Tag Archives: automobile problems

Investigation into Fire Hazards of Enel X Way USA’s JuiceBox Level 2 Residential EV Chargers

Posted on by

Enel X Way USA’s JuiceBox Level 2 residential EV chargersThe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has launched an investigation into potential fire hazards associated with Enel X Way USA’s JuiceBox Level 2 residential EV chargers. Prompted by several complaints received by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), this evaluation aims to determine the extent and safety implications of electrical arcing and thermal incidents reported by users of these chargers. This probe focuses on the potential for fire risks arising from electrical malfunctions and the company’s recent operational shutdown announcement.

Summary of Complaints Filed with ODI

ODI has received six Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs) concerning alleged incidents involving the JuiceBox Level 2 charger. These complaints raise serious concerns regarding potential fire hazards that may arise while charging electric vehicles at home. The following highlights from the complaints showcase the range of issues reported:

  1. Total Home Loss Due to Explosion: One complaint involves a significant incident where a vehicle owner claims that charging their EV with a JuiceBox led to an explosion in their garage. This catastrophic event resulted in a fire that destroyed the home entirely.
  2. Car Fire in Driveway: Another complaint describes an incident where a vehicle caught fire in the driveway while connected to a JuiceBox charger. The details of this incident underscore concerns about charger reliability and the potential for dangerous outcomes.
  3. Electrical Malfunctions and Circuit Breaker Issues: Four additional complaints describe issues with electrical malfunctions that caused circuit breakers to trip and charging cycles to be disrupted. These electrical disruptions may indicate underlying issues with the chargers’ compatibility or durability under varying conditions.

Enel X Way’s Operational Shutdown and Potential Impact on User Safety

In an unexpected development, Enel X Way North America announced its intention to cease operations in the United States and Canada by October 11, 2024. A notification was sent to JuiceBox owners on October 2, 2024, which was also posted on the company’s website. This cessation of operations could potentially impact several aspects of the product’s performance and user experience:

  • Software and App Support: As Enel X Way discontinues its North American presence, questions remain about the continuity of the charging app and supporting software. Given that many smart chargers rely on connected software for updates and safety monitoring, the lack of support could leave users with outdated or unsupported technology.
  • Customer Support and Warranty Services: The cessation of operations may also impact the company’s ability to provide customer support, particularly regarding ongoing technical issues, troubleshooting, or warranty claims for JuiceBox chargers.

ODI Preliminary Evaluation and Safety Scope

In response to these serious complaints, ODI has opened a Preliminary Evaluation to examine the safety and reliability of JuiceBox Level 2 chargers. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the scope, frequency, and potential hazards associated with these products. The investigation seeks to determine:

  • Risk of Fire and Explosion: By evaluating complaints of thermal events, such as the explosion in the garage and the driveway car fire, ODI aims to understand the risk factors and whether the JuiceBox charger’s design or operational faults are contributing factors.
  • Electrical Stability and Safety Consequences: ODI’s analysis will also delve into the frequency of electrical malfunctions and whether these events pose a risk of property damage, personal injury, or loss of life.
  • Impact of Software and Operational Changes: With the discontinuation of Enel X Way North America’s operations, ODI is concerned about the potential safety implications arising from the lack of app and software support. The investigation will evaluate if and how this operational change might exacerbate existing safety concerns or introduce new risks.

Affected Vehicles and Part Numbers

The ODI investigation includes a review of incidents involving various EV models that utilized the JuiceBox Level 2 charger. The vehicles associated with these complaints include:

  • Chevrolet Bolt EV (2018)
  • Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid (2018)
  • Hyundai Ioniq 5 (2022)
  • Hyundai Ioniq 6 (2023)

Additionally, the specific product part under scrutiny is the Enel X JuiceBox Level 2 Charger.

Steps for Consumers and Further Information

For EV owners who currently use the JuiceBox Level 2 charger, awareness of this investigation is crucial. Users are encouraged to follow any guidance issued by the NHTSA and consider consulting with licensed electricians to ensure proper installation and safe operation of their EV chargers.

GM Roof Rail Air Bag Inflator Defect

Posted on by

General Motors (GM) have identified a safety issue affecting certain Chevrolet and GMC vehicles. This issue involves a defect in the roof-rail airbag (RRAB) inflator, which could pose a serious risk to the safety of drivers and passengers. The defect may cause the inflator to malfunction, potentially resulting in the separation of the inflator’s end cap or a split in its sidewall. If this happens, the airbag system may not deploy as intended, increasing the risk of injury in the event of a crash or other incident.

