2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee Problems & Defect Complaints

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE21-021 on October 14, 2021, to investigate incidents alleging a stall/loss of motive power as a result of high-pressure fuel pump failures in certain model year (MY) 2019-2020 Ram 2500, 3500, 4500, and 5500 heavy duty trucks equipped with 6.7L Cummins turbodiesel engines. During the investigation, ODI sought to determine if the related defect allegation was limited in scope to the recalled population. After review of information request response materials from both FCA and BMW, NHTSA determined that sufficient information to identify a comprehensive recall population could not be produced by FCA and BMW.During the investigation FCA filed recalls 22V406, 22E048, 22V767, and 22E087 which include vehicles not identified in the initial subject population by ODI. ODI also received recall 21V586, involving loss of motive power due to failed CP4 fuel pumps on certain BMW manufactured vehicles. An information request letter response received from BMW indicated that failed pumps on their vehicles were caused by an interaction between pump internal components and US market diesel fuel, leading to increased slip and eventual particle-generating wear surface. Additional work will be done to identify whether a similar root cause is associated with the FCA recalled population and if similar wear dynamics occur on pumps supplied to vehicle manufacturers other than those included in the recalled population.ODI has upgraded this investigation to an EA in order to 1) determine engineering specifications of internal pump components that are correlated with pump failure leading to loss of motive power or other safety related hazards, 2) identify vehicle populations equipped with alleged defective pump variants, 3) assess if vehicles equipped with alleged defective pump variants result in an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and 4) gather and review any other relevant information related to high pressure fuel pump failure associated with the subject populations of recalls 21V586, 21V880, 21E094, 22V406, 22E048, 22V767, and 22E087.Review of the above information will allow NHTSA to confirm root cause and recall remedy viability, and identify and evaluate vehicle populations equipped with pump components that may pose an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID using the following complaint identification numbers: 11257550, 11351441, 11361603, 11361616, 11365300, 11365426, 11365858, 11366401, 11372337, 11373793, 11374797, 11376793, 11377871, 11378173, 11384377, 11386063, 11387018, 11399710, 11402550, 11415339, 11418868, 11418870, 11427075, 11434276, 11436807, 11437226, 11437249, 11437273, 11437292, 11437294, 11437394, 11437399, 11437403, 11437405, 11437423, 11437528, 11437565, 11437579, 11437580, 11437590, 11437679, 11437744, 11437781, 11437842, 11437993, 11438006, 11438008, 11438121, 11438138, 11438155, 11438392, 11438629, 11439359, 11439879, 11440397, 11443030, 11446542, 11448163, 11453556, 11458918, 11460558, 11469337

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 this Preliminary Evaluation to investigate complaints alleging improper retraction of the front seat belts (driver or passenger) due to the plastic guide of the D-ring cracking in model year (MY) 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles. The purpose of the investigation was to understand the scope, frequency and safety related consequence of the alleged defect. The subject condition occurs when the plastic material encapsulating the metal substructure of the front seat belt, B-pillar mounted D-ring cracks. The structural integrity of the D-ring remains intact; however, cracking of the plastic material pinches the webbing at the D-ring, thereby preventing it from properly retracting, and leaving the belt loose on the occupant. In addition to the detectability of the loose belt, the cracks in the plastic guide are also apparent by visual inspection, and many reports indicate the webbing can be manually fed back into the B-pillar/retractor to improve seat belt fit. ODI review of the available data has not identified any injuries attributable to this failure.In its November 6, 2019 response to ODI's September 8, 2019 information request letter, which was scoped to include MY 2013 to 2015 Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango vehicles, FCA providedinformation (portions of which were submitted with a request for confidentiality) detailing several material and process changes involved in the production of the subject D-ring. Based on these changes, FCA sub-divided certain production periods into population groups representing different design levels of the D-ring. FCA's response also confirmed the same D-rings were used in Dodge Durango front seat belts. ODI notes that installation of seat belts during vehicle production involves highly controlled processes, in comparison to field service, which ensures all mechanical and electrical connections are properly secured.ODI analyzed complaints submitted directly to the agency and complaint data received from FCA. During this review, ODI identified elevated failure rates for Grand Cherokee and Durango vehicles produced from mid-June 2013 through July 2015 when compared to vehicles produced both prior to and after this period. Additionally, review of FCA warranty data indicated a similar pattern of elevated warranty claims in the suspect July 2013-July 2015 period. The primary factors for the failure rate differences appear to be a D-ring material change (from nylon to a Celcon plastic) starting in mid-June 2013 and a subsequent change (to a Delrin material) in August 2015, however other production changes occurred during the suspect period, as discussed in greater detail in FCA's November 2019 response. ODI's analysis of the various data sources showed vehicles produced in the suspect period experienced failure rates approximately 2 to 4 times higher, depending on the data source and production period evaluated. However the analysis also indicated a declining failure trend.Given the detectability of the condition, the failure frequency combined with a currently declining failure trend, and lack of injuries attributable to this condition despite significant time in service, ODI is closing this Preliminary Evaluation without further action. The closing of the investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a defect does not exist, and NHTSA will take further action if warranted by future circumstances.In the course of the investigation, FCA has informed the agency of its intention to offer an extended warranty for Grand Cherokee and Durango vehicles built during the suspect period. See the PE19-011 document repository at NHTSA.gov fo

