2017+ Chrysler Pacifica Minivan Forums banner
41 - 60 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
978 Posts
Oh don't worry, I've already planned on never buying Chrysler again. I should have read these forums first and seen all the problems they have. I figured this many years into the vehicle FCA would have some of this stuff figured out, but clearly they are not capable of producing a vehicle without major issues, 5 years in a row now.

We are talking about fires here, but there's TONS of issues, many are catastrophic (like the transmission that died on us without warning..).
That being said, I’ve had very few problems with my 2018 PacHy other than a bubble under the vinyl of the dashboard and a servo that controls the damper in the air condition/heat ducting which were both fixed under warranty. And it hasn’t even caught fire yet either!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
978 Posts
It might be perhaps more correct to say that the letter was issued because of an unknown fire hazard. Several cars have caught fire, that is beyond question. As far as we all know, why those cars caught fire is still very much in doubt, as is what is the likelihood of any other car catching fire. From Chrysler's "Customer Communications" about the issue:

If a customer asks if there a connection between the fires and recharging: “We have not made that determination. Out of an abundance of caution, we are advising owners of MY17-18 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid vehicles to refrain from recharging until their vehicles are remedied.”

If a customer asks what is causing the fires: “We are working to confirm the cause.”

If a customer asks if he or she can drive their vehicle: “We are unaware of any incidents that involve customers driving their vehicle.”



Out of an abundance of caution, Chrysler advises against recharging although they have not made the determination there is a link between charging and fires, and the evidence we have is that the cars that did catch fire were not being charged at the time of the fire. I have to agree with @PacificaMinivanFan that we should not "just disregard it." Nonetheless, since Chrysler says they don't know what causes the fires, and driving the car (which charges the battery, especially if you happen to be one of the people suffering through the electric coolant heater issue) is among the things they don't have any data to suggest causes a fire, Chrysler's recommendation seems to indeed be based on an abundance of caution.
I’m wondering why Chrysler’s recommendation based upon “an abundance of caution” doesn’t recommend that you fill your gas tank no more than 1/8 full. Apparently, some of the fires have almost completely consumed the vehicle and in at least one case even burnt a house to the ground. Surely whatever gasoline was stored in the gas tank in some of those cases must have contributed greatly to the spread and severity of the fire. If they are asking us not to charge the battery even though they can’t say for sure whether that contributes to the problem then you would think they would also recommend that you only keep a gallon or two of gas in the tank. It’s almost certain that 16 gallons of gasoline sitting in the tank will contribute significantly to the severity of the fire as compared to a gallon or two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
I’m wondering why Chrysler’s recommendation based upon “an abundance of caution” doesn’t recommend that you fill your gas tank no more than 1/8 full. Apparently, some of the fires have almost completely consumed the vehicle and in at least one case even burnt a house to the ground. Surely whatever gasoline was stored in the gas tank in some of those cases must have contributed greatly to the spread and severity of the fire. If they are asking us not to charge the battery even though they can’t say for sure whether that contributes to the problem then you would think they would also recommend that you only keep a gallon or two of gas in the tank. It’s almost certain that 16 gallons of gasoline sitting in the tank will contribute significantly to the severity of the fire as compared to a gallon or two.
It's all legal speak, no doubt, calculated, I'm sure, to reduce their exposure to any potential liability. I've been told that a mostly empty gas tank can be more explosive than a full gas tank because of the volume of vapor above the fuel that can ignite more rapidly.

The safest thing might be for the recall to be done in two stages: 1st, they remove the batery and return the car to us while they properly recycle the battery and we use our Pacs as ICE vehicles. Then when new batteries are available, we return for installation and they compensate us based on how many miles we drive in the interim. I don't think the PacHy would be any more likely to catch fire in such a circumstance than the ICE Pac, even though the transmissions are completely different. I'm sure part of the process would have to be some reprogramming to make the PacHy ignore the battery. As far as that goes, I guess they could just do the reprogramming and allow the battery to fully discharge one time and never recharge and kill the battery. While a fully discharged battery can still catch fire, the risk has got to be vastly less since the stored energy is so much reduced.
 

·
Registered
2021 Pacifica Hybrid Touring-L Plus
Joined
·
881 Posts
It's all legal speak, no doubt, calculated, I'm sure, to reduce their exposure to any potential liability. I've been told that a mostly empty gas tank can be more explosive than a full gas tank because of the volume of vapor above the fuel that can ignite more rapidly.

