Go Back   iRV2 Forums > TRAVEL TRAILER, 5th WHEEL & TRUCK CAMPER FORUMS > Trailer Towing and Tow Vehicles Discussion
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-28-2015, 04:02 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
iRV2 No Limits Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamaman View Post
My concern is with the politics of Chrysler-Fiat. Why are they getting a $105 million penalty when Government Motors ignition switches have caused so many deaths and they're not being penalized?...
Because Government Motors in largely owned by the Government?
__________________

__________________
LadyFitz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 07-28-2015, 04:05 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
iRV2 No Limits Club
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip426 View Post
...Word was they plan to install the factory trailer hitch, on those not so equipped, to supply the tank protection that's required...
Chrysler installed the frame mounted hitch on a friend's little Jeep Liberty in a recall a few years ago.
__________________

__________________
LadyFitz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2015, 06:23 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
rideandslide's Avatar


 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Waynesville Georgia
Posts: 1,273
2013 dodge Ram 1500 5.7, so i beat the recall, no problem anyway, Dodge man all the way, from age 16, and never had a lemon !!!!
__________________
rideandslide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 07:50 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
TDI-Minnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,733
The one thing on my Ram that seems to be a known weak spot is the pinion seal on the front of the rear diff where the driveshaft goes in. It is weeping a bit of oil. I asked at the service counter and they were very matter of fact about it, saying "they all leak eventually" but it's covered under warranty.
That's all fine and good, but a leak like that on an HD truck at 60k miles is not good.
To be fair, it's not a Ram issue but the Dana axles, which are usually very good.
Just make sure you look at yours to catch it before the oil is all gone.
__________________
2013 Winnebago 2301BH-Red
2012 Ram 2500 Megacab HO CTD
TDI-Minnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 08:05 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Bumps's Avatar
 
Winnebago Owners Club
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: FTer Class of 2015 Origin: Evergreen, Colorado
Posts: 1,536
No mention of the Wrangler in that article, but the behind-the-rear-axle gas tank describes my Wrangler TJ. The gas tank is fully visible as it hangs just behind the rear bumper adjacent to the hitch receiver. Seems like a recall of Jeep TJs (there have to be a million of them on the road) would be fatal to FCA. And that is such a popular toad for many of us!

I'll be watching for more news on this for sure!

Thanks for the heads up!

\ken
__________________
Ken & Deb (WIT Club, FMCA, SKP, Harvest Hosts, and grateful volunteers with SOWERs)
2005 Winnebago Vectra 40FD w/400ISL and Allison 3000MH on Freightliner's Evolution chassis, Onan QD7500, 1000w Renogy solar, BlueOx tow gear, and 2015 Cherokee TrailHawk toad.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Bumps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 08:17 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
aauummm's Avatar


 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Altoona, Iowa
Posts: 1,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumps View Post
No mention of the Wrangler in that article, but the behind-the-rear-axle gas tank describes my Wrangler TJ. The gas tank is fully visible as it hangs just behind the rear bumper adjacent to the hitch receiver. Seems like a recall of Jeep TJs (there have to be a million of them on the road) would be fatal to FCA. And that is such a popular toad for many of us!

I'll be watching for more news on this for sure!

Thanks for the heads up!

\ken
My TJ has a HD skid plate/cover over the gas tank, but maybe that's because it's a Rubicon?
__________________
2010 Itasca Sunova 33C, mucho mods
2011 Honda CRV, 2004 Rubicon (mucho mods)
aauummm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 08:28 AM   #21
Registered User
 
wincrasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Greer, SC
Posts: 670
GM is not getting any special treatment. They are getting a $35 million dollar fine for just this one issue. The Chrysler fine covers multiple issues. GM cooperated when Chrysler did not.

What is funny is that GM was not really even obligated to do anything - these liabilities were put into "Old GM". They could have also used that as a defense in the lawsuits as well. But they've stepped up and cooperated, and have paid out millions, if not over a billion dollars.

