NHTSA Complaint #11479434 — 2018 RAM PROMASTER CITY

I am not contacting NTSA to report a new safety concern but rather reporting that a fix addressing a known safety concern is not working. The concern is associated with a recall notice of 2015-2018 FCA vehicles with 4 cylinder Tigershark engines (a pertinent excerpt of the notice is shown below with emphasis added). The recall is to check for excess oil consumption which could trigger a vehicle stall, a serious safely concern. To address this potential problem the recall notice authorizes a oil consumption inspection which basically involves the inspection of oil level on the vehicle’s dipstick after it is driven for a while to measure if excess oil consumption has occurred. The problem with this inspection is that it requires the vehicle to be returned to the dealership after 1500 to 1700 mile interval. According to FCA, any exceedance of this short mileage window invalidates the inspection. This is a problem for individuals that use their vehicle primarily for long road trips. The conditions of the inspection are not practical. I contacted FCA to authorize the test be completed after 3000 miles (the dealer indicated the test would not be accepted by FCA because the 1700 mile requirement was exceeded). They showed no flexibility on the required test parameter and really couldn’t explain why the narrow window for reinspection was technically sound. They had the audacity to state that if I was to have the inspection repeated, I would have to pay for it. The inspection to detect excessive oil consumption presumably resulted from the manufacturer selling defective engines. A two hundred mile window for the reinspection is so narrow that the recall notice to address a potential safety issue associated with the excess oil consumption should be considered a sham recall notice.