Affected Vehicle Models

The following models are impacted by this recall due to the potential defect in the RRAB inflators:
2018 Chevrolet Silverado 1500
2018-2019 Chevrolet Silverado 2500
2018-2019 Chevrolet Silverado 3500
2018 GMC Sierra 1500
2018-2019 GMC Sierra 2500
2018-2019 GMC Sierra 3500

How the Issue Was Discovered

GM became aware of this problem in August 2024, after receiving reports of four incidents where RRAB inflators ruptured in vehicles from another manufacturer. These reports raised concerns about a possible defect in the inflator system, prompting GM to initiate its own investigation. During this investigation, GM found evidence of a similar incident involving a 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 2500, which was equipped with the same type of inflators.

In this particular case, the vehicle was parked and unoccupied when the RRAB inflator on the right side ruptured. Photos confirmed the inflator malfunctioned while the truck was idle, reinforcing concerns about the integrity of the RRAB system. GM is continuing its investigation to determine the exact cause of the failure.

Steps Taken by GM

On October 3, 2024, GM’s Safety Field Action Decision Authority (SFADA) determined that a safety recall was necessary. This recall affects vehicles that were built using RRAB inflators from the same production lot as the Chevrolet Silverado 2500 involved in the initial incident. As of now, GM has not received any further reports of similar incidents involving its vehicles.

What Owners Need to Know

To address this issue, GM dealers will replace the left and right roof-rail airbag modules in the affected vehicles. This recall is part of GM’s proactive efforts to ensure vehicle safety and prevent potential accidents resulting from defective inflators.

For reference, GM has assigned this recall the number N242474500, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has labeled it as campaign number 24V-560.

Ford And Lincoln Engine Intake Valves May Break

Posted on by

Ford Motor Company (Ford) have discovered a defect affecting certain 2021-2022 Bronco, F-150, Edge, Explorer, Lincoln Nautilus, and Lincoln Aviator vehicles equipped with either a 2.7L or 3.0L Nano EcoBoost engine. The engine intake valves may break while driving, which can result in engine failure and a loss of drive power.

The following vehicle models are affected by this recall:

2021-2022 Ford Bronco
2021-2022 Ford Edge
2021-2022 Ford Explorer
2021-2022 Ford F-150
2021-2022 Lincoln Aviator
2021-2022 Ford Bronco

In January 2022, an investigation was opened into certain 2021 Lincoln Aviator and Nautilus vehicles equipped with 2.7L and 3.0L Nano EcoBoost engines after 22 instances of engine failure were reported within three months of service. The issue involved left-hand engine intake valve fractures, which led to catastrophic engine damage and Loss of Motive Power (LOMP). A tear down analysis confirmed intake valve fractures in 251 engines from warranty repairs.

Ford traced the problem to intake valves exceeding the hardness specification due to faulty grinding processes by the supplier. The intake valve material was changed for vehicles produced after October 31, 2021, to improve robustness.

On May 5, 2022, Ford opened an internal investigation into early intake valve fractures, and on May 27, 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began its own investigation after receiving reports from Ford Bronco owners. NHTSA expanded the scope of the investigation in July 2022.

On September 29, 2023, NHTSA expanded their investigation to include all 2021 and 2022 Ford/Lincoln models with 2.7L and 3.0L engines. As of August 9, 2024, Ford reported 811 global warranty claims and 267 field reports related to fractured intake valves. On August 16, 2024, Ford’s Field Review Committee approved a field action to address the issue.

Dealers will perform an engine cycle test and replace the engine as necessary. Owner notification letters are expected to be mailed October 7, 2024. Ford’s number for this recall is 24S55 and the NHTSA campaign number is 24V-635.

Subaru EyeSight Collision Detection: Safety and Consumer Concerns

Posted on by

Subaru EyeSightSubaru’s EyeSight collision detection system is a significant advancement in automotive safety technology, offering drivers an extra layer of protection on the road. The technology works by utilizing a combination of cameras and sensors that detect vehicles ahead and objects surrounding the Subaru vehicle. If the system anticipates a potential collision, it intervenes by automatically reducing engine power, helping to mitigate the force of impact and potentially preventing accidents.

Which Subaru Cars Have EyeSight?

EyeSight technology is available across several models in Subaru’s lineup, including the Impreza, Outback, Legacy, Crosstrek, Ascent, Forester, and WRX. With its widespread adoption, many drivers have come to rely on EyeSight as a crucial safety feature, particularly in congested traffic or challenging driving conditions.

However, despite its touted benefits, Subaru EyeSight has not been without its share of problems and consumer complaints. In recent years, reports of issues with EyeSight technology have surfaced, prompting concerns among Subaru owners and leading to legal actions.

