To put it simply you are screwed, you cannot fight it.
Buy the new top in the States and put it on yourself. Three or four hours work max if you do it right.

 

I'm removing mine this week to send to company in RI, I'll post the outcome and price

 

No Investigation For Chrysler Crossfire Back Window Problems | CarComplaints.com

 

Liberals in DC can kiss my ***. When the window finally fails, maybe I will be lucky and it will fly thru some democrat's front grille on the interstate. We can hang keys and a host of other things on our key chains until we wear out the ignition switch, and deem it the manufacturer's fault, but we can't investigate a failing window. Nice.

 

And this surprises...who? I had hope, but then again...

 

I am the "petitioner". NHTSA & FCA US (Chrysler) completely ignored my allegation that the separated window disables the critical function of the roof & window to protect sensitive/vital electrical harness components from the obvious risk to failure due to flooding damage caused by rain/snow etc. This poses very real dangers such as losing brake/tail light functions which often contribute to rear end collisions (one of the most common of all driving accidents).
Instead they chose to cite and focus ONLY on; injury, fatality, crash, loss of control and glass projectile evidence, in particular, of which there is little, if any, to examine.
I recently read the official response from Chrysler to the NHTSA's Information Request, online, and they reported (in part); only finding ONE consumer complaint to the Company with ONE Vin #, and ZERO involvement in any lawsuit relating to the alleged defect.
I (essentially) said that I believe the Company's response to be dishonest, especially in light of the fact that they were the defendant in our small claims case.
NHTSA's response (essentially) considered this of no concern to their denial decision. I'll have to decide where I go with that.
Any comments especially on potential electrical damage/failure aspect which was deliberately(?) ignored? Didn't NHTSA ignore all potential consequences of GM ignition switch failures for quite a long time? In NHTSA's recent crackdown on FCA US safety related issues, was there a prerequisite for people to be hurt or to die? How exactly do they determine the "unreasonable risk" factor of their legal mandate?

 

So my 2008 rear window detached WHILE I was driving on the highway in a state other than my own in a thunderstorm...Hmm... Doesn't sound very SAFE to me. So glad it didn't hit my 8 year old daughter in the head!!! This whole saga is ridiculous.

 

A friend (and his family) where I work (multi brand new car dealer) lost their 2 year old daughter/niece when their vehicle was rear ended at about 65 mph, when traffic had stopped on the freeway. Obviously the other driver was distracted, not paying attention, who knows what else. I have been rear ended 3 times in the past 10 years, luckily w/ no injury, just property damage by the uninsured driver(s)! (No, not in Mrs's Roadster) I see many wrecked cars every week in our body shop & those that we do business with and it seems as if the majority are because one or more drivers failed to stop in time. I drive in heavy traffic for much of my workday and often see one or sometimes zero brake lights working on some vehicles (there are no safety inspections here, only biannual smog tests). Faulty brake lights must often contribute to rear end crashes.
Electrical malfunction and other damage caused by water leaking past the roof/window (ie. rain, snowmelt, carwash etc) was the main reason for my petition for an investigation. Yet, NHTSA and Chrysler (of course), have NEVER even publicly acknowledged this obvious risk.


An automobile roof provides the critical function of protecting the occupants AND many vital/sensitive components from injury or damage & malfunction caused by exposure to the elements, for it's expected service life (10 years quoted by Chrysler). The rear window and it's weathertight seal, is an integral part of the roof structure, especially on a convertible vehicle. Apparently they consider the entire roof as simply some type of cosmetic part, providing NO necessary purpose and no investigation is necessary!? This is JUST wrong.


You are right: this saga is ridiculous and a sham perpetrated on all, by the Corp. AND "our" Government, (NHTSA). Maybe I should copy this to Secretary Anthony Foxx (DOT) and our Senators because they would be compelled to respond for the "record".

 

Can we get a recall on tires that go flat? I mean come on.. it makes about as much sense. You don't pull over and address it when it occurs.. well there you go. Snow.. sleet .. rain.. imagine the potential dangers during rush hour on the highway.
I have two roadsters .. repaired the window on one and hoping it falls out on the other one before extended warranty expires. Sure I'd love to see them fix them all, but in reality it ain't going to happen.

 

I know it's not going to happen. With the wiring harness & security control module & hydraulics all vulnerable to water damage, even with car parked & driver completely unaware of any rear end flooding; I wanted them to do a serious investigation and they will not.
I was hoping Chrysler would at least have to reimburse legitimate claims for original owners, maybe up to a certain $ amount, say $1500.
I believe Chrysler put out their (2011) phony "regional customer satisfaction" warranty because they knew that if they did nothing, they would have a much larger price tag later on for a recall.
They were willing to sacrifice happy loyal customers to save what was really a somewhat minimal cost. (not a lot of cars)

 

In all fairness I would say that original owners should have got some satisfaction but what would be a reasonable time is hard to say.
Many of these cars are in the hands of second, third or more owners and how the cars have been treated may have some effect on the window.
I think that at this time any warranty would have run out probably even for original owners, after all how long can a car maker be on the hook for faults? The water in the trunk side of the equation due to the window leaking falls into the same category.
With the bailout and the new owners the blame is even more hard to pin down to someone.
I say suck it up and move on, it's easy for me to say as I have a coupe.