In some ways Chrysler is getting off easy. Lots of people died because of the gas tank issue. All those trucks that they have to buy back can be resold after they "fix" them. They could have ordered they be bought up and crushed. But they didn't. They also could have ordered them to buy back all those millions of Jeeps, but they didn't. The purpose is to punish FCA, not put them out of business. They'll be alright - they have $20 billion in cash accounts.
__________________
wincrasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 02:10 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Muncie_6spd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Muncie, IN USA
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by wincrasher View Post
GM is not getting any special treatment. They are getting a $35 million dollar fine for just this one issue. The Chrysler fine covers multiple issues. GM cooperated when Chrysler did not.

What is funny is that GM was not really even obligated to do anything - these liabilities were put into "Old GM". They could have also used that as a defense in the lawsuits as well. But they've stepped up and cooperated, and have paid out millions, if not over a billion dollars.

In some ways Chrysler is getting off easy. Lots of people died because of the gas tank issue. All those trucks that they have to buy back can be resold after they "fix" them. They could have ordered they be bought up and crushed. But they didn't. They also could have ordered them to buy back all those millions of Jeeps, but they didn't. The purpose is to punish FCA, not put them out of business. They'll be alright - they have $20 billion in cash accounts.
I'm sorry but I must disagree; GM did not step up and cooperate until they were caught. They knowingly killed their customers for 10 years while trying to hide the defective switch by modifying it and not changing the part number.
It is true the new GM is not obligated to pay any claims for this but after too much bad publicity they decided they would determine which customers would be paid for this defect. So far they admit to killing over 200 people but well over a thousand claims for death have been filed with the GM funded arbiter.

IMHO someone at GM should be criminally prosecuted for hiding this defect for such a long time.
__________________
2002 Holiday Rambler Presidential 5th wheel, 2002 Dodge 3500 dually Cummins
Muncie_6spd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 07:18 PM   #23
Member
 
Texas SteveH's Avatar
 
Freightliner Owners Club
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip426 View Post
Yes , the " death wobble " steering issue was a 4X4 problem.
The recall was not about "the death wobble", but about tie rod ends that were breaking and causing a loss of steering. That will ruin your entire day. The recall was "N49" N49 - Safety Recall - Left Outer Tie Rod Assembly / 2008-2012 Dodge RAM, and they replaced both tie rod ends, and the tie rod. However, the first batch of parts the sent out (CBUN491AA) proved to also be defective and some failed, this after many trucks were already "repaired", mine included. They recalled those parts on April 8, 2014, and mine was repaired on Feb 19, 2014, and my problem is they are saying that since my truck was already "repaired" (but with suspect parts), I'm not eligible for the new repair, or buy back.

The "death wobble" issue has not been addressed to date, and it is my belief it's inherent in the design of the 4X4 2500 and above trucks, and cannot be fixed, only treated temporarily because it will do it again as it wears.
__________________
Texas SteveH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 07:39 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Skip426's Avatar


 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Powell River, B.C.
Posts: 14,971
Steve ; thanks for correcting me. I retired from Chrysler in July 07, so missed out on all the BS, involved in these two problems, so had thought the recall was to do with the wobble.
Do you know if there was a change in design between the 03>07 front suspension, and the 2008's or was this just a parts supplier issue?
__________________
99DSDP 3884, Freightliner, XC, CAT 3126B, 300 HP /ALLISON 3060
2000 Caravan toad, Remco & Blue Ox.
Skip426 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 07:54 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,079
FCA Clarifies Scope of Remedies in NHTSA Consent Order


July 27, 2015 , London, UK - Certain press reports have misconstrued the scope and therefore the estimated costs of certain remedies contemplated by the consent order entered into by FCA US with NHTSA and announced today. FCA intends to clarify the scope of such remedies.

