Originally Posted by
CharlieO
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.)