Well, Dave, you are being your usual ******* self. I DID err and changed her name to her screen name.
X and Y and I are very close - it was they who found me my current (and third) Roadster.

I sent X and Y a link to my post.

 

Am I an ******* for pointing out your error in mentioning her name or the fact that you dented someones Crossfire at the Dragon and were seen doing it and then took hours to apologize for doing it. I have seen the dent so I know of what I speak.
You are still identifying her in your later post. I will of course remove the name from my reply to you.

 

The ding was an accident and I compensated Beaner for it by paying part of his Lodge bill the next time he came to the Dragon.

Other than that, you were right all along Dave.

 

Dave, CHeck your PMs.

I wish to apologize to you in private as well as public.

 

I went too far I am afraid. I apologise to you for that.

 

I agree that the lack of evidence (ie: accident/injury) does not support a safety related defect of our Roadsters. But it would be better for all if rear & side windows have DOT safety standards somewhat like windshields (different, of course, and not just convertibles.) My initial focus (& a few others) went to the Fed. Trade Comm., who has authority over such things as unfair business practices. Their response to us & our Senator was, in a nutshell, they can't $pend resources on such $mall potatoes!?! Guess they didn't get enough complaints. Thanks for nothing; FTC.
I would bet Chrysler has some regrets as to how they handled the issue. My theory is they felt it necessary to do something, especially after the NHTSA inquired in late 2009, armed with complaints. Again, they should have offered the Warranty ONLY to all Original Buyers, and they would have been ahead of the game. What obligation should they have to subsequent owners? And the cars covered @ 100% were defined by VIN number as much as they were by State The Bonehead that approved that idea should have been promptly in the unemployment line!

 

Sort of been interesting for me to follow this thread the past couple of weeks. Lots of discussion concerning whether a car is covered under a recall by whether it's the original owner or subsequent owners. My understanding is that if the NHTSA issues a mandated recall for a safety issue, the only thing that matters is whether the specific car VIN is included in the recall lot. There typically isn't anything factored in as to whether the car is still owned by the original purchaser. (Note: The TAKATA AIRBAG RECALL has another factor in that where the car is located determines the priority order in which the car is repaired. But all the cars included in the recall get repaired if they are still "on the road" & registered (only way FCA can trace the car).)


Now if the recall is issued by the car manufacturer due to some known defect (like the rear window in a Crossfire Roadster coming unglued), all bets are off. The car manufacturer can issue that recall with any qualifiers it feels are justified and/or adequate. And saying that they would only cover cars originally sold in the Southern states & still owned by original buyers (correct me if I got this wrong) would limit the financial exposure to them. And when it comes down to it, it is all about financial risk and potential impact. It is a "bean counters' world. Overall goodwill and market image become secondary concerns for these auto manufacturers. They typically can survive a little ill will.


There have been much larger recalls over the years that manufacturers have taken years to put behind them, but these do go away eventually. Remember the Pinto exploding gas tanks during rear-end collisions! Remember the original Firestone 500s that delaminated & failed catastrophically! Remember the Audi issue with going into gear when shift lever was placed in park! And all these brands overcame those recalls. The Crossfire rear window is a "drop in the bucket" compared to these issues.

 

And the rear window coming unglued in the Roadster seemed to be akin to the VW New Beetle Convertibles of the same vintage. As I stated in an earlier post in this thread, my 2006 VW New Beetle "ragtop" had the same thing happen to the rear window. And it is a known issue in the New Beetle Convertibles during the 1997 thru late 2000 models. Somewhere around 2008, maybe 2009, VW eliminated this issue (or reduced it's likelihood) by either re-designing the window attachment or switching glues. But with nearly a 12-year run of convertibles having this issue & owners constantly complaining about this poor quality, VW never issued a recall to have that window repaired. Again, as stated by others, the "ragtop" is a wearable item but typically outlasts the original factory warranty period. And getting past the factory warranty period was all VW was concerned about.

Later,

 

Is this the Ford Explorer/Firestone tire fiasco you speak of?


.

