[Judite]

I love my Pacifica but I get so frustrated with Chrysler. I got a notice in February that there was a recall on my 2018 hybrid. I've called twice to make an appointment but THEY DON'T HAVE THE PARTS.
This is a scary recall- according to the recall notice, my car could start on fire. If they think it's important enough to place the recall why don't they think it's important enough to get the parts to fix it.
I'm angry about this!

 

[Judite]

 

[Judite]

This is the recall notice

 

[CANADAHYBRIDGUY]

Is this what your talking about ?

 

[PacDave]

This is why I call it a “fake recall”. Nothing is actually being recalled yet.

 

[Chris]

Probably, the lawyers made the do it!

 

[SKPacHy]

This is why I call it a “fake recall”. Nothing is actually being recalled yet.

Well its not "fake". Its a real recall. It just doesn't have a root cause and resolution yet that we are aware of.

Hyundai just recalled over 250,000 vehicles for fire risk without a fix as well. This isn't as uncommon as people think. I understand its super frustrating though.

 

[CANADAHYBRIDGUY]

What I find interesting is the “ occurrence “ hasn’t really escalated . I’m also assuming that people are still utilizing them as transportation, def interesting .

 

[PacDave]

Well its not "fake". Its a real recall. It just doesn't have a root cause and resolution yet that we are aware of.

Hyundai just recalled over 250,000 vehicles for fire risk without a fix as well. This isn't as uncommon as people think. I understand its super frustrating though.

I call it fake because the word “recall” implies that you’re calling something back to the manufacturer for repair or replacement. In reality it’s not a recall. It’s simply a warning. It will become a recall as soon as Chrysler comes up with a fix and “recalls” the vehicles to come back for a fix.

 

[SKPacHy]

I call it fake because the word “recall” implies that you’re calling something back to the manufacturer for repair or replacement. In reality it’s not a recall. It’s simply a warning. It will become a recall as soon as Chrysler comes up with a fix and “recalls” the vehicles to come back for a fix.

Well you can use whatever word helps you sleep at night I guess. But since what’s happening follows the definition of an official automotive recall, it’s probably safe to just call it a recall. This particular recall just doesn’t have a remedy yet. But the first responsibility of a recall is the duty to inform. And that’s what’s happened.

It is interesting that we haven’t heard about any further fires. Could be that means that the no charging precautions worked to prevent more fires, and part replacements will be needed. It could also be that the vehicles that burned were due to some rare defect that was only applicable to those vehicles. They were essentially destined to burn, they have, and that defect isn’t present in other vehicles. If that’s the case maybe nothing further will happen. The recall will be withdrawn with no further action.

 

[PacDave]

Well you can use whatever word helps you sleep at night I guess. But since what’s happening follows the definition of an official automotive recall, it’s probably safe to just call it a recall. This particular recall just doesn’t have a remedy yet. But the first responsibility of a recall is the duty to inform. And that’s what’s happened.

It is interesting that we haven’t heard about any further fires. Could be that means that the no charging precautions worked to prevent more fires, and part replacements will be needed. It could also be that the vehicles that burned were due to some rare defect that was only applicable to those vehicles. They were essentially destined to burn, they have, and that defect isn’t present in other vehicles. If that’s the case maybe nothing further will happen. The recall will be withdrawn with no further action.

Actually what would help me sleep at night is a resolution to the problem. Chrysler warned us about a problem six months ago. And if the vehicles burned due to some “rare defect” then Chrysler owes us a detailed explanation. Here’s why we erroneously told you not to use the vehicle in the manner it was intended. Here’s why we issued the fake recall. Here’s what really caused the problem with those vehicles. Here’s why the issue won’t affect you.

I was and still am a satisfied owner but if they want me to stop using the car as intended then they need to explain to me why and how they came to that conclusion. We we were given specific recommendations on how we should and how we should not operate the vehicles. What is the explanation for that recommendation? Something led them to believe that owners should discontinue charging the vehicles. What was it?

 

[SKPacHy]

Actually what would help me sleep at night is a resolution to the problem. Chrysler warned us about a problem six months ago. And if the vehicles burned due to some “rare defect” then Chrysler owes us a detailed explanation. Here’s why we erroneously told you not to use the vehicle in the manner it was intended. Here’s why we issued the fake recall. Here’s what really caused the problem with those vehicles. Here’s why the issue won’t affect you.

