2005 Dodge
RAM 2500Problems & recalls

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE14-016 in June 2014 based on six inflator rupture incidents involving consumer owned vehicles produced by five vehicle manufacturers.All six vehicles were operated in Florida or Puerto Rico at the time of the rupture and for the majority of their service life, and were equipped with inflators produced by Takata, a tier-one supplier of automotive air bag systems.During the course of PE14-016, ODI determined that five additional vehicle manufacturers used inflators of a similar design and vintage also supplied by Takata. No evidence of field failures was found in vehicles produced by these five additional manufacturers.Nonetheless, at ODI's insistence, all 10 vehicle manufacturers initiated a regional recall within approximately two weeks of the opening of the investigation.The regions recalled initially included Florida, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, areas with high absolute humidity and climatic conditions believed to be a significant factor in the inflator ruptures.As part of the recall actions, inflators removed from remedied vehicles are to be returned to Takata for testing.Takata's initial test results on passenger inflators from remedied vehicles indicated a much higher than anticipated rupture frequency for inflators returned from Florida.Accordingly ODI requested all 10 manufacturers expand the regional recalls for passenger inflators to include other geographic areas where high absolute humidity conditions exist, including the Gulf States and other coastal areas.Takata's testing of the passenger inflators to date continues to indicate this geographic area as having the highest risk, with no ruptures occurring from inflators returned from outside the expanded recall regions.During PE14-016 four additional passenger inflator field events occurred, all in vehicles from the same expanded geographic region.Also during PE14-016 four additional driver inflator field events occurred including two in vehicles from regions not known for high absolute humidity, specifically California and North Carolina.Accordingly, ODI requested all five of the affected vehicle manufacturers currently using the subject Takata driver inflators expand to nationwide recalls.Significantly, neither of the affected vehicle manufacturers or Takata provided any explanation to account for these two driver air bag inflator ruptures outside the area of high absolute humidity.Takata testing of returned driver inflators indicates a lower rupture frequency as compared to passenger inflator testing.All test ruptures reported by Takata to date have occurred on inflators returned from high absolute humidity areas.The investigation now includes all manufacturers and vehicles known to be affected at this time.ODI's investigation will focus on, among other things, root cause analysis, other potential defect consequences, identification of affected vehicles scope, and adequacy of the remedy.The five ODI reports cited above can be reviewed online at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification numbers: 10537899, 10568848, 10585224, 10605877, 10651492

Campaign reference in the source: 22V945

RMD opened this audit query (AQ) investigation in order to better understand and evaluate Chrysler's process(es) for timely and efficient execution of its safety recall campaigns, including its oversight and management of its parts division Mopar.Prior to opening this investigation, RMD had raised concerns with the company related to its execution of two safety recalls, 13V-528 and 13V-529, both of which involved safety defects that could cause the involved vehicles, FCA?s heavier Dodge Ram trucks, to lose steering control suddenly and without warning.Specifically, RMD inquired about the availability of parts for recall repairs, by email and phone on January 15, 2014 and February 19, 2014, due to the volume of complaints it was receiving from owners alleging parts scarcity and parts restrictions. FCA steadfastly denied it had placed parts restrictions on its dealers to manage issues of parts scarcity.FCA shared material showing it had uncommitted stock of parts available for its dealers. Nevertheless, consumer complaints of lack of parts continued.RMD made independent inquiries tosome dealers tobetter understand the conflicting claims between owners alleging lack of ability to repair their defective vehicles due to lack of parts, and FCA?s information showing availability of parts.Dealers informed and provided documentation to RMD on February 21, 2014 and February 25, 2014 showing FCA had, in fact, put into place parts restrictions and, further, had in some instances canceled dealerships? back orders for parts.In addition, during the course of its dialogue with dealers, RMD discovered that FCA had notified their dealerships on February 27, 2014 to return the recall remedy parts over quality concerns, and had therefore effectively canceled its safety recall program without notification to NHTSA. RMD issued a request for information (IR) on October 21, 2014.The company failed to respond to a number of the questions RMD asked that required it to produce specifics surrounding the repairs and parts ordering process with the recalls, including a question about whether a dealer order for recall parts could be canceled and under what circumstances.