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE19014 on September 9, 2019, to investigate 128 consumer complaints alleging that the Active Head Rest (AHR) inadvertently deployed without the occurrence of a crash or other rear impact event in model year (MY) 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango vehicles.When ODI opened the investigation, ODI was aware of thirteen alleged injuries.A small number of Early Warning Reports identified driver and/or passenger front seat AHR inadvertent deployments without a rear impact event.Reported safety consequences resulting from the AHR deployments include concussions, headaches, soft tissue injuries, disorientation, nausea, vomiting and/or loss of vehicle control as a result of being surprised and distracted by being struck in the head by the inadvertent AHR deployment. On September 24, 2019, ODI sent an Information Request (IR) letter to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA).ODI requested certain detailed information from FCA related to the following subject vehicles: MY 2010-2014 Dodge Avenger 200, MY 2010-2014 Dodge Calber, MY 2010-2014 Chrysler Sebring, MY 2013-2015 Ram Tradesman, MY 2012 Ram Van, MY 2010-2019 Dodge Grand Caravan, MY 2010-2016 Chrysler Town and Country, MY 2010-2017 Jeep Compass, MY 2011-2020 Dodge Durango, MY 2011-2020 Jeep Grand Cherokee, MY 2010-2019 Dodge Journey, MY 2010-2012 Jeep Liberty, MY 2010-2011 Jeep Nitro, and MY 2010-2011 Jeep Patriot vehicles.On December 2, 2019, ODI received a response from FCA that included vehicle production data, consumer complaints, field reports, warranty claims, manufacturer actions, production changes, and other data related to the alleged defect from the start of production (2010) through September 24, 2019.On January 27, 2020, ODI received an update to the December 2, 2019, IR response from FCA.On September 22, 2020, ODI requested additional subject vehicle AHR information from FCA.ODI received FCA's response on October 21, 2020.ODI subsequently received an update to FCA's October 21, 2020, response on February 16, 2021.During the investigation, ODI requested updates to certain IR questions on two occasions.FCA provided updates to question #2 on March 5, 2021, and questions #2 and #5 on May 26, 2023. FCA’s IR response data identified approximately 7.5 million subject vehicles (with approximately 15 million AHR assemblies).Due to the large number of vehicles and failure reports, ODI focused its analysis on the FCA vehicle model with the highest failure rate to represent the worst-case scenario.For this purpose, ODI focused on MY 2012-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles for its analysis.This population includes 710,890 vehicles that FCA manufactured between August 19, 2011, and August 8, 2015.ODI identified 2,839 alleged AHR failures within this limited population.ODI identified 263 alleged injuries that were caused by AHR failures in MY 2012-2015 Grand Cherokees vehicles.Of these alleged injuries, ODI categorized them as eighty-two (82) soft tissue (neck/whiplash, bruise) injuries, four (4) concussions, fifty-nine (59) headaches, and one hundred eighteen (118) without a specific injury description.Although complainants have alleged injuries, ODI has been unable to obtain evidence to substantiate or validate any injuries where medical treatment was required.Consumer outreach was conducted by ODI, where sixty-three (63) FCA complainants with alleged injuries were contacted.Twelve of the sixty-three FCA consumers responded and were interviewed by ODI.ODI requested medical records, however, only one response was provided. Attorneys representing the responding complainant provided a synopsis that indicated they had experienced prior neck-related injuries dating to the mid-1990s.ODI also contacted one hundred (100) consumers who submitted Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQ) in an attempt to validate alleged injuries. Despite the efforts of ODI, the office has been unsuccessful at obtaining substantive documentation/evidence supporting complaints that allege serious injuries (where pre-existing medical conditions did not already exist). In addition to the low severity of alleged injuries caused by AHR deployments, there have been eleven alleged crashes and two alleged lane departures within the entire subject vehicle population that has been in the field up to sixteen years (with over 8,500 AHR inadvertent deployments).ODI was not able to validate that the alleged crashes were the result of inadvertent head rest deployments, and the crashes were minor in nature. ODI has conducted a thorough investigation of the alleged safety defect and with up to sixteen years of exposure for some vehicles and over 8,500 inadvertent AHR deployments, no serious crashes or injuries could be validated in the sub-population of focus.The lack of serious injuries validated by ODI with such large period of field exposure is consistent with thework done by NHTSA’s Human Injury Research Division and the Biodynamic Research Corporation, which support that an inadvertent AHR deployment is not likely to cause serious injury.In addition to the low risk of injury, FCA released an extended warranty program that covers inadvertent AHR deployment for ten years / unlimited mileage from the vehicle's in-service date. PE19014 is closed with the FCA extended warranty program.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist, and the Agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by new circumstances. To review a complete closing summary, please the attached closing report. To review the ODI reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.