 

No - I was referring to the first tire recall Firestone had back in 1978. The Firestone 500, their premier tire, delaminated the tread and resulted in a major recall. The incident you referred to was in 2000 after Bridgestone bought Firestone. Here's a major manufacturer that had not one but 2 major recalls for the same issue in different tire models and still survived this public disgrace & image.

Here's an article about the recalls: Firestone Tire Recalls

Here's some additional information about the Firestone 500 recall in the 1970's:

"The Firestone 500 the tire that came close to destroying Firestone as a company. This tire was plagued with defects and recalls. Deaths apparently were caused by this tire. Ultimately, Firestone would get bought out by Bridgestone. In 1973, only two years after the 500's debut, it is reported that, Thomas A. Robertson, Firestone's director of development wrote an internal memo stating "We are making an inferior quality radial tire which will subject us to belt-edge separation at high mileage". Firestone introduced strict quality control measures in an attempt to fix the inherent problems, however they were not successful in totally eliminating the basic faults. In 1977 a recall of 400,000 tires produced at the problematic Decatur plant was initiated. Firestone blamed the problems on the consumer, stating under-inflation and poor maintenance.

On October 20, 1978, Firestone recalled over 7 million Firestone 500 tires. Congressional hearings into the 500 also took place in 1978. The tire was found to be defective and the cause of 34 deaths. In May 1980 after finding that they knew the tires were defective, the NHTSA fines Firestone $500,000 USD, which at that time was the largest fine imposed on any U.S. corporation and the largest civil penalty imposed since passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act. Multiple lawsuits were settled out of court and the constant negative publicity crippled the company's sales and share price."

 

Well, the roadster is 11 yrs old, so I guess I will be fixing my key and my window when that day finally comes. I will continue to baby it. Maybe I will pass away before it happens, and my sons can figure it out...lol.

 

I completely understand your point concerning "bean counters" and cost containment. Of course, Chrysler never issued any sort of (mandatory) top recall. A "recall" , whether corporate or gov't., would include All suspect vehicles. Rather, they issued a service bulletin with a warranty offer, to a select group of cars.
The heat & humidity of the "Southern States" notion was a smoke screen that people assumed or bought into. Why would they include Missouri, Texas and Tennessee, yet skip Mississippi, Virginia, West Virginia, Oklahoma and even Kentucky? (has anyone heard about Phoenix in the summer?)
They simply chose their 9 States and gathered up all of the Vin numbers that were shipped there from the port. Their Letters, dated 9/7/2011, went to the current owners of record by the specific Vin numbers. (not sure, but not just original purchasers). Whatever States those cars may have been relocated to, was not even an issue.
I feel that their decision was foolish, businesswise, especially since they wound up helping a number of other owners anyway. My $.02. It is a shame that Any car maker can be so blatantly arbitrary and get away with it. Perhaps they should have done nothing, but this was clearly a manufacturing flaw with widespread occurrence, far too early in the expected lifespan of the part.

 

I agree with what you stated here. The problem for a guy like me not included in the 9 states is how old the car is now. I would have had mine replaced under a recall. But just waiting for it to happen now, it is going to be on me. It is 11 yrs old now. So, I either got a good one, or it does't see enough sun in the hotter part of the day...lol. So far, my roadster has had a CPS, and an AIT sensor. 1 new fog light. No bad for 46k...and 11 yrs old.

 

Ahh, OK, I was referring to the Firestone/Ford Explorer fiasco around 2000 (+/-). Interesting references (Not by lawyers who profited by the affair) are ( Inside the Ford/Firestone Fight - TIME ) and ( Text of Letter to Ford From Bridgestone - The New York Times ). A lot of lawyer-speak articles/source pages on the net involves one sided litigious self interests, but there are a huge amount of factual summaries that point the finger at Ford (even though Firestone also paid a heavy price in brand and $ paid out AFTER successful appeal with newfound documentation). Shame, it'll never end with the bean counters vs customer safety/loyalty. In the end, we ALL get it in the end EXCEPT the lawyers, they get a LOT in their wallets.

.