Recorded closure: May 16, 2016

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE14-016 in June 2014 based on six inflator rupture incidents involving consumer owned vehicles produced by five vehicle manufacturers.All six vehicles were operated in Florida or Puerto Rico at the time of the rupture and for the majority of their service life, and were equipped with inflators produced by Takata, a tier-one supplier of automotive air bag systems.During the course of PE14-016, ODI determined that five additional vehicle manufacturers used inflators of a similar design and vintage also supplied by Takata. No evidence of field failures was found in vehicles produced by these five additional manufacturers.Nonetheless, at ODI's insistence, all 10 vehicle manufacturers initiated a regional recall within approximately two weeks of the opening of the investigation.The regions recalled initially included Florida, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, areas with consistently high absolute humidity and climatic conditions believed to be a significant factor in the inflator ruptures.As part of the recall actions, inflators removed from remedied vehicles are to be returned to Takata for testing.Takata's initial test results on passenger inflators from remedied vehicles indicated a much higher than anticipated rupture frequency for inflators returned from Florida.Accordingly, ODI requested all 10 manufacturers expand the regional recalls for passenger inflators to include other geographic areas where high absolute humidity conditions exist, including the Gulf States and other coastal areas.Takata's testing of the passenger inflators to date continues to indicate this geographic area as having the highest risk, with no ruptures occurring from inflators returned from outside the expanded recall regions.During PE14-016, four additional passenger inflator field events occurred, all in vehicles from the same expanded geographic region.Also during PE14-016, four additional driver inflator field events occurred including two in vehicles from regions not known for high absolute humidity, specifically California and North Carolina.Accordingly, ODI requested all five of the affected vehicle manufacturers currently using the subject Takata driver inflators expand to nationwide recalls.Significantly, neither of the affected vehicle manufacturers or Takata provided any explanation to account for these two driver air bag inflator ruptures outside the area of high absolute humidity.Takata testing of returned driver inflators indicates a lower rupture frequency as compared to passenger inflator testing.All test ruptures reported by Takata to date have occurred on inflators returned from high absolute humidity areas.The PE is now closed/upgraded to an Engineering Evaluation (EA15-001) to include all manufacturersand vehicles known to be affected at this time.ODI's EA investigation will focus on, among other things, root cause analysis, other potential defect consequences, identification of affected vehicles scope, and adequacy of the remedy.The recalls related to this PE are: 14V343, 14V344, 14V348, 14V351, 14V353, 14V655, 14V700, 14V701, 14V752, 14V763, 14V770, 14V773, 14V787, 14V802 and 14V817.The number of vehicles affected are an estimate since some vehicles may have both the driver and passenger side inflators recalled. The five ODI reports cited above can be reviewed online at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification numbers: 10537899, 10568848, 10585224, 10605877, 10651492

Recorded closure: Mar 2, 2015

Campaign reference in the source: 15V226000

On December 16, 2104, Chrysler Group LLC submitted a Safety Recall Report to NHTSA describing a defect in the clutch ignition interlock switches in approximately 66,819 model year (MY) 2006 through early-2007 Dodge Ram Trucks, Dodge Dakota, and Mitsubishi Raider vehicles equipped with manual transmissions and built between July 1, 2005 and July 31, 2006 (NHTSA Recall No. 14V-795, Chrysler Recall No. P80), including 38,969 MY 2006 Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 vehicles that are part of the subject vehicle population for PE14-013.Chrysler's Safety Report states that:1) the clutch ignition interlock switch return springs may experience fatigue failure due to material issues; 2) if the return springs are broken, the switch contacts may not reflect actual clutch pedal position; and 3) the failures could result in a vehicle experiencing unintended movement if the ignition is cranked when the clutch pedal is not being pressed.Chrysler's recall remedy will replace the clutch ignition interlock switch on all affected vehicles with a switch with a more robust design.On May 19, 2014, ODI opened PE14-013 to investigate clutch ignition interlock failure in MY 2004 through 2006 Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 trucks with manual transmissions, based on two MY 2006 complaints and one MY 2004 complaint.One of the MY 2006 complaints involved a fatality that occurred when a young child was able to start a MY 2006 Ram 3500 truck that was parked with the transmission in gear, without depressing the clutch.The diesel engine started and the vehicle moved forward under power running over another child resulting in fatal injuries.ODI's analysis of failure data from all sources identified a total of 14 complaints and 16 warranty claims for the subject vehicles.Thirteen (13) of the complaints and all 16 warranty claims were for the 38,969 MY 2006 Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 trucks that were included in 14V-795.The single complaint that was outside the scope of Chrysler's recall was the MY 2004 ODI complaint identified in the opening resume for PE14-013.Further analysis of this incident indicates that the cause of the clutch switch failure in this vehicle was spring damage caused by hydraulic fluid leakage from the clutch master cylinder into the switch.The field data did not show any other similar incidents of switch failures caused by clutch master cylinder leakage. This investigation is closed based on Chrysler's recall.

