[Karolski [PL]]

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.

Just out of curiosity....So why, if Atkinson is so fuel efficient, ICE is still working on Otto cycle (under 9speed gearbox) ? How dramatic and how many gears have to have transmission with ICE-only working on Atkinson? What would be a "proper transmission" for Atkinson engine? And driving a car is not only matter of "move a car".

 

[PacDave]

Just out of curiosity....So why, if Atkinson is so fuel efficient, ICE is still working on Otto cycle (under 9speed gearbox) ? How dramatic and how many gears have to have transmission with ICE-only working on Atkinson? What would be a "proper transmission" for Atkinson engine? And driving a car is not only matter of "move a car".

From what I’ve heard the Atkinson cycle engine is more efficient at the expense of not being able to develop quite as much power as an Otto cycle engine. I think an Atkinson would work as well as an Otto in any car. It’s just that you wouldn’t have as much power available as an equivalent sized Otto engine. The need for a transmission with multiple gear ratios is mostly due to the fact that internal combustion engines are most efficient and develop peak torque in a fairly narrow RPM range. If you’ve ever tried to engage a manual transmission vehicle in it’s final gear from a standing stop, you’ll know that it is very difficult to get much torque out of a gas engine at lower RPMs. The Atkinson cycle engine is probably even more so like that. It might require a transmission with more gear ratios than an Otto cycle. An electric motor, however, has excellent torque at lower RPMs. That is one reason the PHEVs do not have conventional transmissions. There is a video floating around here of a professor that takes apart a Pacifica “transmission” to show you how it works. Very interesting. Even though it is sometimes referred to as a “continuously variable transmission”, it’s not even that in the conventional sense.

 

[Timbort#4]

Is there any update on this recall ? It’s reached ridiculous proportions. I’ve never received any communications from FCA other than the original offer of $200 Visa or rental car. Seriously looking at trading in but never informed other than here about incentive. Definitely will look at other brand for reliability in future buys.

From what I’ve heard the Atkinson cycle engine is more efficient at the expense of not being able to develop quite as much power as an Otto cycle engine. I think an Atkinson would work as well as an Otto in any car. It’s just that you wouldn’t have as much power available as an equivalent sized Otto engine. The need for a transmission with multiple gear ratios is mostly due to the fact that internal computation engines are most efficient and develop peak torque in a fairly narrow RPM range. If you’ve ever tried to engage a manual transmission vehicle in it’s final gear from a standing stop, you’ll know that it is very difficult to get much torque out of a gas engine at lower RPMs. The Atkinson cycle engine is probably even more so like that. It might require a transmission with more gear ratios than an Otto cycle. An electric motor, however, has excellent torque at lower RPMs. That is one reason the PHEVs do not have conventional transmissions. There is a video floating around here of a professor that takes apart a Pacifica “transmission” to show you how it works. Very interesting. Even though it is sometimes referred to as a “continuously variable transmission”, it’s not even that in the conventional sense.

 

[SKPacHy]

Is there any update on this recall ? It’s reached ridiculous proportions. I’ve never received any communications from FCA other than the original offer of $200 Visa or rental car. Seriously looking at trading in but never informed other than here about incentive. Definitely will look at other brand for reliability in future buys.

No there isn't. If there was you'd have gotten another letter. They are still trying to determine cause.

 

[PacDave]

No there isn't. If there was you'd have gotten another letter. They are still trying to determine cause.

My guess is that they were forced to write this letter of the fake “recall” by the government because of their dilly-dallying. If the PHEV vans would have been a larger percentage of their business things would have moved more quickly. Unfortunately we are a minority and are treated as such. Just my opinion.

 

[Timbort#4]

No there isn't. If there was you'd have gotten another letter. They are still trying to determine cause.

Thanks for the reply. I do find it frustrating that we have to call to get any action at all in Canada. I doubt i would have been offered the prepaid visa unless i had contacted them.
How long can they drag this out before a group lawsuit isn’t filed ? or maybe it’s already happened ? 😬

 

[SKPacHy]

My guess is that they were forced to write this letter of the fake “recall” by the government because of their dilly-dallying. If the PHEV vans would have been a larger percentage of their business things would have moved more quickly. Unfortunately we are a minority and are treated as such. Just my opinion.

That's just not how this process works at the regulator level.

 

[Diego]

Yeah, imagine, a trade-in incentive of 1,000 to 2,000 USD. Meanwhile they're adding $10,000 to the MSRP because of "Market Conditions". So instead of adding 10K, as a favor, they add only 8K for those of us in this Z11 mess.

I got this from The customer care team..

Stellantis has now issued an additional trade-in incentive for vehicles affected by the Z11 Recall. Please visit your local dealership for additional information if you are interested in trading your vehicle.
You will receive an email in regards to this incentive however the dealerships should have the incentive information now.

I went to the local Chrysler dealer and they had NO incentive in the system...or any idea what to do with this info.
Called a second dealer..Same thing.

 

[Diego]

Here is a web page from the Attorneys about the Class Action lawsuit started in California.

"Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP has filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California on behalf of Plaintiff Scott A. Olsen and other owners of 2017 to 2018 Chrysler Pacifica Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (“PHEVs”)."