The safest thing might be for the recall to be done in two stages: 1st, they remove the batery and return the car to us while they properly recycle the battery and we use our Pacs as ICE vehicles. Then when new batteries are available, we return for installation and they compensate us based on how many miles we drive in the interim. I don't think the PacHy would be any more likely to catch fire in such a circumstance than the ICE Pac, even though the transmissions are completely different. I'm sure part of the process would have to be some reprogramming to make the PacHy ignore the battery. As far as that goes, I guess they could just do the reprogramming and allow the battery to fully discharge one time and never recharge and kill the battery. While a fully discharged battery can still catch fire, the risk has got to be vastly less since the stored energy is so much reduced.
This wouldn’t work. The HV battery is absolutely integral to the vehicle working. Remember you don’t have an alternator. And the APM (DC-DC Converter) runs off the battery. Along with the electric coolant heater. The A/C also uses high voltage but it plugs into the PIM, not the battery, but I’m assuming it’s connected to battery voltage by a bus in the PIM, since I’m pretty sure it has its own 3 phase inverter built in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
978 Posts
While a fully discharged battery can still catch fire, the risk has got to be vastly less since the stored energy is so much reduced.
Then the problem is that the battery is never fully discharged as that would be bad for the battery. So maybe it’s at 10% when it’s “fully discharged”. And I agree, a mostly discharged battery stores less energy than a “fully charged” one but I’ll bet there’s still enough energy left to total the car and start something else on fire nearby.
 

·
Registered
2021 Pacifica Hybrid Touring-L Plus
Joined
·
881 Posts
It's all legal speak, no doubt, calculated, I'm sure, to reduce their exposure to any potential liability. I've been told that a mostly empty gas tank can be more explosive than a full gas tank because of the volume of vapor above the fuel that can ignite more rapidly.

The safest thing might be for the recall to be done in two stages: 1st, they remove the batery and return the car to us while they properly recycle the battery and we use our Pacs as ICE vehicles. Then when new batteries are available, we return for installation and they compensate us based on how many miles we drive in the interim. I don't think the PacHy would be any more likely to catch fire in such a circumstance than the ICE Pac, even though the transmissions are completely different. I'm sure part of the process would have to be some reprogramming to make the PacHy ignore the battery. As far as that goes, I guess they could just do the reprogramming and allow the battery to fully discharge one time and never recharge and kill the battery. While a fully discharged battery can still catch fire, the risk has got to be vastly less since the stored energy is so much reduced.
And remember the PacHy doesn’t have a traditional starter. It uses Motor A to start the ICE, and of course Motor A requires power from the PIM, which gets power from the battery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Yeah, my first thought was that a patch to limit SOC to 50%, which would limit the severity of fires, would be a decent short term patch. But the problem is that there’s still a gas tank. Any small runaway could lead to a much larger fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Then the problem is that the battery is never fully discharged as that would be bad for the battery. So maybe it’s at 10% when it’s “fully discharged”. And I agree, a mostly discharged battery stores less energy than a “fully charged” one but I’ll bet there’s still enough energy left to total the car and start something else on fire nearby.
State of charge has almost zero to do with energy available for a fire. The fire is a thermo-chemical reaction, vs all batteries are electro-chemical reactions.

Most battery fires occur when charging, usually due to very minor defects in the lithium anode, which allow dendrites to form, causing physical defects to form between layers and allowing short-circuits in an organic liquid electrolyte. Also, the thermal runaway issues happen at either the low end of the battery SOC or the upper end. In other words when the SOC is too low (too discharged) or maxed out (overcharged). This is why almost all battery systems use sophisticated battery monitoring and management sensors and techniques to minimize damage and maximize longevity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
Remember the batteries are made by lg , so any deviation from their processes, any internal pieces that have changed in design or material also has to be looked at . So it’s not as cut and dry as one supposes it would be .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
978 Posts
State of charge has almost zero to do with energy available for a fire. The fire is a thermo-chemical reaction, vs all batteries are electro-chemical reactions.

Most battery fires occur when charging, usually due to very minor defects in the lithium anode, which allow dendrites to form, causing physical defects to form between layers and allowing short-circuits in an organic liquid electrolyte. Also, the thermal runaway issues happen at either the low end of the battery SOC or the upper end. In other words when the SOC is too low (too discharged) or maxed out (overcharged). This is why almost all battery systems use sophisticated battery monitoring and management sensors and techniques to minimize damage and maximize longevity.
So this article is lying?


Excerpts

The results indicate that the battery fire hazard increases with the SOC…

Jhu et al investigated the thermal abuse of the 18650 lithium ion batteries with LiCoO2 cathodes by using VSP2 and found that the charged batteries were more hazardous than uncharged ones…

Comparing three batteries combustion behavior, the one with higher state of charge (SOC) has a longer combustion flame after ruptured and ignited. Furthermore, with the higher SOC, the time needed to rupture and ignite is declining, which indicates the degree and velocity of inner reactions are depending on the SOC directly...