Recorded closure: Dec 23, 2014

Campaign reference in the source: 14V795000

ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT, FIELD REPORT AND WARRANTY DATA SHOWS THAT THE MAJORITY OF STALLING INCIDENTS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES APPEAR TO BE RELATED TO THE ENGINE CALIBRATION CONCERNS THAT DAIMLERCHRYSLER ADDRESSED WITH SERVICE BULLETINS RELEASING REVISED PCM SOFTWARE.ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINTS AND ODI'S SURVEY OF OWNERS OF VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED ENGINE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE UPDATES UNDER TSB #18-013-05 SHOW THAT THESE STALLING INCIDENTS HAVE THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS: - THEY OCCUR AT LOW SPEEDS, OFTEN DURING PARKING LOT ORDRIVEWAY MANEUVERS; - THEY OCCUR DURING DECELERATIONS, SUCH AS BRAKING FOR A STOP SIGN OR TRAFFIC SIGNAL; AND - THE OPERATOR IS ALMOST ALWAYS ABLE TO IMMEDIATELY RESTART THE VEHICLE.WHEN COMPARED WITH OTHER SAFETY DEFECT INVESTIGATIONS AND RECALLS OF CONDITIONS THAT RESULT IN STALLING DURING LOW-SPEED DECELERATION WITH IMMEDIATE ENGINE RESTART POSSIBLE, THE FAILURE RATE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS LOW.ANALYSES OF COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA ALSO SHOW A DECLINING TREND.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.

Recorded closure: Aug 29, 2007

ON MAY 16, 2005,ODI OPENED PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE05-027 TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS OF ENGINE STALLING IN MODEL YEAR 2004-05 DODGE DURANGO SUVS AND RAM 1500 SERIES PICKUPS EQUIPPED WITH THE 5.7L V8 ENGINE.INFORMATION PROVIDED BY DAIMLERCHRYSLER DURING PE05-027 INDICATED THAT A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINTS ARE RELATED TO AN IDLE UNDERSHOOT CONDITION THAT MAY CAUSE THE ENGINE TO STALL DURING TURNING MANEUVERS.IN FEBRUARY 2005, DAIMLERCHRYSLER REVISED THE POWERTRAIN CONTROL MODULE SOFTWARE IN PRODUCTION VEHICLES AND ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN (TSB 18-013-05) RELEASING THE NEW SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE REMEDY FOR THE IDLE UNDERSHOOT CONDITION.THE BULLETIN WAS SUPERCEDED BY TSB 18-013-05A IN APRIL 2005.DAIMLERCHRYSLER BELIEVES THAT THE FAILURE RATE FOR STALLING WHILE DRIVING DUE TO THE IDLE UNDERSHOOT CONDITION IS LOW AND THAT THE BULLETIN HAS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE PROBLEM. SINCE PE05-027 WAS OPENED, ODI HAS CONTINUED TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS FROM OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHO ALLEGE EXPERIENCING ENGINE STALL INCIDENTS UNDER ALL TYPES OF DRIVING CONDITIONS.IN SOME INSTANCES THE STALLING HAS CONTINUED AFTER THE VEHICLE RECEIVED THE SERVICE BULLETIN REPAIRS.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA05-018) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY, AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN DODGE DURANGO AND RAM 1500/2500/3500 SERIES PICKUP TRUCKS.

