NHTSA Complaint #11035219 — 2011 DODGE DURANGO

MY DODGE DURANGO GOT AN ERROR ON THE DASH, INDICATING A CHARGING SYSTEM FAILURE AND IT SMELLED LIKE SOMETHING BURNING. SINCE THERE IS AN OPEN RECALL (T36) FOR A FAULTY ALTERNATOR I CONTACTED THE DEALER TO FIND OUT IF THEY HAVE THEM IN STOCK YET. THEY ASKED ME TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN. THE SERVICE ADVISER TOLD ME THAT IT WAS LIKELY THE ALTERNATOR THAT HAD FAILED. THE TECHNICIANS SUBSEQUENTLY TOLD HER IT WAS LITERALLY SMOKING AND THAT IT HAD DEFINITELY FAILED, AND THAT THEY WOULD REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER OF THE SUSPECT ALTERNATORS AS THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE NEW ONES FROM DODGE YET. DURING THE 5 DAYS THEY HAD MY CAR THE TECHS REPLACED THE ALTERNATOR, BUT THE SYSTEM WAS STILL NOT CHARGING. THEY THEN FOUND THAT THE BATTERY HAD FAILED, PRESUMABLY DUE TO THE FAULTY ALTERNATOR WHICH WAS SHORTED INTERNALLY. AFTER REPLACING THE BATTERY, THE CHARGING SYSTEM WAS STILL NOT WORKING SO THEY DETERMINED THAT THE PCM (PROGRAMMABLE COMPUTER MODULE) HAD ALSO FAILED. THE SERVICE ADVISER CONTACTED THE CHRYSLER REP TO GET APPROVAL FROM CHRYSLER TO REPLACE THIS EXPENSIVE PART UNDER THE RECALL. THE REP CLAIMED THAT, SINCE THE INLINE FUSIBLE LINK ON THE CABLE FROM THE ALTERNATOR TO THE PCM HAD NOT BURNED UP, THE PROBLEM WAS NOT THAT THE ALTERNATOR HAD CAUSED THE MODULE TO FAIL. (THERE WERE ZERO ISSUES WITH MY CAR PRIOR TO THAT ERROR LIGHT COMING ON.) HE WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT ALL THE ELECTRICAL FAILURES WERE A HUGE COINCIDENCE AND DENIED RESPONSIBILITY. THE DEALERSHIP DIDN'T AGREE AND WAS CERTAIN THE ALTERNATOR HAD CAUSED THE FAILURE. THEY WENT AROUND THE REP AND GOT IT COVERED UNDER AN EMISSIONS WARRANTY. HOWEVER, I HAD TO PAY A $150 DEDUCTIBLE WHICH IS WRONG. THIS RECALL POSES A SERIOUS RISK OF CAUSING A FIRE, LOSS OF ELECTRONIC CONTROLS. CHRYSLER SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DENY SUBSEQUENT DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE RECALLED ALTERNATOR FAILURE AND I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY $150.