 

Well I've got 2 roadsters and have to agree with this statement.. . Either you love the car and will deal with it or sell it knowing it will happen and your not willing to be a part of this aspect of ownership. Trust me (been there done that) .. people will buy that discounted car with the window hanging and or duct taped in place.

It's not like this is just a Crossfire thing. Google search and see how many pages you can last reading about other cars and this issue.

 

I agree with both of you. Started this process over 2 years ago. Love this car, top replaced @ local shop in 2013. Their 2 suits (1 lawyer who never spoke & was never questioned; small claims!) did not have a valid argument but I (nervous) fumbled mine & Judge refused to look @ "letter & claim form & service Bulletin" which I did not file in beginning (big mistake!). So I've tried all I can to hold Corp responsible for everyone else. David vs Goliath in U.S. & guess who has the power$

 

Roadster owners: other than a crappy seal on the rear window, do we think that weather exposure of any kind eventually leads to the problems many have experienced? Like many, mine is a drive in nice weather only car. Top down in the spring and back up in the fall before storage. Very limited exposure to the elements. Might that better preserve the integrity of the rear window seal? I really don't know, just asking and interested in your thoughts. Thanks

 

I personally think that driving with the top up and the windows down is a major contributing factor.
The wind rattles the hell out of the rear window, probably breaking the glue bond.

 

Interesting ala xfire. That would not have occurred to me!

 

Sorry for the long delay the top including shipping was 1,200. I tried putting on top 2 weeks ago with another friend that has already replaced his top. top was slide on and all the rivets and moldings were installed per instructions I got from crossfire manual. Everything was going well until we tried to close top.
We wanted to see how top looked before we wrapped front of top around. The rear bow was almost down and the top stopped and switch started flashing fast. I like a moron pushed on the bow so it latched into tanou cover, and that's were I'm at. Top will not open or complete the close process, and now I can't get into truck due to top cycle. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I do not have a DBIII scanner to read codes and DBII scanner does not give me any error codes. Looks like I may be taking it to a convertible top place after all.

 

I have been a Crossfire owner since 2005. I got rid of my coupe in 2014 and bought a 2005 Roadster in August 2015. Thanks to this forum, I knew what I was getting myself into with these defective tops. So, it did not surprise me, after I travel over a 100 miles to the dealership to pick up my Roadster, that it show sign of the previous owner's attempt to repair the window. I still bought the car because knowledge is power. I knew that I would have to deal with this issue at some point. I have only had the Roadster 2 months and I had the top taken off and sent to EZ-ON, to have a new custom top made for my Roadster. I should have the top back in about 2 weeks. If I did not know about this defect before I bought the car, I would have been very angry. But for me it's no big deal "It is what it is."

 

It seems to me that NHTSA's response is perfectly reasonable. In all of they years of discussing this issue on this board, have we ever seen any evidence of the electrical damage that you suggest is possible? I don't think so. I think that the basis of your petition was seriously flawed, and NHTSA was right to reject it.


I do think that Chrysler made a serious mistake is only covering the roof replacement for cars which were originally sold in specific states. The ill will that was created with people who might otherwise be very happy Chrysler owners has probably cost the company far more than the cost of replacing every top that has had the problem. I bet that they lost a lot of potential buyers for brand new Chrysler vehicles.

 

I have to agree. NHTSA must show that a safety related defect exists AND that it presents an "unreasonable" risk to safety (ie. accident, death or injury, apparently none of which occurred).


One known area of concern is the failure/damage to the locking pump control module etc, under the luggage area, due to water intrusion. I believe this is somewhat common with coupes due to failure of the weather sealing under the spoiler. I wanted to know if this occurred to Roadsters which had water enter past the detached window. With modern top material and heated safety glass designed to last much longer than tops from the past, maybe we are overdue for a FMVSS requiring such windows to remain secure for some reasonable length of expected lifespan.


And as you said; they created a lot of ill will, especially with original owners like us. I have and continue to share our displeasure about their "select warranty" with others.


Unfortunately, Chrysler was only required to provide information about complaints/events that involved accident, death or injury. I was hoping for a complete response involving all of their research and information, from the time when the complaints were becoming commonplace. Also, I believe that there is something wrong with an auto makers "right" to restrict their remedy within State borderlines, especially after the defect is proven to be much more widespread. Just my 2 cents. (such data may have been enough to force FTC action, based on fairness, which FTC previously refused to take.) (Fed. Trade Comm.)