALLING DUE TO ALTERNATOR FAILURE.ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS REPORTED THAT THE VEHICLE COULD NOT BE RESTARTED AFTER THE STALL OCCURRED.DURING PE04-077, ADDITIONAL FAILURE DATA WAS IDENTIFIED AS NOTED IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY ABOVE . DURING THE INVESTIGATION, NISSAN IDENTIFIED THAT THERE HAD BEEN ALTERNATOR WARRANTY REPLACEMENTS DUE TO AN OPEN CIRCUIT IN THE ROTOR COIL CAUSED BY WIRE FATIGUE. ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWS FAILURE RATES THAT ARE OF CONCERN TO ODI AND INDICATES THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS CONTINUING TO OCCUR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ODI'S ANALYSIS ALSO SHOWS THAT NEARLY ALL OF THE ALTERNATOR WARRANTY CLAIMS SUBMITTED RESULTED IN ENGINE STALLS AND AT LEAST 25% OF THE ENGINE STALLS RESULTED IN A NO RESTART CONDITION.HOWEVER, IN 71% OF THE WARRANTY DATA SUBMITTED, ODI HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THE CONSUMER COULD RESTART THE VEHICLE.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THIS CONCERN, TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES, AND TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE AFFECTED POPULATION.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Electrical System:alternator/generator/regulator
ODI OPENED PE04-077 BASED ON 14 REPORTS OF ALLEGED ENGINE STALLING DUE TO ALTERNATOR FAILURE.ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS REPORTED THAT THE VEHICLE COULD NOT BE RESTARTED AFTER THE STALL OCCURRED.DURING PE04-077, ADDITIONAL FAILURE DATA WAS IDENTIFIED AS NOTED IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY ABOVE . DURING THE INVESTIGATION, NISSAN IDENTIFIED THAT THERE HAD BEEN ALTERNATOR WARRANTY REPLACEMENTS DUE TO AN OPEN CIRCUIT IN THE ROTOR COIL CAUSED BY WIRE FATIGUE. ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWS FAILURE RATES THAT ARE OF CONCERN TO ODI AND INDICATES THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS CONTINUING TO OCCUR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ODI'S ANALYSIS ALSO SHOWS THAT NEARLY ALL OF THE ALTERNATOR WARRANTY CLAIMS SUBMITTED RESULTED IN ENGINE STALLS AND AT LEAST 25% OF THE ENGINE STALLS RESULTED IN A NO RESTART CONDITION.HOWEVER, IN 71% OF THE WARRANTY DATA SUBMITTED, ODI HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THE CONSUMER COULD RESTART THE VEHICLE.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THIS CONCERN, TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES, AND TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE AFFECTED POPULATION.
Electrical System
ODI OPENED PE04-077 BASED ON 14 REPORTS OF ALLEGED ENGINE STALLING DUE TO ALTERNATOR FAILURE.ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS REPORTED THAT THE VEHICLE COULD NOT BE RESTARTED AFTER THE STALL OCCURRED.DURING PE04-077, ADDITIONAL FAILURE DATA WAS IDENTIFIED AS NOTED IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY ABOVE . DURING THE INVESTIGATION, NISSAN IDENTIFIED THAT THERE HAD BEEN ALTERNATOR WARRANTY REPLACEMENTS DUE TO AN OPEN CIRCUIT IN THE ROTOR COIL CAUSED BY WIRE FATIGUE. ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWS FAILURE RATES THAT ARE OF CONCERN TO ODI AND INDICATES THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS CONTINUING TO OCCUR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ODI'S ANALYSIS ALSO SHOWS THAT NEARLY ALL OF THE ALTERNATOR WARRANTY CLAIMS SUBMITTED RESULTED IN ENGINE STALLS AND AT LEAST 25% OF THE ENGINE STALLS RESULTED IN A NO RESTART CONDITION.HOWEVER, IN 71% OF THE WARRANTY DATA SUBMITTED, ODI HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THE CONSUMER COULD RESTART THE VEHICLE.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THIS CONCERN, TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES, AND TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE AFFECTED POPULATION.