Problems and Consumer Complaints

A nationwide class-action lawsuit filed in New Jersey federal court highlighted serious allegations regarding defects in Subaru vehicles equipped with EyeSight driver assist technology. According to consumers, these defects pose significant safety risks, with complaints ranging from malfunctions in the lane assist function to problems with the automatic braking system. One recurring issue reported by drivers is the system’s tendency to engage without reason, causing the lane assist function to intervene unexpectedly. Such erratic behavior can lead to confusion and potentially hazardous driving situations, undermining the confidence that drivers place in the technology.

Another common complaint revolves around the automatic braking system, which is designed to intervene in emergencies to prevent collisions. However, some Subaru owners have reported instances where the system failed to activate when needed or, conversely, activated unnecessarily, leading to abrupt stops and potentially dangerous situations on the road.

“Eyesight Unavailable”

In addition to concerns about functionality, some drivers have encountered frustration with the system displaying an “Eyesight Unavailable” message. This message can appear for various reasons, including camera obstructions, adverse weather conditions, or technical malfunctions. While the intention behind this message is to ensure the system’s reliability, its occurrence can leave drivers feeling vulnerable and uncertain about their vehicle’s safety features.

Despite the challenges and consumer complaints surrounding Subaru EyeSight, it’s essential to recognize the ongoing efforts by Subaru and other automakers to enhance the safety and reliability of their advanced driver assistance systems. As technology continues to evolve, addressing these concerns and improving the functionality of collision detection systems will be paramount in ensuring the safety and confidence of drivers on the road.

Things You Should Know About Vehicles With Rebuilt Titles

Posted on by

Automobile Rebuild Tites

Vehicles with rebuilt titles in the United States represent a unique category in the automotive market. Understanding what a rebuilt title is, its implications, and the pros and cons of purchasing such vehicles is crucial for any potential buyer or current owner.

What is a Rebuilt Title?

A rebuilt title is assigned to a vehicle that was previously deemed a total loss by an insurance company due to extensive damage or theft and then repaired to a roadworthy condition. This title indicates that the vehicle has been restored after significant damage.

How a Vehicle Gets a Rebuilt Title

  1. Damage and Insurance Assessment: Initially, a vehicle is given a salvage title when it’s considered a total loss by an insurance company, typically due to severe damage, flood, fire, or theft.
  2. Repair and Restoration: The vehicle is then repaired, often by a private individual or a repair facility.
  3. Inspection: After repairs, the vehicle undergoes a state-mandated inspection to ensure it meets safety standards.
  4. Rebranding as Rebuilt: Once it passes inspection, the vehicle’s title is rebranded from salvage to rebuilt.

Identifying a Vehicle with a Rebuilt Title

The title document itself will clearly state if it is a rebuilt title. Additionally, vehicle history report services can provide this information based on the vehicle identification number (VIN).

Impact on Automobile Insurance

  • Limited Insurance Options: Many insurers are hesitant to cover rebuilt title cars or offer limited policies excluding collision and comprehensive coverage.
  • Higher Premiums: Those that do offer full coverage might charge significantly higher premiums due to the perceived higher risk.

Pros and Cons of Buying a Rebuilt Title Vehicle

Pros

  1. Documented Repair Work: Sellers of rebuilt title cars often provide detailed documentation of repairs, offering more insight into the vehicle’s condition than typical used car transactions.
  2. Significant Discounts: These vehicles are generally much cheaper, with potential discounts up to 50% compared to cars with clean titles.

Cons

  1. Safety Risks: There’s an inherent risk in the vehicle’s safety standards, as the extent and quality of repairs can vary.
  2. Limited Insurance Coverage: Difficulty in securing comprehensive insurance coverage is a significant drawback.
  3. Financing Challenges: Most major banks are reluctant to finance vehicles with rebuilt titles.
  4. Voided Warranty: Manufacturer warranties are typically voided once a vehicle is marked as salvage or rebuilt.
  5. Low Resale Value: These vehicles have a lower resale value and may be challenging to sell, as some dealerships avoid buying them.

Owning a vehicle with a rebuilt title can significantly impact the applicability and process of invoking the California Lemon Law. This law is designed to protect consumers who purchase or lease new vehicles with substantial manufacturing defects. However, when it comes to vehicles with rebuilt titles, the situation becomes more complex. Typically, these vehicles are excluded from coverage under the California Lemon Law because they are not new and have been extensively repaired after being deemed a total loss. The law primarily covers vehicles under the original manufacturer’s warranty, which is often voided in the case of a rebuilt title. Additionally, the history of significant damage and subsequent repairs makes it challenging to attribute any new defects directly to the manufacturer’s responsibility, a key criterion under the Lemon Law. As a result, owners of vehicles with rebuilt titles may find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to seek remedy under this law for any issues that arise with their vehicle.

