Dodge Challengers Recalled

I'm surprised this wasn't posted yet.

I believe that's all of the Challengers

http://www.allworldauto.com/recalls/NHTSA_08V458000_2009_DODGE_CHALLENGER_recall_87856 .html

NHTSA Campaign Number: 08V458000
Vehicle/Equipment Make: DODGE
Vehicle/Eqipment Model: CHALLENGER
Model Year: 2009
Mfg Campaign Number: H29
Mfg Component Desc: POWER TRAIN:AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION:PARK/NEUTRAL START SWITCH
Mfg Involved in Recall: CHRYSLER LLC
Manufacture Dates: 10-23-07 through 08-19-08
Type of Report: (V) Vehicle
Potential # of Units Affected: 6,636
Date Owner Notified by Mfg:
Recall Initiated By: MFR
Mfg Responsible for Recall: CHRYSLER LLC
Report Recieved Date: 09-08-08
Record Creation Date: 09-08-08
Regulation Part Number: 571
FMVSS Number: 114

Defect Summary:
CHRYSLER IS RECALLING 6,636 MY 2008-2009 DODGE CHALLENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS AND "KEYLESS GO" OPTION FOR FAILING TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PREVENTION." IF THE STOP/START BUTTON IS PRESSED AND HELD AND THE ENGINE TURNS OFF, THE ELECTRONIC KEY CODE IS REMOVED FROM THE VEHICLE. SINCE THIS CAN OCCUR IN A TRANSMISSION OR GEAR SELECTOR POSITION OTHER THAN "PARK," AND THE TRANSMISSION OR GEAR SELECTOR DOES NOT BECOME LOCKED IN "PARK" AS A DIRECT RESULT OF KEY REMOVAL, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A NONCOMPLIANCE MAY EXIST.

Consequence Summary:
THIS STANDARD SPECIFIES VEHICLE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS INTENDED TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF CRASHES RESULTING FROM THEFT AND ACCIDENTAL ROLLAWAY OF MOTOR VEHICLES.
Corrective Summary: DEALERS WILL REPROGRAM THE WIRELESS IGNITION NODE MODULE SO THE ENGINE CAN ONLY BE TURNED OFF WHEN THE TRANSMISSION AND GEAR SELECTOR IS IN THE "PARK" POSITION. THE RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15, 2008. OWNERS MAY CONTACT CHRYSLER AT 1-800-853-1403.

So you can't kill the engine in drive like you can any keyed car made for the last 50 years.

My first thought is who cares either way.
My second is I've had to throw my own car in neutral and kill it when the throttle got stuck open.
It would suck not to be able to turn the car off in an emergency.

It would suck not to be able to turn the car off in an emergency.

It would suck to have a recall on a vehicle that the paint has not dried on yet. :(

This is not huge, but my confidence level in the "new" Chrysler's ability to develop and successfully launch a vehicle just went way down.

Soon, we may have another thread about which of the big 3 are in best/worst shape to pull through the recession.

It would suck to have a recall on a vehicle that the paint has not dried on yet. :(

My first thought when I saw this thread was "Damn, already?"

This doesn't sound like a major thing. They aren't catching on fire or flipping over...

no big deal.

So you can't kill the engine in drive like you can any keyed car made for the last 50 years.

My first thought is who cares either way.
My second is I've had to throw my own car in neutral and kill it when the throttle got stuck open.
It would suck not to be able to turn the car off in an emergency.

You're not reading this correctly. The problem isn't that you can turn the car off; it's that you can remove the key without the vehicle being in Park. That's an FMVSS violation for a vehicle with an automatic transmission.

ha I can do that w/my 69 ..how else am I going to open the truck when it's running ;)

ha I can do that w/my 69 ..how else am I going to open the truck when it's running ;)

You can do the same thing with any of the old "square ignition key" GMs if the last tooth on the key (the one at the tip of the blade) becomes excessively worn. Both my '78 K5 and my '85 G20 van had that same "feature".

ha I can do that w/my 69 ..how else am I going to open the truck when it's running ;)

Ironically our 69 camaro does the same thing. Along with the 99 Linclon LS.

It would suck to have a recall on a vehicle that the paint has not dried on yet. :(

This is not huge, but my confidence level in the "new" Chrysler's ability to develop and successfully launch a vehicle just went way down.

Soon, we may have another thread about which of the big 3 are in best/worst shape to pull through the recession.