On April 22, 2016, Fiat Chrysler Automotive US LLC, (FCA) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a defect that could result in unattended vehicle rollaway with the engine running in approximately 811,586 model year (MY) 2012 to 2014 Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 vehicles and MY 2014 to 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles equipped with 8-speed transmissions and a monostable gear selector (NHTSA Recall #16V-240, FCA Recall #S27). According to FCA's DIR, The existing strategies built into these vehicles to deter drivers from exiting the vehicle after failing to put the transmission into PARK have not stopped some from doing so. Drivers erroneously concluding that their vehicle's transmission is in the PARK position may be struck by the vehicle and injured if they attempt to get out of the vehicle while the engine is running and the parking brake is not engaged.The vehicles recalled by FCA are equipped with Monostable electronic (shift-by-wire) gearshift assemblies supplied by ZF Group (see Figure 1).The subject Monostable shifter has a single neutral position that it snaps back to when the driver releases the shift knob.Although the Monostable gearshift has the familiar appearance of a conventional console mechanical gearshift assembly, it has an unfamiliar movement that does not provide the tactile or visual feedback that drivers are accustomed to receiving from conventional shifters.Consequently, the driver must take additional time to verify that the desired gear position was achieved by checking the PRNDL display on the shift knob or the Electronic Vehicle Information Center (EVIC) display.

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE15-030 on August 20, 2015,to investigate 14 complaints alleging incidents of rollaway after intended shifts to Park in Model Year (MY) 2014 and 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokees vehicles. The MY 2014-2015 Grand Cherokee vehicles are equipped with Monostable electronic (E-shift) gearshift assemblies supplied by ZF Group (ZF). The E-shift system operates electronically and the gear requested by the driver is transmitted from the shifter via the CAN Bus to the Transmission Control Module which makes the requested shift. The Monostable gearshift does not move into a detent but springs back to a centered/neutral position after the driver selects a gear and releases the shifter. A button on the shift knob must be depressed to shift out of Park, shift out of Neutral, and to shift from Drive to Reverse or Park.The gear selected is shown on a display in the dash and illuminated letters on the shifter. If the driver's door is opened when the gearshift is not in Park, a chime sounds and a message is displayed on the instrument panel to warn the driver.In addition, the engine Start/Stop push-button control logic does not permit normal engine shut-off when the transmission is not in Park. This logic may provide feedback to drivers who attempt to turn the engine off when the transmission is not in Park. However, this function does not protect drivers who intentionally leave the engine running or drivers who do not recognize that the engine is still running.NHTSA testing during PE15-030 indicates that operation of the Monostable shifter is not intuitive and provides poor tactile and visual feedback to the driver, increasing the potential for unintended gear selection.ODI?s analysis of the PE15-030 complaint and field report data identified 306 incidents of vehicle rollaway followingintended shifts to Park in the 2014-2015 Grand Cherokee. These resulted in 117 alleged crashes. Twenty-eight of the crashes reportedly caused injuries, including 3 with a fractured pelvis and 4 others requiring some degree of hospitalization (a ruptured bladder, fractured kneecap, broken ribs, damaged to right leg). Other injuries include reports of a broken nose, facial lacerations requiring stitches, sprained knees, severe bruising, and trauma to legs.An Engineering Analysis (EA16-002) has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect. The Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs) associated with the closing of this Preliminary Evaluation are:10823099, 10822939, 10822442, 10820488, 10817252, 10810551, 10810051, 10809691, 10809024, 10807839, 10807416, 10794318, 10787947, 10787576, 10785790, 10783597, 10778854, 10775391, 10767488, 10766494, 10763333, 10763284, 10763082, 10762457, 10761498, 10760980, 10760729, 10760702, 10760081, 10759979, 10759669, 10759622, 10759568, 10759548, 10759533, 10759287, 10759278, 10759198, 10759186, 10759157, 10759131, 10759102, 10759082, 10759066, 10759047, 10759046, 10733158, 10730952, 10716526, 10711893, 10683556, 10679497, 10676998, 10668651, 10662619, 10662308, 10631167, 10605865, 10583366, 10567538, 10555901, and 10537653.

