Originally Posted by
lovecross
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...
Any comments especially on potential electrical damage/failure aspect which was deliberately(?) ignored? D
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.