I had filed two complaints with the NHTSA . . . one for each of my SRT6 roadsters. I received a phone call from John Abbott with the NHTSA last week. We talked on the phone for about 20 minutes. He asked me lots of questions about the rear window glass failures. I also I took the opportunity to tell him my feelings about Chrysler's woefully inadequate response to the issue. I told him that the rear window glass issue was not limited to just the 2005 model year roadsters but that eventually every Crossfire roadster 2005 - 2008 will have the adhesive fail and the rear window glass will fall out. I further told him that Chrysler's response offering warranty support for only vehicles that were delivered to dealers in a few selected southern states was irrational and had absolutely no relationship to the actual rear window adhesive failure issue. I got the impression that the NHTSA was sincerely interested in this problem and was pursuing a serious investigation. Mr. Abbott shared that the NHTSA had requested information directly from Chrysler and that they were currently awaiting a response from Chrysler.

 

Thank you for your efforts and thanks to the Forum for all of the invaluable tips and advice we have discovered here! We look forward to many more years of participation, maybe even meet some of you someday.

 

Hi All......
Just had a call from a John Abbott of the Nat. Safety Board.
Have to call him back.
Anyone else had a call???
His number 202 366 5221
Looking for some input to respond with.
My window has been ok but looking for the future.
Thanks

 

I did-about 1-2 weeks ago.

He seems like a busy guy...

BTW- before you say "It's been OK", please look at the inside of the top where the fabric meets the glass. Mine looked fine too-right up until it failed. Raise the top to expose the inside of the window and run your fingers along the gap. It seems to fail from the inside out. At least in my case...

If you can see the adhesive, it's pulled away.

 

Thanks Maxcichon.
That is just the type of advice I was looking for.
I never knew to check there and now will do.
Gonna call him back tomorrow.
Waiting for other input.
Thanks again

 

You bet, buddy. And: the adhesive should go all the way to the edge of the glass. If you can feel/see a gap, it has started...

 

NHTSA publication DOT HS 808 795 lists examples of Defects Considered Safety-Related, such as: "Critical vehicle components that break, fall apart or separate from the vehicle, causing POTENTIAL loss of vehicle control or injury to people inside or outside the vehicle", & Wiring system problems that result in a fire OR loss of lighting". Vehicle windows ARE critical components, especially those that are expected to be permanently attached.
This should be considered an unreasonable risk and an unacceptable failure. Chrysler would probably not have taken ANY action if they had not deemed it to be absolutely necessary (in Sept/2011) for the 2005 model year. It is highly likely that some incidents, accidents and/or wiring system problems may have occurred, which were directly related to this defect, and never reported or investigated.
Visual comparisons with several other modern convertibles, European and Japanese, often reveal designs which appear to be superior in strength to the Crossfire window attachment. However, the bottom line is that the adhesive and/or process used on our Roadsters was inadequate on all of our model.
Did you read post from Red Dog, (5-26-2015)?
I sent these photos to John.Abbott@DOT.GOV, stating that this is more than just a visibility issue, it is a functional failure of the roof structure itself!

 

Hi...........
Update, seems I am playing phone tag with John Abbot.
But will keep calling as the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Keep ya posted.

 

NHTSA's recent announcement regarding Fiat/Chrysler's poor recall performance involving several issues & models, is a sad development for all. (details can be seen on safercar.gov). As of this date, there has been no published conclusion from NHTSA, concerning their investigation of detached Crossfire Roadster rear windows and Chrysler's subsequent special Warranty and restriction to a specific group of model year 2005 VIN #'s. Chrysler offered anywhere from 100% to 0% assistance to owners' outside of their select group, with little or no explanation. We are still waiting...

 

I was just cleaning car for show this weekend and noticed from lower driver side corner to mid way across window has lost adhesion. just posted on site of failure. The car has been garage kept for the last 7 years and only has 26,000 miles on it for a 2005. Don't think this has anything to do with heat other than it makes it occurs faster.

 

I agree . . . In my experience (both personal and also watching the rear window glass adhesive failures reported here on the forum), all of the OEM roadsters tops will eventually have the adhesive fail on the rear window glass.

 

And for this reason, I think replacing them with "NOS" parts (New Old Stock) is kinda silly. I went the extra mile and bought a new top with a sewn-in plastic frame around the glass. Like a Jag or Aston-Martin. Very little extra cost.

 

If you don't mind me asking where did you purchase your new top?
Or did you just have it made at a local upholstery shop that also does convertible tops?

 

Through the "Convertible Top Guys":

https://www.convertibletopguys.com/

And it was made by:

https://www.convertibletopguys.com/c...sler-Crossfire

(I think M&T Manu. Co. owns Convertible Top Guys)

or it was made by EZ-On

Convertible Top Replacement & Auto Headliners | E-Z ON Auto Tops

Very confusing, looking back...

The window frame process is called:

http://www.ezonauto.com/pdf/EWP_Release.pdf

NOT the "SGR Maxbond". I think that's what the OEM tops have.

If you have more questions, PM me? I have all the correspondence from my purchase and order number. He can look up what I wanted.

and, of course, the guys' email!