It can be seen that the state of charge is a critical factor for battery combustion. Compare to discharge and half-charged cells, the full charged cell is the most hazardous and has a potential threat for the safety…

The flame size of three cells reflects that the fire hazard is proportional to SOC…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Yeah I’m not sure what that guy meant to imply, but SOC is an enormous determinant of runaway energy. It’s much easier to liberate O2 from a deliathiated cathode (fully charged cell) than a lithiated one. That O2 then burns the electrolyte.

perhaps he meant that high SOC doesn’t cause runaway in the first place.. that is correct. Runaway is caused by defective cells, often separator defects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts

·
Registered
2021 Pacifica Hybrid Touring L
Joined
·
97 Posts
It's all legal speak, no doubt, calculated, I'm sure, to reduce their exposure to any potential liability. I've been told that a mostly empty gas tank can be more explosive than a full gas tank because of the volume of vapor above the fuel that can ignite more rapidly.

The safest thing might be for the recall to be done in two stages: 1st, they remove the batery and return the car to us while they properly recycle the battery and we use our Pacs as ICE vehicles. Then when new batteries are available, we return for installation and they compensate us based on how many miles we drive in the interim. I don't think the PacHy would be any more likely to catch fire in such a circumstance than the ICE Pac, even though the transmissions are completely different. I'm sure part of the process would have to be some reprogramming to make the PacHy ignore the battery. As far as that goes, I guess they could just do the reprogramming and allow the battery to fully discharge one time and never recharge and kill the battery. While a fully discharged battery can still catch fire, the risk has got to be vastly less since the stored energy is so much reduced.
Also remember, that your Pachy doesn't have mechanical Reverse gear-it is pure electric. Even if it would have ability to move reverse on ICE, than taking off HV battery thus electric part of your hybrid, your ICE is on Atkinson cycle- I have doubt it would be able to move without electric help as on such cycle engines are teribble weak on low rpm.
Your battery pack is never disharged, it has total capacity of 16 kWh which you can use 12 of it-rest is for all this me and others already have mentioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesB

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
We are incredibly frustrated (and worried) about this second fire hazard recall notice. Can't even get our van to the local tire shop to changeover the snow tires because they view the van as a fire hazard. Actually, we need to purchase new all-season tires because the OE tires wore out with less than 27k miles on them (van in perfect alignment - tires were simply worn out). But this trade-in incentive is a joke. We stretched ourselves to pay $45k for the van when new in 2017. IF we can find a new replacement, prices are now nearly $55k. That's not tenable. FCA also offered us up to $60/day in rental car reimbursement, but (1) that's reimbursement, so we'd have to pay out of pocket on top of the $650/month we're paying (for a van we won't be driving) and (2) $60/day won't pay for any rentals in our area. FCA clearly knows how to play this game, and we feel like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. What a nightmare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
978 Posts
Also remember, that your Pachy doesn't have mechanical Reverse gear-it is pure electric. Even if it would have ability to move reverse on ICE, than taking off HV battery thus electric part of your hybrid, your ICE is on Atkinson cycle- I have doubt it would be able to move without electric help as on such cycle engines are teribble weak on low rpm.
Your battery pack is never disharged, it has total capacity of 16 kWh which you can use 12 of it-rest is for all this me and others already have mentioned.
Actually the real problem would be that with ICE only you wouldn’t have a “transmission”. Any engine, even a “weak” Atkinson cycle engine could move a car if there were a proper transmission in place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
We are incredibly frustrated (and worried) about this second fire hazard recall notice. Can't even get our van to the local tire shop to changeover the snow tires because they view the van as a fire hazard. Actually, we need to purchase new all-season tires because the OE tires wore out with less than 27k miles on them (van in perfect alignment - tires were simply worn out). But this trade-in incentive is a joke. We stretched ourselves to pay $45k for the van when new in 2017. IF we can find a new replacement, prices are now nearly $55k. That's not tenable. FCA also offered us up to $60/day in rental car reimbursement, but (1) that's reimbursement, so we'd have to pay out of pocket on top of the $650/month we're paying (for a van we won't be driving) and (2) $60/day won't pay for any rentals in our area. FCA clearly knows how to play this game, and we feel like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. What a nightmare.
If I still had my 2018 van this would actually be the THIRD recall over the van spontaneously catching fire. The first one was due to the catalytic converter, the second to the 12v accessory line under 2nd row seats and now the LG battery. I have a 21 van but wondering if I need to cut my losses while used car prices are still high and get an EV6 or something.
 
41 - 60 of 89 Posts
Top