As mentioned, it's nothing more than a Mickey Mouse recall.

You can pull the key out without the car being in park

That's it.

It used to be the norm in cars. But nowadays, for some reason or another, it just happens to be against Federal rules so Chrysler has to fix it.

As someone else said, it's not like the thing has the potential to burst in flames, replacing engines or parts due to self clogging antifreeze, having tailgates flip open or fall off, frames rusting in half or having improperly installed bolts..... issue that have plagued GM & Toyota in the past recent years.

Ford seems to actually be the only company (US or import) to have escaped recalls the past number of years.

Uh, I think this only affects the "keyless" ignition cars, if I read it correctly. Sounds like you can punch the start/stop button and kill the engine, then exit the vehicle without having to put the tranny in park first, and this is a violation of some federal standard of some kind?

Uh, I think this only affects the "keyless" ignition cars, if I read it correctly. Sounds like you can punch the start/stop button and kill the engine, then exit the vehicle without having to put the tranny in park first, and this is a violation of some federal standard of some kind?

Correct on both counts.

Like a manual transmission, you can turn off the car and leave it while it's still in neutral. I guess I can see the logic in it being against rules. A average auto tranny driver probally won't check to make sure the car's in park before exiting the car. :shrug:

I drive a manual most of the time (my S-10) so I sometimes forget to put the corolla or silverado in Park when I shut them off, but because the key won't come out... DUH, you left the car/truck in D again...

I see this as a necessary recall, no key means no "duh" reminder.

So you can't kill the engine in drive like you can any keyed car made for the last 50 years.

It would suck not to be able to turn the car off in an emergency.

You're not reading this correctly. The problem isn't that you can turn the car off; it's that you can remove the key without the vehicle being in Park. That's an FMVSS violation for a vehicle with an automatic transmission.

I think you read it incorrectly. Note the recall is specific to models with "keyless go" option. That means you do not have to physically insert any key to start the car.

Further "IF THE STOP/START BUTTON IS PRESSED AND HELD AND THE ENGINE TURNS OFF, THE ELECTRONIC KEY CODE IS REMOVED FROM THE VEHICLE. SINCE THIS CAN OCCUR IN A TRANSMISSION OR GEAR SELECTOR POSITION OTHER THAN "PARK," AND THE TRANSMISSION OR GEAR SELECTOR DOES NOT BECOME LOCKED IN "PARK" AS A DIRECT RESULT OF KEY REMOVAL, "

I read that text very plainly as the "electronic key code" is the key which is "removed" when the engine is stopped which can happen not in park. Since we've already established there is no physical key insertion (nor is one mentioend anywhere in the text), what else could they possibly be referring to as a key except the "electronic key".

I agree with Aaron. On one hand, i can understand the concern over dumbasses leaving the car in something other than park and having it roll away, at the same time, i think this highlights the stupidity of "keyless start" systems since there is apparently no way to kill the engine in an emergency while driving, Throwing it in neutral and letting it bump the rev limiter until it explodes is a poor substitute IMO. I think i'll just stick with having a key.

It used to be (in the ‘60s) that you could start and drive almost any carbureted car with almost nothing in the way of tools (like a wire coat hanger), unless the steering wheel and/or shifter were locked. Modern cars are a little more complicated but we are stuck with the same dumb rules.

As mentioned, it's nothing more than a Mickey Mouse recall.

You can pull the key out without the car being in park

That's it.

It used to be the norm in cars. But nowadays, for some reason or another, it just happens to be against Federal rules so Chrysler has to fix it.

As someone else said, it's not like the thing has the potential to burst in flames, replacing engines or parts due to self clogging antifreeze, having tailgates flip open or fall off, frames rusting in half or having improperly installed bolts..... issue that have plagued GM & Toyota in the past recent years.

Ford seems to actually be the only company (US or import) to have escaped recalls the past number of years.

I think you miss my point though buddy. I acknowledged it was not a huge thing in my post, but it is still an indicator that they are not paying close attention to the details - though small they may be. So let's say THIS instance doesn't have cars blowing up or driving off on their own... can you say the next one won't too?

It would be one thing if it were a commercial part that ages poorly and fails in 2-3 years, or a switch that simply fails to work after a few years - those things can get by even the best tests in the short term. But this was a basic violation of a safety protocol as I read it. Huge difference... I mean, surely, someone in their safety and controls group knows the FMVSS codes and has a checklist that is required to be done somewhere in the prototype or pre-production processes?