On July 23, 2015, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) launched Safety Recall 15V-461 to remedy security vulnerabilities in approximately 1.4 million model year (MY) 2013 through 2015 vehicles equipped with Uconnect head units (HU) 8.4A (RA3 radio) and 8.4AN (RA4 radio) manufactured by Harman International.On July 24, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Recall Query, RQ 15-004, to investigate HU security vulnerabilities and remedy effectiveness in the recalled population and to determine whether similar units have been supplied for use in other FCA vehicles.In an August 11, 2015 letter, FCA submitted a second Part 573 safety recall report expanding the scope of the Uconnect RA4 model radio to include additional 7,810 MY 2015 Jeep Renegade vehicles manufactured from September 18, 2014 through June 25, 2015 (Recall 15V-508).Scope analysis indicated that Uconnect radios installed in FCA vehicles not included in recalls 15V-461 or 15V-508 (subject recalls) are not equipped with built-in cellular access or short range wireless communication features and, thus, do not contain the security vulnerabilities addressed by the subject recalls. SUBJECT VEHICLES: MY2014 through 2015 Dodge Durango, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Cherokee sport utility vehicles; MY2013 through 2015 Ram 1500, 2500, 3500 and 4500/5500 pickup trucks; MY2013 through 2015 Dodge Viper vehicles; and MY2015 Chrysler 200, 300, Jeep Renegade, Dodge Charger and Challenger vehicles.According to FCA, long and short range wireless vulnerabilities identified in the recalled vehicles could allow unauthorized third-party access to, and manipulation of, networked vehicle control systems.Successful exploitation of the vulnerabilities, coupled with reverse engineering of networked microprocessor control modules, could result in unauthorized manipulation of vehicle control systems. This unauthorized manipulation of vehicle controls and systems could expose the driver, vehicle occupants or other highway users to an increased risk of injury.FCA and its network provider, Sprint, conducted a nationwide campaign to block access to a radio communications port that was unintentionally left open.On July 27, 2015, short range wireless vulnerabilities were also blocked.Finally, third party security evaluation and regression testing identified vulnerabilities that were either remedied by Sprint or through updates to the FCA Uconnect software.ODI identified a total of 30 complaints or field reports on unique vehicles submitted by FCA (29) or received by NHTSA (1) alleging incidents of theft from a vehicle or anomalous performance that the owner alleged were caused by, or may have been caused by, remote hacking.Twenty-six (87%) of these reports were submitted after a magazine article was published on July 21, 2015, describing the remote hacking of an FCA vehicle by researchers who were able to affect the operation of various vehicle control systems, including the service brakes, steering, throttle and ignition.Most of the complaints involved vehicle systems that were not safety critical (e.g., complaints related to radio, navigation system, or air-conditioning control) and did not affect vehicle control.Three complaints reported engine stalls.One owner reported sudden unintended acceleration allegedly related to hacking.None of the complaints or field reports reviewed involved the steering and braking vehicle control effects demonstrated by the research hackers prior to the recall.There were no confirmed incidents of hacking in any of the records reviewed by ODI.The remedies completed by Sprint and FCA appear to have eliminated vulnerabilities that mi

On June 1, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE15-021 to investigate 9 complaints alleging incidents of unintended braking in model year (MY) 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles, including 2 alleging incidents of full ABS braking.ODI expanded the scope to include MY 2015 Grand Cherokee vehicles and identified a total of 176 incidents in complaints provided by FCA or submitted to ODI by consumers.ODI conducted the following work to assess the alleged defect in the subject vehicles:1) evaluated the design of the subject Forward Collision Warning (FCW) system, including the maximum braking authority during automated braking; 2) analyzed the frequency and severity of field incidents of unintended braking; 3) analyzed warranty data for evidence of system faults that may be related to the alleged defect; and 4) reviewed the performance of the subject system in testing conducted as part of NHTSA?s 2014 Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) test program.ODI?s analysis found that the maximum brake activations that can be commanded by the subject system are limited in both braking force and duration.The system is not capable of achieving full ABS braking, as alleged in some complaints, unless driver brake application triggers the Advanced Brake Assist (ABA) mode.Analysis of field data found that unintended braking events occur randomly for a variety of causes and are not driven by any single environmental factor, traffic condition, or vehicle fault.The incidents involve short duration moderate braking events with minimal changes in vehicle speed.None of the incidents resulted in crash or injuries.The subject vehicles performed as well or better than peer vehicles in testing conducted as part of NHTSA?s AEB test program.This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that a safety related defect does not exist. For additional information, see the closing resume appendix and the investigation file for PE15-021.