I was and still am a satisfied owner but if they want me to stop using the car as intended then they need to explain to me why and how they came to that conclusion. We we were given specific recommendations on how we should and how we should not operate the vehicles. What is the explanation for that recommendation? Something led them to believe that owners should discontinue charging the vehicles. What was it?

There’s nothing to suggest that information isn’t coming. This must be a complex investigation with a root cause that is elusive. They may not yet have the information you seek. I’m sure if Chrysler could end this recall with an explanation, they would.

 

[PacDave]

There’s nothing to suggest that information isn’t coming. This must be a complex investigation with a root cause that is elusive. They may not yet have the information you seek. I’m sure if Chrysler could end this recall with an explanation, they would.

I believe that there was already information known to Chrysler. If not, how could they give specific recommendations on what course of action to take? Why was the information not shared with owners?

 

[SKPacHy]

I believe that there was already information known to Chrysler. If not, how could they give specific recommendations on what course of action to take? Why was the information not shared with owners?

Let’s not fall into conspiracy nonsense. They likely just looked at the circumstances of the fires, and their energetic nature, and hypothesized that the battery could be implicated. But without direct evidence they decide on a path to lower the risk until they can investigate. Which is why they are asking you to not charge. It’s a compromise to allow people to keep using the vehicle, as opposed to a stop use order, which would be hugely disruptive. And apparently the strategy seems to be working, for whatever reason. Maybe charging or the battery has nothing to do with it and it’s coincidental. That’s why you need to investigate and reduce risk where you can until you know more.

 

[CANADAHYBRIDGUY]

I believe that there was already information known to Chrysler. If not, how could they give specific recommendations on what course of action to take? Why was the information not shared with owners?

I think you want to stop and think a little before making these rather obscure accusations . Firstly there has been no determination that charging leads perpetuates this anomaly. Secondly , the batteries are being looked at as part of the whole investigation and has to be included in the whole picture . Thirdly , they have advised you , not told you , and that’s a big difference because being proactive is a approach that mitigates any further occurrences . Anybody who has Ill logic about driving it, can’t sleep at nite best get a reality check of life . Your house could ignite with greater occurrence rate than your vehicle . Risk management my friend and common logic , which a lot of people lack in life and that’s unfortunate . So deal with the reality and not some obscure notion that unfortunately you’ve rationalized or trying to convince yourself of .

 

[ThisSuckersElectrical]

Which is why they are asking you to not charge. It’s a compromise to allow people to keep using the vehicle, as opposed to a stop use order, which would be hugely disruptive. And apparently the strategy seems to be working, for whatever reason

There has been at least one that I know of that set a blaze after driving to a sporting event and parked. This lady posted here shortly after it happened.

Fire erupts in parked Chrysler hybrid minivan

 

[SKPacHy]

There has been at least one that I know of that set a blaze after driving to a sporting event and parked. This lady posted here shortly after it happened.

Fire erupts in parked Chrysler hybrid minivan

This was 2 years ago in February of 2020, way before the recall.

 

[PacDave]

I’m not accusing Chrysler. I’m just making the assumption that they must know something in order to specifically recommend that we don’t charge with the EVSE but we can continue to drive it and allow it to continuously recharge itself. If it’s purely a hypothesis on their part I don’t understand how they could give specific instructions. And, no, I haven’t lost any sleep over it. I’ve made absolutely no changes in my driving/charging habits since February because Chrysler has not convinced me that they have a handle on the problem or even understand what’s causing it.

 

[SKPacHy]

I’m not accusing Chrysler. I’m just making the assumption that they must know something in order to specifically recommend that we don’t charge with the EVSE but we can continue to drive it and allow it to continuously recharge itself. If it’s purely a hypothesis on their part I don’t understand how they could give specific instructions. And, no, I haven’t lost any sleep over it. I’ve made absolutely no changes in my driving/charging habits since February because Chrysler has not convinced me that they have a handle on the problem or even understand what’s causing it.

Well they understand that a charged battery will cause a more intense fire, whether or not it’s the actual cause of the fire. They are trying to reduce fire risk, and that includes the intensity and speed of any fire that does start. It could be as simple as that. They also know that right behind the drivers seat has been where heat and smoke has been seen. Further implicating the battery or something close to it.

 

[M0Par]

Isn't this the exact same recall issue that GM issued for the Bolt and for which they only tweaked the charging software to a maximum of 80% charge and for which they promised new batteries?