All I'm saying is that I see this as an "indicator". It's not going to mean instant death for the Challenger by any means, but it does tell you something about what's going on behind the brick walls in Chrysler. And with the supposed flurry of new launches coming, it's not a good sign to have early in the race. That's all.

Ford seems to actually be the only company (US or import) to have escaped recalls the past number of years.

???? :confused::confused::confused:

Here are some recent ones:

08S06- Jun. 27, 2008
UPDATE: Full Bulletin: DEMONSTRATION / DELIVERY HOLD - PERFORM PRIOR TO VEHICLE DELIVERY: Safety Recall 08S06: Certain 2008 Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX Vehicles - Fuel Tank Inspection
08S05- Jun. 23, 2008
Safety Recall 08S05: Certain 2005 - 2006 F-150 and Mark LT Vehicles Equipped with 5.4L 3-Valve Engines - Brake Booster Vacuum Hose Replacement
08C04- May 23, 2008
UPDATE: Parts Information: DEMONSTRATION / DELIVERY HOLD – Compliance Recall 08C04: Certain 2008 F250 & F350 4X4 10,000 lbs and Under GVW, 156' Wheel Base Vehicles Equipped with a Two-Piece Drive Shaft - Fuel Tank Stopper Bracket Installation
05S28-S15 Apr. 10, 2008
UPDATE: Supplement Announcement: Safety Recall 05S28 - Supplement #15: 1992-2004 Multiple Vehicle Lines - Speed Control System Modification
08S01-S1 Apr. 10, 2008
UPDATE: Supplement Announcement: Safety Recall 08S01 - Supplement #1: Certain 1992-2003 Model Year Cars & Trucks - Fused Jumper Harness Replacement for Vehicles Serviced With an Incompatible Fused Jumper Harness
08S04 Apr. 9, 2008
DEMONSTRATION / DELIVERY HOLD Safety Recall 08S04 - Certain 2008 Model Year Econoline E350 Vehicles - Driveshaft Inspection/Replacement
08C01_ Mar. 18, 2008
DEMONSTRATION / DELIVERY HOLD - Compliance Recall 08C01: - Certain 2008 Model Year F-250 through F-550 Super Duty Vehicles Equipped with 40/20/40 Front Seat and Lumbar - Front Driver's Seat Back Inspection and Repair
08C02_ Mar. 14, 2008
SERVICE UPDATE #2 - DEMONSTRATION / DELIVERY HOLD - Compliance Recall 08C02: - Certain 2005 - 2008 Mustang Vehicles - Reprogram Restraint Control Module


Don't forget about this:

UPDATE: Supplement Announcement: Safety Recall 05S28 - Supplement #15: 1992-2004 Multiple Vehicle Lines - Speed Control System Modification
08S01-S1 Apr. 10, 2008

http://fordfires.com/ford_vehicle_fires/index.html

Mickey Mouse recall or not, it seems like this sort of "Federal" detail should have been known by someone at Chrysler prior to designing the system.

rlchv70, what guy is eluding to is that Ford has categorically had less recalls - especially of any significant size - since the 2004/2005 restructuring.
The 2005 Mustang was recall-free up until a couple months ago, and the recall itself was voluntary for a small detail.

Vehicles designed, built, and/or developed before the big shake-up are as susceptible to recalls as anything and their rate is definitely much higher for those earlier models.

Actually, many of the newest vehicles launched since 2005 have launched well, including the Taurus, Taurus X, Mustang, Flex, Edge, and others.

Certainly nobody said they were flawless, but I think it's a pretty defensible position to say that they have improved tremendously on their record, and they are probably doing the best of any domestic - if not any manufacturer at all - right now.

this actually is a worthwhile recall as far as im concerned. my g/fs mother parked her saturn in the drive way a few months ago only to wake up the next morning with it in the back woods smashed into a tree... she turned the car off and pulled the key out while it was in drive and it rolled and did 2200$ in damages and it wasnt covered by dealer either because "thats no possable"

OK.... lets see.