 

***BUMP***

To see if you saw this.

 

NHTSA has not yet made a decision that we know of (8-9-15). Chrysler's response can be read on safercar.gov, (2005 Chrysler Crossfire Roadster) click on other documents & scroll down to bottom. They officially blame heat & humidity; They state it is not an unreasonable risk to safety & that the glass has not & cannot come out, becoming a projectile, even saying that the window defroster wires would prevent this!?!
WHAT ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF THE ROOF/WINDOW TO PROVIDE WEATHER PROTECTION,( UNDER ALL CONDITIONS, EVEN DRIVING CROSS COUNTRY, MILES & MILES AWAY FROM SHELTER/REPAIR), TO ALL OF THE SENSITIVE ELECTRICAL & HYDRAULIC COMPONENTS THROUGHOUT THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE??? TO IGNORE THIS SAFETY ASPECT, WHETHER THE IMMEDIATE RISK, OR IT'S POTENTIAL IS CONTRARY TO NHTSA's OWN LANGUAGE, AND IS AN UNACCEPTABLE OVERSIGHT ON CHRYSLER'S PART.


Chrysler describes their 2011 Warranty as "regional" and simply a "customer satisfaction" measure!?
HOW DOES ONE DEFINE "REGIONAL" USING STATE BORDERS, SKIPPING STATES RIGHT NEXT TO "THOSE" STATES, AND RESTRICTING THE WARRANTY STRICTLY BY VIN #, NO MATTER WHERE OR WHEN THE CAR WAS MOVED TO AN UNCOVERED STATE??? THEIR contentions are PREPOSTEROUS AND ABSURD NONSENSE, DESIGNED TO SHIFT THE FOCUS AWAY FROM THE REALITY OF THE DEFECT AND NATIONWIDE SCOPE OF THIS COMMON FAILURE. THEIR WARRANTY BECAME VIN # ELIGIBLE, NOT "REGIONAL" AT ALL, AND THEY SUBSEQUENTLY CHOSE WHO ELSE TO HELP, AT THEIR OWN DISCRETION & FOR HOW MUCH $, (if any).


We firmly believe that NHTSA should require Chrysler to offer reimbursement to any owner who can document personal expense paid within the 10 year & mileage time limit, for actual top replacement cost, JUST as they do/did for their selected VIN # owners in October/2011. Note; their Claim Form for Reimbursement, which was included in their Letter to those owners, should be made available to all, upon request. OEM part nor dealer labor is/was not required.

 

Zero loss of life or injury or cause in an accident ... pretty much says how involved they need to be doesn't it? A law suite over the vin and original point of sale vrs cars resident area would probably carry more water.

 

Accidents, injuries and fatalities are always the primary focus. A law suit over the fairness/injustice of a "phony" regional warranty should be winnable, given enough facts. However, that would likely require "deep pockets", lawyers would make big $, and average car owner lucky to get some reimbursement, probably not much in our case.
NHTSA is supposed to look at the whole picture. The risk to safety should not have to be immediate nor should the absence of a reported injury/accident be a required decisive factor in determining reasonableness in this case.
Imagine; what if the rear window in a coupe/hardtop was commonly detaching from it's mounting in a specific model of automobile, over a period of time and a wide geographical area? (and did not become a projectile or injure someone) Or say: a side window detaches...would not the manufacturer be required to warranty such a defect whether voluntarily or forced? NHTSA protocol suggests: "vehicle components that separate from the vehicle, causing potential loss of control..."; as one prime example of a "safety related defect". Must the safety risk be imminent? Fiat/Chrysler says that the driver has plenty of warning, so therefore, somehow it becomes his/her own problem.
ARE ANY DETACHED WINDOWS REASONABLE?? (within the expected service life of the design & quality of manufacturing, etc.)
Their "regional...heat & humidity" argument is nonsense also. Chrysler LLC issued their 2011 warranty to cover their $$$, before this really got out of control.
Fiat/Chrysler emphasizes the "no projectile/ no injury" aspect in order to minimize/ignore the common sense conclusion that DETACHED WINDOWS ARE NOT REASONABLE NOR ACCEPTABLE. Rather: this is a structural failure of the roof and window! I hope that accident, injury and/or death are not required for Gov't help. I hope NHTSA considers All of the facts and implications of Chrysler's penny pinching strategy.
I'm sorry I am long winded, thank you.

 

I have a back window that just separated from the top on my 2005. I bought this vehicle in the US and it has a VIN number that is covered, originally SOLD in the State of Georgia. Went around and around with both Canada and the US divisions of Chrysler, and they tell me that bringing across the border into Canada makes my vehicle void of any type of safety bulletin fixes. Called a well know convertible top repair shop and it will cost me $2,950 US to replace the top. With the dollar at .75 cents, that equals about $3,900 Canadian.

 

$2,950?? . . . That's ridiculous. Where in the Great White North are you located?? And PLEASE take a moment to update your profile so we can know a bit more about you and your Crossfire without having to ask basic questions . . .

https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...tml#post812689