NHTSA To Review Window Issues In Chrysler Convertibles - Law360

 

Thanks for the info acrispy1.
Great to know.

 

I don't own a Roadster and don't want to register on that site, but would like to read the entire article. Can someone copy and paste it here?

Thanks, James

 

2005 Chrysler Crossfire May Be Investigated For Loose & Detached Back Windows

 

Thank you.

 

We got the e-mail 4/22/15, from NHTSA! They must decide if the detached window is a safety related defect. Of course it is, even for the simple reason that water must not be allowed to flood the vehicle and damage sensitive wiring harness and other (hydraulic) components etc!
Plz file more complaints on safercar.gov, tell them to look at all model years not just '05's. And Chrysler offered to fix a specific group of VIN #'s, that were shipped to 9 States, BUT it does not matter where the car may have spent it's "life" after the sale ! OR: if your car was bought in say Kentucky, but you moved to Florida, you are SH*t of luck!! Just read their "letter" & Claim Form for proof, or look at the mountain of evidence!

 

Filed my 06 yesterday. Figured it couldn't hurt anything.

 

I filed two separate complaints. One for the SSB roadster and one for the black roadster.

 

Where do you register???
Thanks

 

Go to Home | Safercar -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . .

 

Most important; NHTSA will decide on the safety related defect aspect. They should consider the potential electrical damage to the wired defrost function and wiring harness damage due to water/flooding. These conditions are not acceptable nor reasonable and Chrysler finally took action in 2011 because they recognized this.

 

Please check this link for comment.

 

Some folks may think we are "beating a dead horse", if so, please forgive us. We have accomplished the step where Chrysler is required to show NHTSA all of their records about the detached window defect. NHTSA must then officially decide whether or not to open an investigation. They previously wrote (us) that it was not an unreasonable risk to safety because the owner has ample time to have it fixed!? When you look at all the complaints, that statement is nonsense. The potential damage to defroster wiring alone, makes this failure unacceptable.
If anyone has first hand knowledge of any court case, small claims or other, about this ; Please pm us with the information. Chrysler spent time and expense to fight us personally, so we are still fighting for everyone because we believe in justice even when the "system" fails.

 

I made my 2nd complaint on this issue 4 weeks ago (1st in 2011). I received a phone call from "Washington D.C." on Friday, last. The gent wanted to know if the complaints were for the same car (VIN). I told him yes. The 1st was when it started detaching and the latest for when the glass detached completely and required the costly replacement of the entire top.

And I mentioned, in the latest complaint, the damage caused to the rear glass wiring.

We had a nice, if short, discussion about the "Hot States" delivery criteria Chrysler used.

There seems to still be hope, folks!

 

Thank you for your help. The climate issue was never "official" from Chrysler (they skipped Mississipi & others), and they have always known that it was not limited only to the group of VIN's shipped to the 9 States. Production of the imported roof tops and cars occurred over a short time span, several years before the failures began. Nobody knows why only those VIN's were chosen.
NHTSA should consider the potential for accident, injury or death caused by water or other damage to all rear wiring systems such as loss of tail and brake lighting etc. The "risk" should not have to be immediate or sudden in order to be considered "unreasonable", such as the ignition switch failures that occurred to many GM vehicles over a period of time. However, even a sudden detached window likely startles the driver and may cause an accident due to fear and/or overreaction.
Chrysler will fight this with all they have. We hope NHTSA takes an honest look from the peoples' viewpoint.

 

Any new information on this?

 

Chrysler is also very good at issuing a recall notice but not having any parts available.

Have seen others (GM) find some very inexpensive "fix" for a recall but FCA seems the master of issuing a recall with no parts avalable.

At least you do not need a new head.

 

NHTSA took their "first step", requesting ALL of the info. that Chrysler has to date, regarding this defect. (due to our "petition" request) Chrysler may drag their feet, but they are supposed to provide all details. NHTSA will then decide whether or not, to continue with investigation. If not, NHTSA must publish their reasoning in the "Federal Register".
It is very easy to send a simple request to your US Senators/House Rep. via their websites, asking that they also check with NHTSA on this issue, (hint-hint). Thank you all.

 

Calling the window problem a safety problem is a bit of a stretch as far as I can see. It's not like the window falls put and hits the driver on the head. I can see why people are upset, but frankly most are 2nd, 3rd or whatever owners. Buyer beware blah blah blah ....
I doubt that this will go anywhere any time soon if ever.

 

Maybe not. We happily bought our brand new Roadster Limited in 4/05, for about 40K (MSRP). We truly enjoy our car. When our window came loose we asked Chrysler for help, over time they offered only $900 credit towards the $2,500 replacement, they refused to negotiate, would not put the 30 day offer in writing. We felt $1,600 copay was not fair. Turned it down.
They should have fixed all original owners, maybe not 2nd & 3rd owners etc. As someone said: Chrysler knows nothing about "good will". Perhaps they should not have helped anybody. After how we were treated, we are trying to hold Corp. responsible for their ill-advised decisions.
Not too sure about "most are 2nd, 3rd...owners" because complaints became numerous by 2009 and after "Kane's" thread about the TSB in Fall of 2011, and continued steadily for all model years. We contend that any fixed window is a "critical vehicle component that separates from the vehicle...causing potential risk of accident"...etc, (NHTSA language). Electrical heated defroster function is jeopardized along with potential wiring harness damage from flooding of the rear end (snow/rain etc) This could even go undetected for a period of time. NHTSA will decide if they consider this risk to be "reasonable" and a "safety related defect".
It is Not normal wear, nor simply an "inconvenience to the owner", as NHTSA initially suggested to us.