???? :confused::confused::confused:

Here are some recent ones:

08S06- Jun. 27, 2008
UPDATE: Full Bulletin: DEMONSTRATION / DELIVERY HOLD - PERFORM PRIOR TO VEHICLE DELIVERY: Safety Recall 08S06: Certain 2008 Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX Vehicles - Fuel Tank Inspection

142 MY 2008 EDGE AND LINCOLN MKK ALL WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES. THE FUEL TANK WELD FIXTURE MAY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO A CONTAMINANT DURING PRODUCTION WHICH COULD CAUSE A DIMPLE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE FUEL TANK AT A SPOT WELD.


08S05- Jun. 23, 2008
Safety Recall 08S05: Certain 2005 - 2006 F-150 and Mark LT Vehicles Equipped with 5.4L 3-Valve Engines - Brake Booster Vacuum Hose Replacement

THE BRAKE BOOSTER VACUUM SUPPLY HOSE ATTACHED TO THE INTAKE MANIFOLD FITTING MAY SWELL OVER TIME AND LOSE RETENTION FORCE.

08C04- May 23, 2008
UPDATE: Parts Information: DEMONSTRATION / DELIVERY HOLD – Compliance Recall 08C04: Certain 2008 F250 & F350 4X4 10,000 lbs and Under GVW, 156' Wheel Base Vehicles Equipped with a Two-Piece Drive Shaft - Fuel Tank Stopper Bracket Installation

FORD IS RECALLING 64,754 MY 2008 F-250 AND F-350 SINGLE REAR WHEEL, 4X4, 156 INCH WHEEL BASE PICK UP TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH A TWO PIECE DRIVE SHAFT FOR FAILING TO CONFORM TO THE FUEL SPILLAGE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301, “FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY.” DURING A 30 MPH FRONTAL IMPACT INTO A RIGID BARRIER, THE FUEL TANK CAN MOVE FORWARD AND CONTACT A FRAME CROSS MEMBER


08S04 Apr. 9, 2008
DEMONSTRATION / DELIVERY HOLD Safety Recall 08S04 - Certain 2008 Model Year Econoline E350 Vehicles - Driveshaft Inspection/Replacement
08C01_ Mar. 18, 2008

FORD IS RECALLING 3,331 MY 2008 E-350 VEHICLES BUILT WITH A 138 INCH WHEEL BASE. THE DRIVE SHAFT MAY HAVE BEEN MANUFACTURED WITH A SLIP YOKE THAT HAS CRACKS. THE EFFECT OF THE CRACKS ON FATIGUE PERFORMANCE IS VARIABLE, BUT ON SOME YOKES WITH CRACKS, THE PERFORMANCE IS REDUCED BELOW DESIGN SPECIFICATION.

DEMONSTRATION / DELIVERY HOLD - Compliance Recall 08C01: - Certain 2008 Model Year F-250 through F-550 Super Duty Vehicles Equipped with 40/20/40 Front Seat and Lumbar - Front Driver's Seat Back Inspection and Repair
08C02_ Mar. 14, 2008

FORD IS RECALLING 87,515 MY 2008 F250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 207, "SEATING SYSTEMS." SOME 40% SPLIT AND CAPTAIN'S CHAIR DRIVER'S SEATS, EQUIPPED WITH LUMBAR SUPPORTS, MAY HAVE IMPROPER WELDS AT THE JOINT OF THE SEAT BACK PIVOT BRACKET AND THE SEAT BACK FRAME.


SERVICE UPDATE #2 - DEMONSTRATION / DELIVERY HOLD - Compliance Recall 08C02: - Certain 2005 - 2008 Mustang Vehicles - Reprogram Restraint Control Module

FORD IS RECALLING 434,593 MY 2008 MUSTANG VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE NECK INJURY REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 208, "OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION," FOR AN UNBELTED 5TH PERCENTILE FEMALE SITTING IN THE PASSENGER SEAT WHILE IT IS IN THE FULL FORWARD POSITION....IF A SMALL FEMALE IN THE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT IS NOT WEARING THE SAFETY BELT, AND HAS THE SEAT IN THE FULL FORWARD POSITION, THERE MAY BE AN INCREASED POTENTIAL FOR A NECK INJURY.

Don't forget about this:

UPDATE: Supplement Announcement: Safety Recall 05S28 - Supplement #15: 1992-2004 Multiple Vehicle Lines - Speed Control System Modification
08S01-S1 Apr. 10, 2008

http://fordfires.com/ford_vehicle_fires/index.html

I have ignored all recalls that involved Ford vehicles made before 2004 because that is the point I refer to where Ford turned around and had no recalls. The recalls of recent years except the Econoline's slip yoke are either proceedual or very minor in nature.