In the consent order, FCA US has agreed to additional remedies for three recall campaigns covering approximately half a million vehicles, primarily 2008 through 2012 chassis cab, 2009 through 2011 light duty and 2008 through 2012 heavy duty Ram Trucks. In each of those campaigns, FCA US will offer to owners whose vehicles have not yet been remedied, as an alternative remedy, to repurchase those vehicles at a price equal to the original purchase price less a reasonable allowance for depreciation plus ten percent. However, customers responding to the recall may continue to keep their vehicles and have them repaired in accordance with the original recall. As of this date, repairs have been completed on well over 60% of the subject vehicles, leaving less than two hundred thousand eligible vehicles. As is expressly provided for under the consent order, FCA intends that any vehicles repurchased will be remedied and resold.

In addition, FCA US is offering consumer incentives to encourage owners of vehicles subject to the structural reinforcement campaign to participate in the campaign. With respect to the 1993 through 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee ZJs, FCA US is also offering to increase the trade-in allowance to be applied to the purchase of another FCA product, service or parts for those owners of these very old vehicles who would prefer this alternative over the installation of a trailer hitch.

All premiums paid to repurchase vehicles in the three recall campaigns and customer incentives will be applied as credits to the $20 million that FCA US has agreed to spend on industry outreach amounts included in the $105 million referred to in the consent order.

While such amounts may exceed the $20 million, contrary to certain reports, FCA US does not expect that the net cost of providing these additional alternatives will be material to its financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

http://www.media.chrysler.com/newsre...?id=16869&mid=
__________________
'03 Dodge 2500 Cummins HO 3.73 NV5600 Jacobs
'98 3500 DRW 454 4x4 4.10 crew cab
'97 Park Avanue RK 28' 2 slides
JIMNLIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 08:35 PM   #26
Member
 
Texas SteveH's Avatar
 
Freightliner Owners Club
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip426 View Post
Steve ; thanks for correcting me. I retired from Chrysler in July 07, so missed out on all the BS, involved in these two problems, so had thought the recall was to do with the wobble.
Do you know if there was a change in design between the 03>07 front suspension, and the 2008's or was this just a parts supplier issue?
I'm sorry, I do not know the answer to your questions. I am only familiar with the problems of the vintage truck I own because that is what I have researched, and I believe the tie rod end problem to be a problem with the quality of the part, but the "death wobble" is a problem with the design of the front suspension and it's robustness.

There are more issues than just the track arm bushings, although they are obviously insufficiently designed. The steering gearbox is also a problem, partly because of the quality of the box, and partly because of the geometry of the drag link angle, the sector shaft bushing will prematurely wear causing excessive steering free play, which can also contribute to the wobble.

The 2500 Ram 4X4 trucks also are notorious for premature ball joint failure. Basically, the entire front end needs to be rebuilt every 80 to 90 thousand miles.
__________________
Texas SteveH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 08:57 PM   #27
Member
 
Onstar20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 67
After hearing this I will be sure to stay clear of any Dodge trucks and let them pass on through.
__________________
2014 Ford E350 Super Duty 4x4 Quadvan, Husky Centerline
2015 Heartland Wilderness 2750RL
https://www.youtube.com/c/QuadvanFrank?gvnc=1
Onstar20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 09:11 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
jfran304's Avatar
 
Tiffin Owners Club
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Warner Robins, GA
Posts: 2,497
What I'm wondering is who decides what the depreciation is of the vehicles that they buy back? Since Chrysler/Fiat can resell the buy back vehicles after making repairs I could see them making a good profit off of the ones they buy back.

Jon
__________________

__________________
Jon & Sue Francis (Retired U.S.A.F.)
Lil Girl-Rescued, Abby Rescued, Peaches Rescued
06 Allegro 35TSA Workhorse Chassis
2013 Chevy Spark Dinghy
jfran304 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Texas Lemon Law / Buy Back GotLemons Class A Motorhome Discussions 23 07-02-2016 04:54 PM
Thor Lemon Law Buy Back txhood Thor Industries Owner's Forum 63 09-05-2015 05:38 PM

» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.