NHTSA Complaint #10668162 — 2005 CHRYSLER PACIFICA

THIS IS AN UPDATE ON THE COMMON ENGINE CRADLE RUST ISSUE OF THE 2004-2005 PACIFICAS. I JUST HAD THE ENGINE CRADLE ON MY 2005 PACIFICA REPLACED BY THE DEALERSHIP. A MICROMETER ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEMATIC AREA OF THE ENGINE CRADLE REVEALS THAT IT RUSTED FROM THE INSIDE OUT, INDICATING THAT THE PROBLEM WAS INDEED DUE TO A FAILURE OF THE RUST-PROOFING PROCESS AT MANUFACTURE, AND NOT DUE DO RUSTING WHICH OCCURS THROUGH THE NORMAL VEHICLE OPERATION, WHICH WOULD DEVELOP FROM THE OUTSIDE AND WORK ITS WAY INWARD. CHRYSLER HAS ADMITTED THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH FRAME MANUFACTURE, BUT SINCE THERE IS NO DATE OF MANUFACTURE STAMPED ON THE FRAMES THEY ARE VISUALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ANY OTHERS, MEANING THAT THEY DO NOT BECOME INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE UNTIL ASSEMBLY OCCURS, AND THAT CAN (EITHER PURPOSEFULLY OR INADVERTENTLY) BE MONTHS OR EVEN YEARS AFTER THE FRAME MANUFACTURING OCCURS. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT CHRYSLER PURPOSEFULLY WITHHELD FRAMES KNOWN TO BE DANGEROUS FROM THE NORMAL ASSEMBLY PROCESS IN ORDER TO SURREPTITIOUSLY WORK THEM IN TO SUBSEQUENT ASSEMBLY RUNS A FEW DOZEN AT A TIME OVER THE COURSE OF A COUPLE YEARS SO AS TO AVOID HAVING IT APPEAR AS IF IT WAS A SINGULAR MANUFACTURING DEFECT. SINCE THERE IS NO WAY FOR ANYONE TO DETERMINE WHEN EACH OF THE IMPROPERLY MANUFACTURED FRAMES WERE ACTUALLY USED FOR VEHICLE ASSEMBLY, USING VEHICLE ASSEMBLY DATES FOR DETERMINING WHICH VEHICLES HAVE BAD FRAMES IS CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITRARY. FOR THE SAKE OF THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THESE VEHICLES, I AM STRONGLY PLEADING THE NHTSA TO RE-INVESTIGATE THIS PROBLEM MORE CLOSELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT BOTH STATISTICAL AND PHYSICAL ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT ALL OF THESE ENGINE CRADLE RUST COMPLAINTS ARE IN FACT RELATED, AND THAT CHRYSLER'S RESPONSE IS LOGICALLY INSUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, LET ALONE TO INSURE PUBLIC SAFETY. *TR