2017+ Chrysler Pacifica Minivan Forums banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
Haha yes. We got it inspected at the beginning and they said they would get the parts in within a few days. Unfortunately that turned into weeks. We were fortunate they gave us a loaner so we weren’t too worried but i think I’ll do the same as you this time and take it in only when they have the parts.
When I took my van in for the isolator post inspection the dealer notified me that if they found a problem with the isolator post that they’d have to keep the van until the part came in. I quickly reminded them that the car belongs to me and I would make the decision and they backed down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
I just logged into my uconnect app, it shows this recall on my vehicle, which was not there until last night.

I have oil change appointment on next Monday, I hope they will not kidnap my car at the dealership.
Make it clear to the dealership that you own the car and they do not have the right to keep it. If they don’t refuse to acknowledge this take your business elsewhere. Just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
I just called the number given in the recall notice and they confirmed my VIN is included in the recall. Since I gave them my email address, they said they will contact me by email regarding the next steps. They also said that they do not presently have the parts to fix it but no information on what parts are needed. I have a 2018 Pacifica Hybrid Limited with 55K on it. Does anyone plan to continue to recharge their batteries? If this is a similar problem as the Bolt EV recall, GM instructions were to charge to 90% but park car outside after charging and not leave it plugged in overnight. I believe that the Pacific has a built in cushion since it is 16KV but never charges more than 11.5 so full charging may not be a problem.
I also have a 2018 Hybrid Limited and I checked the VIN against the recall and it’s on the list. However, I will continue to charge the van as I always have for the past 3+ years in my garage. This sending out of a warning before a cause or fix is even known is a Chrysler CYA move. They don’t want to be held liable for the one or two fires that may occur out of tens of thousands of these vehicles that are currently on the road. I’m guessing that the chances are fairly minuscule that I’ll have a problem. I am not advocating that everyone do this but it’s what I am doing based upon the knowledge and experience I have with the vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
Just FYI,
I've been a dealership for oil change, and they knew about the recall but there was nothing to do with them.
They just advised, not parking and charging indoor....etc... and let me bring my car back rather than kidnapping it.
So apparently it’s not really a “recall”. It’s just a warning statement in want of a future recall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
Interesting - Nancy contacted me last Friday. At that time they were only offering a $100 gift card, no car rental. I'm still waiting for the gift card FYI. For those smarter than me, is the fact that the battery charges with braking/going downhill a concern? If so, how does Chrysler recommend we mitigate this?
I doubt that it really has much to do with charging the battery. My guess is that Chrysler is asking us not to charge the battery because a fully charged battery contains more potential destructive energy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
Got a call from Chrysler yesterday asking if I'd be willing to swap out my battery pack for them to study the old ones. (I have an early 2018.) They're shipping a battery to my dealer. I realize I'll be excluded from future resolution offers, but I'm tired of having to search for rental cars each month and the risk to my insurance if something happens to said rental. Hopefully I can get a new battery and have the option to sell the van if I choose.
That’s very interesting. What do you suppose the reason is for why they chose you specifically?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
You'll only be excluded assuming the recall doesn't expand to all model years. And if they find that its actually just a problem with the older batteries and not the newer ones, then you got an early fix! You won't have had to wait a year or more to get a new one installed! And if the problem isn't the HV battery at all, then you just got a brand new battery for free! This seems like all upside to me.
Yeah, we hope it works out well for you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
Thats 1/5th of normal yearly Pacifica production. For something which is quite rare and not even understood yet. In a year of severely reduced supply. I just don’t think you’re being realistic. There’s lots of reasons a vehicle can burn, not the least being that they are full of flammable material. We don’t even know if these Pacificas all burnt for the same reason. Remember this was a fishing expedition by Chrysler. Their data showed more fires than expected in 2 model years. It could have been a fluke. Just an unexplainable anomaly that can’t be reproduced. They might not find anything and just tell people to go back to normal usage of their vans. The current recall recommendations are just sensible risk mitigation, but could be rescinded with no further action at the end of this. So I don’t think it’s prudent to catastrophize about what’s going on here.
Actually it’s not as much of a fishing expedition as it might seem. Apparently they have almost immediately narrowed it down quite easily to only the hybrid Pacificas. Apparently something led Chrysler to believe that only the hybrid Pacificas were suspected of having a problem. As you say, all vehicles have a good reason to burn because they are all full of flammable material. But they have obviously narrowed it down to much less than all Pacificas. So the question now becomes, what is different between hybrid Pacificas and non-hybrid Pacificas that is making them more prone to catch fire?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
What part of the recall don't you like?
The part of the “recall” that I don’t like is that it’s not actually a “recall”. It also appears that they have dilly-dallied on this. That whole battery post insulator thing was essentially a pipe dream. It may have been a point of concern but it almost certainly was not the cause of the fires. In fact, it was probably just the cheapest fix Chrysler could come up with to make it look like they were genuinely attempting to fix the problem. So in reality, they’ve had plenty of time to get this figured out. It’s not just a matter of 3-4 months. They’ve been trying to “figure it out” for some years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
Other than the fact that it's actually a recall.
A recall is when you “call” for something to be returned back. In the case of an auto manufacturer it is for repair or replacement. The current “recall” is not that. It is simply a warning and assurance that they will officially recall the vehicle when they find the problem and a remedy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
I agree with the fuel compensation 100%.

The GM programs came only after a cause was determined. In the case of the Bolt it was immediately obvious that the battery was to blame. We don't know that yet with the Pacifica, but if the battery is at fault we may see similar programs. But we need a cause first. You can't expect an OEM to start replacing a part they don't know is defective.
But you don’t need a cause to determine there is a problem and to compensate for it in some way. Chrysler should offer anyone with a PacHy to register their odometer and then check in with them from time to time to receive compensation for the miles they travel while the vehicle is under “recall”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
Have they? This is just all rank speculation. OEMs don't like it when their vehicles start on fire. Its bad for the brand. So they actually want to fix that stuff as quickly as possible so they can sell more cars. You're assuming some really bad intentions here that I just don't think we have any evidence for beyond just speculation and fiction.
So if the manufacturer (Chrysler) is that interested in the reputation of their brand, they surely would not have stopped at the battery post recall if they were not thoroughly convinced that that was indeed the problem that caused fires. They would have asked themselves whether the problem could have actually been with the hybrid battery. After all, there’s already a history of such problems with other manufacturers. Instead, it appears that they took the easy way out.

As far as the idea of speculation goes, that’s all most of us have to go by. Unfortunately, Chrysler has elected not to share any detailed information on this with their customers. The most they shared with me is that a defect exists and that a fire could potentially originate in the center of the vehicle underbody with the ignition “OFF”. They didn’t even share any statistics about how many vehicles have been affected so far, what kind of investigation they have done to find the problem, etc. Nothing like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
Do you think they didn't ask that? Evidence for taking the "easy way out" when the data didn't then and maybe still doesn't point to the hybrid battery?
Perhaps not. And I’m not necessarily convinced 100% that it’s the hybrid battery. But common sense tells you that that’s the place to look first.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top