CPM Investigating Chrysler for Defect Causing Unexplained Explosion and Fire in Pacifica Hybrids: Top National Trial Lawyers for the Underdog

CPM Investigating Chrysler for Defect Causing Unexplained Explosion and Fire in Pacifica Hybrids

www.cpmlegal.com

I just sent them an email requesting info on the Class Action lawsuit. Not sure if you have to reside in CA in order to join the lawsuit.

 

[Diego]

I just talked to Chrysler, they are going to pay for a rental till they fix my minivan.

You can call 800-853-1403 to talk to them about it.

 

[mp24453]

I just talked to Chrysler, they are going to pay for a rental till they fix my minivan.

How much? Were you able to get more than $60/day?

 

[Diego]

How much? Were you able to get more than $60/day?

They initially said $66/day but when I asked if they would cover insurance for the van they said they would cover everything related to rent the van. The only issue is you have to pay first and they'll reimburse you on a weekly/biweekly/monthly basis, as you'd prefer.

 

[lacompas]

Has anyone been able to use the 39CN4 offer code? Wondering if it's available in Canada as well.

 

[Rob92321]

Has anyone heard any update on the recall? Still no remedy?

 

[SKPacHy]

Has anyone heard any update on the recall? Still no remedy?

Someone in another thread was talking to a Chrysler agent over the phone. They said that Chrysler had a repair but no word on when that would be rolled out. The best thing to do is to keep an eye on the NHTSA website. Search for 2018 Pacifica Hybrid and you can see current recalls and all the documents relating to it. When a fix is announced you'll see documents added to the list.

 

[1967NewYorker]

My first Chrysler was a 1967 New Yorker. That will give you some idea of my age. I had so much trouble with that car that I told myself I would never have another Chrysler. We actually love this van, however no more Chrysler products for me. I have had GM and Ford products mixed in over the years with one Rabbit. No problems with any of them. ChryslerFCA has absolutely horrible customer service. I live in a condo now. Where do I park this fire hazard without having to walk for blocks. And then, while the area I find may be clear, by the time I come back to it other vehicles are often close. I Haven't had a car, truck or van I have ever been required to park outside.

 

[PacDave]

My first Chrysler was a 1967 New Yorker. That will give you some idea of my age. I had so much trouble with that car that I told myself I would never have another Chrysler. We actually love this van, however no more Chrysler products for me. I have had GM and Ford products mixed in over the years with one Rabbit. No problems with any of them. ChryslerFCA has absolutely horrible customer service. I live in a condo now. Where do I park this fire hazard without having to walk for blocks. And then, while the area I find may be clear, by the time I come back to it other vehicles are often close. I Haven't had a car, truck or van I have ever been required to park outside.

Just so you know, you’re not “required” to do anything. However, I do feel your pain. I’m not very with Chrysler right now either.

 

[dbinvt]

I just returned from an appointment with FCA and handed over the keys to our van. After many months (and more than 50 pages of paperwork) FCA agreed to repurchase our Pacifica Hybrid. Shortly after receiving the current recall notice, I contacted our state Attorney General, state representatives, and congressional delegation. All were pretty horrified by the wording of this recall. I was advised to pursue lemon law arbitration/court and successfully made the case that this problem actually began with recall W46 in June of 2020 (and that this problem was never fully resolved). The fact there's still no fix for the current recall made the folks at our state lemon law board very interested in taking this case. Four days before the trial date, FCA agreed to repurchase the Pacifica Hybrid - and do so at the rate we would have received via our formal lemon law case here in Vermont. That means the % of the vehicle value for our settlement was based on the mileage in June 2020 (out of 100,000 miles of expected vehicle "life") and all of the finance charges we paid for the loan for this vehicle were refunded. While the cost of the RAV4 Hybrid Prime we ordered in April (likely to arrive in December) is significant, we actually received a greater payout via our lemon law process than we would have gotten if we could trade it in (but the Toyota dealer said "no thanks") or if we could sell it privately (the Attorney General thought that would be ... unwise). To be clear, this was only possible because the Pacifica was still under warranty in June of 2020 - when the problem began. The fact we live in a small state, where we received personal replies from our congressional delegates and the Attorney General's office - all of whom made some noise on our behalf - was also noteworthy. But the bottom line: our lemon law board thought there was enough evidence to support our claim this problem could be traced back to June 2020 and recall W46. Chrysler thought it was better to settle out of court for the same amount we would have received from a court case - but avoid the publicity of the public hearing.

Before posting this update, I made sure that the FCA settlement did not require an NDA. So, while the settlement avoided public notice and settlement, I'm free to post details here. Toyota, here we come!

 

[1967NewYorker]

Wow! Thanks! This gives me some food for thought. I can't believe FCA doesn't have a solution. I'm sure they just don't want to replace these batteries at 4-5K each.

 

[chernenkii]

Wow! Thanks! This gives me some food for thought. I can't believe FCA doesn't have a solution. I'm sure they just don't want to replace these batteries at 4-5K each.

I don’t think that 4-5k will solve this issue. FCA agreed to refund 2.5k for my monthly rate, so it will cost them much more.