I left that last one on because that is THE last major recall Ford has had. It involves pre-2004 vehicles. Actually, it involves Fords going back to 1992. That's that's 16 years ago. I ended up replacing the ignition switches on my SCs, and I haven't heard of mass extinction of homes or '92-04 Fords (total is probalbly about a dozen or 2 out of something like 20 million Fords assembled during those 16 years the recall covers. The lottery probably has better odds.

NOW.... about that website you use as a reference. It's garbage.

Fordfires.com is NOT a credible website if you are looking for fair and reasonable recall sites. It's a website that is run by the Ammon/Willis Law Firm. You know those lawyers you see on afternoon and late night TV that fish for specialized injuries or death due to a single product or situation? That's what these guys do.

Basically they use precident against a company to win lawsuits against them in the future. It's easy money because once burned (no pun intended) these companies are often more than eager to settle out of court because it's almost always cheaper than spending the money on a lawyer.

Ammon/Willis of Houston Texas specializes in automobile deaths and injuries. Thy use that Fordfires website to gain new clients.

Here's a nugget from that very same website regarding Mr Ammon:

He specializes in the prosecution of serious injury cases, such as burns, spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injuries and wrongful death suits against automobile and tire manufacturers, chemical plants and other corporate entities. He has taken on and successfully resolved significant cases against General Motors, Ford, Damiler, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Isuzu, Hyundai, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Bridgestone/Firestone, Kumho Tire, Takata, Exxon, Phillips 66, Yellow Freight and other corporate defendants. Since 1995, Rob has secured more than 50 separate verdicts or settlements in excess of one million dollars for his clients.

And, Mr Willis, also from that website:

In 1997, Mr. Willis was involved in one of the nation's first Firestone ATX Radial Tread / Belt Separation and Ford Explorer rollover cases which occurred in Texas. A products liability lawsuit was filed in 1998 against Ford and Firestone due to the Ford Explorer going out of control and rolling after the back left Firestone ATX radial tire's tread came off. After a long battle with Ford and Firestone a very significant confidential settlement was reached by all parties.On July 17, 2001 Mr. Willis was recognized as one of a very select group of products liability attorneys in the nation and was awarded the prestigious Steven J. Sharp Public Service Award for his contributions in investigating and gathering evidence pertaining to tire belt separation and vehicle rollovers in Firestone Tire and Ford Explorer Cases. The efforts by these selected attorneys and others helped lead to the largest recall in U.S. history. This award was presented to Mr. Willis by the President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

Point is that this website you reference isn't a "community service" website, or even a website created by someone who was a victim or even fed up with Ford. This website is a product liability trial lawyer website who has experience (and therfore familiarity) dealing with Ford, and therefore focuses on Ford.

Fact still stands that Ford of recent years (as pointed out since 2004) has essentially had no recalls. But I guess I'll clarafy that by saying the recalls they have had are far fewer and far and away less serious than anyone else on the US market.

An airbag control module that doesn't adjust for a very small female (5% of females according to the actual recall) with the seat all the way up is still alot less serious (it still keeps her from going through the windshield if she isn't wearing a seatbelt) than a minivan door that pops open, or a tailgate on a pickup that drops off or a frame that prematurely rusts out or a steering system that suddenly freezes or....

Fordfires.com is NOT a credible website if you are looking for fair and reasonable recall sites. It's a website that is run by the Ammon/Willis Law Firm. You know those lawyers you see on afternoon and late night TV that fish for specialized injuries or death due to a single product or situation? That's what these guys do.

I just found that website using a very quick google search. I used it because it lists details on the recall. I am in no way endorsing it.

An airbag control module that doesn't adjust for a very small female (5% of females according to the actual recall) with the seat all the way up is still alot less serious (it still keeps her from going through the windshield if she isn't wearing a seatbelt) than a minivan door that pops open, or a tailgate on a pickup that drops off or a frame that prematurely rusts out or a steering system that suddenly freezes or....

I'd say it's more serious than a "key code" being removed from the computer memory while the vehicle is not in park, though. :D

Fact still stands that Ford of recent years (as pointed out since 2004) has essentially had no recalls. But I guess I'll clarafy that by saying the recalls they have had are far fewer and far and away less serious than anyone else on the US market.

87,000 trucks for bad seat frames and 400,000 Mustangs for head restraints is a lot of vehicles.