Recorded closure: Nov 3, 2005

THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE HEAVY DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS WITH DIESEL ENGINES AND AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS COMMONLY USED FOR COMMERCIAL AND WORK PURPOSES.A COLUMN MOUNTED SHIFT LEVER IS USED FOR GEAR SELECTION AND AN ELECTRONIC PRNDL ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL PROVIDES GEAR POSITION INFORMATION TO THE DRIVER.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE ALSO EQUIPPED WITH A BRAKE-TRANSMISSION SHIFT INTERLOCK THAT PREVENTS THE SHIFT LEVER FROM BEING MOVED FROM THE PARK POSITION (WHEN THE ENGINE IS ON) UNLESS THE BRAKE PEDAL IS DEPRESSED AND AN IGNITION-SHIFT INTERLOCK THAT PREVENTS KEY REMOVAL UNLESS THE TRANSMISSION IS IN THE PARK POSITION.COMPLAINANTS GENERALLY REPORT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS BEING OPERATED IN A FORWARD GEAR AND BROUGHT TO A STOP THROUGH BRAKE APPLICATION ON ALEVEL SURFACE, AT WHICH TIME THE OPERATOR MOVED THE SHIFT LEVER TO ENGAGE THE PARK POSITION.THE OPERATOR THEN OPENED THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR AND, WITHOUT VERIFYING PARK ENGAGEMENT (E.G., PRNDL GEAR INDICATION), SECURING THE PARK BRAKE, OR TURNING THE ENGINE OFF, EXITED THE VEHICLE.INITIALLY, NO VEHICLE MOVEMENT WAS APPARENT, HOWEVER, A SHORT TIME LATER, TYPICALLY REPORTED AS 10 TO 30 SECONDS, THE VEHICLE MOVED REARWARD UNDER ENGINE POWER.THE INCIDENT OFTEN ENDED IN A VEHICLE CRASH, AND SOMETIMES INVOLVED SERIOUS INJURY.TWO FATALITIES ARE ALLEGED.ODI?S ANALYSIS OF TEST VEHICLES AND SOME INCIDENT VEHICLES FOUND NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT A SHIFT LEVER PROPERLY PLACED IN PARK COULD UNINTENTIONALLY (I.E., WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT) DISENGAGE FROM THAT POSITION.HOWEVER, ODI DID FIND THAT THE SHIFT LEVER COULD BE INADVERTENTLY PLACED, AND REMAIN AT REST, WITHIN AN INTERMEDIATE POSITION BETWEEN THE PARK AND REVERSE GEAR POSITIONS.WHEN PLACED IN SUCH AN INTERMEDIATE POSITION, THE VEHICLE CAN EXPERIENCE A DELAYED PRESSURIZATION OF THE REVERSE HYDRAULIC CIRCUIT THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE THE VEHICLE TO ROLL REARWARD UNDER POWER.THE DELAY PERIOD ALLOWS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR OPERATORS TO EXIT THE STATIONARY VEHICLE WITHOUT PERCEIVING THAT THE SHIFTER IS NOT IN PARK.THE SUMMARY REPORT DISCUSSES THE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THIS ISSUE IN GREATER DETAIL AND COMPARES THE FREQUENCY OF THESE INCIDENTS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES TO OTHER PEER VEHICLES THAT ODI EXAMINED.AS DESCRIBED IN THEIR OCTOBER 4, 2005 LETTER TO NHTSA, DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION (DCC) WILL CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-462, DCC NO. E17) TO INSTALL AN OUT-OF-PARK ALARM SYSTEM IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.THE ALARM WILL PROVIDE AUDIBLE AND VISUAL FEEDBACK TO ALERT THE DRIVER, AND OTHERS, IF THE DRIVER ATTEMPTS TO EXIT THE VEHICLE WHILE THE ENGINE IS RUNNING AND THE SHIFT LEVER IS NOT IN THE PARK POSITION.THE TIMING OF DCC?S ACTION HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED.

Recorded closure: Dec 22, 2005

Campaign reference in the source: 05V462000