1999 AIRSTREAM EXCELLA — Problems, Recalls & Safety Data

GREENBALL TOWMASTER TIRES, 53GB CHN 2512. SIX TIRES, PURCHASED NEW IN APRIL 2013 AND INSTALLED ON OUR 1999 AIRSTREAM EXCELLA, 34 FOOT MODEL. THE PREVIOUS TIRES REPLACED WERE GOODYEAR MARATHONS WHICH EXHIBITED NO DEFECTS AFTER 12000 MILES. REPLACEMENT WAS DONE AS A PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION BECAUSE OF MILEAGE OF MARATHONS AND THEIR 4 YEAR AGE. FAILURE OF THE GREENBALL TOWMASTERS BEGAN AFTER 5000 MILES ON THE CURBSIDE CENTER AXLE (PASSENGER). THIS TIRE WAS REPLACED BEFORE IT DAMAGED THE TRAILER. I WAS NOT REIMBURSED FOR THIS TIRE WHICH HAD CLEARLY FAILED INTERNALLY, NOT DUE TO ROAD HAZARD OR IMPACT. I HAVE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE. ANOTHER TRIP TO DESTINATION 250 MILES AWAY WAS TAKEN ON MARCH 14. OUR RETURN ON MARCH 16, WE WERE FLAGGED DOWN BY A PASSING MOTORIST WHO INDICATED A POSSIBLE ISSUE WITH OUR TRAILER. WE SAFELY STOPPED AND FOUND THE TREAD HAD COMPLETELY DETACHED FROM THE TIRE, SEVERELY DAMAGING THE TRAILER. THE FAILED TIRE WAS RETURNED TO GREENBALL AND WE RECEIVED THEIR RULING THAT THE TIRE HAD A 'MANUFACTURING DEFECT' AND THEY WOULD REPAIR THE TRAILER DAMAGES BUT NOT REPLACE THE TIRE. THE REMAINING TIRES HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH ANOTHER BRAND BECAUSE ON INSPECTION THEY WERE ALL BEGINNING TO HAVE SIMILAR FAILURES. THE TIRES WERE MAINTAINED AT 'RECOMMENDED PRESSURES' BY GREENBALL THROUGHOUT THE TIME I OWNED THEM. REMAINING TIRES WERE SENT TO GREENBALL FOR THEIR EVALUATION. GREENBALL HAS PAID FOR ALL TRANSPORTATION COSTS OF THE TIRES FOR INSPECTION. I AWAIT PAYMENT FOR THE INITIAL DAMAGE AND THEIR RULING ON CAUSE FOR THE CONDITION OF THE REMAINING TIRES RETURNED TO GREENBALL. I HAVE INDICATED I WANT REIMBURSEMENT FOR COST OF THE GREENBALL TIRES AS A POSSIBLE REMEDY. *TR

TRAILER TIRES MANUFACTURED BY NANKANG ARE FAILING DUE TO TREAD SEPARATION. FIRST FAILURE OCCURRED 11/2009, SECOND FAILURE OCCURRED 4/2010. TIRES LESS THAN FOUR YEARS OLD WITH APPROXIMATELY 10-12,000 MILES. *TR

1999 AIRSTREAM EXCELLA. RECALL NOTICE ON DOMETIC RV REFRIGERATOR. CONSUMER WANTS TO KNOW WHY HIS CLAIM WAS DENIED. *NJ THE CONSUMER STATED THERE WAS LEAKAGE/STAINING AT THE REAR OF THE REFRIGERATOR, THERE WAS YELLOW RESIDUE ON THE SIDE OF THE REFRIGERATOR AND THERE WAS A SMELL OF AMMONIA AND THE REFRIGERATOR DID NOT COOL PROPERLY LIKE IT ONCE DID. THE CONSUMER WAS DENIED REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE THE REPAIR OCCURRED LATER THAN MARCH 1, 2007. *JB