Vehicles with rebuilt titles present a mixed bag of opportunities and challenges. While they offer an affordable option with potentially well-documented repair histories, the drawbacks in terms of safety, insurance, financing, warranty, and resale value are significant. It’s essential for buyers to weigh these factors carefully, conduct thorough research, and consider their willingness to accept the risks associated with a rebuilt title vehicle.

2020-2023 Ford Mustang No Low Brake Fluid Warning

Posted on by

brake light warningSome Mustang cars made between 2020 and 2023 have a problem with their brake fluid level sensor. This sensor doesn’t activate a warning light when the brake fluid is low. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for light vehicle brake systems.

Ford became aware of the problem in August 2023 when an issue pertaining to 2020-2023 model year Mustang brake fluid level warning systems was brought into Ford’s Critical Concern Review Group (CCRG) for review. They discovered that the problem lies with the Body Control Module (BCM), a part that manages the brake fluid sensor. This BCM should turn on the brake warning light if there’s a problem. In Mustangs made from 2018 to 2023, the brake fluid sensor is directly connected to the BCM. However, in the 2020 Mustang, they switched to a different BCM design, called “Gen1m,” which incorrectly looks for a message from the brake fluid sensor over a network (CAN) instead of the direct connection.

After investigating, Ford confirmed that this problem only affects Mustangs from 2020 to 2023. They also verified that the 2024 Mustang doesn’t have this issue because the brake system and BCM are set up correctly. The Brake Development team tested Mustangs from 2019 to 2024 and found that the 2020 to 2023 models fail to meet the requirements for warning about low brake fluid. However, these vehicles meet all other brake system warning lamp requirements.

Ford initially didn’t run certification tests on the 2020 to 2023 Mustangs because they thought the brake system was the same as in the 2018 model. They didn’t know that the BCM was incorrectly configured to use a network message.

As of September 12, 2023, Ford received 123 warranty claims related to a brake fluid loss on these vehicles, but there were no reports of the brake fluid level sensor not working.

To fix the problem, Ford dealers will update the software in the body control module. They plan to send out initial letters in December 2023 to notify owners about the safety issue and will send second letters when the solution is available. This recall is identified by Ford as number 23C35, and the NHTSA campaign number is 23V-727.

Jeep Cherokee Defects & Complaints

Posted on by

The Cherokee is a line of vehicles sold by Jeep, originally as a variant of the popular Wagoneer. The Cherokee has evolved from a full-size SUV to one of the first compact SUVs and eventually into its current form as a crossover SUV. Of all the fifth Generation Cherokee lineup, the 2014, 2015 and 2019 models have received the most complaints.

Common Jeep Cherokee and Grand Cherokee Problems include:

Alternator Failure 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee – Dimming headlights, accessory issues and a battery light warning are signs that your alternator may be dying. A bad alternator will drain your battery fast, so it will no longer be able to produce a spark to power the engine. Most of the time, replacing an alternator is relatively affordable, but a stall without warning could increase the risk of a crash.

Transmission Defect – There is a problem with the transmission on a number of newer Jeep Cherokee models. The transmission will unexpectedly shift into neutral, shift roughly or completely fail. Improper treatment of the halfshaft assembly, insufficient crimps in the transmission wire harness and software errors are the main causes depending on the model year.

Reduced Braking 2019 Jeep Cherokee – Insufficient coating of the rear brake-caliper pistons could cause gas pockets to form, reducing rear brake performance. According to the defect report, although brake function would remain, the stopping distances may be significantly increased.

Do you think your Jeep Cherokee or Jeep Grand Cherokee could be a LEMON?… Fill out the above form or call us now for a free case evaluation.

Top Jeep Cherokee & Jeep Grand Cherokee Complaints

Vehicle Recalls Complaints Top Complaints
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee 15 1398 Electrical, Transmission, Brakes
2014 Jeep Cherokee 11 1724 Transmission, Engine, Electrical
2015 Jeep Cherokee 9 1122 Transmission, Engine, Electrical
2019 Jeep Cherokee 9 355 Engine, Electrical, Transmission
2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee 6 618 Transmission, Electrical, Engine, Seats
2018 Jeep Cherokee 6 169 Electrical, Transmission, Engine
2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee 6 128 Electrical, Engine, Transmission
2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT 6 128 Electrical, Engine, Transmission
2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk 6 128 Electrical, Engine, Transmission
2016 Jeep Cherokee 6 591 Transmission, Engine, Electrical

2015 Cadillac Escalade Partial Airbag Deployment

Posted on by

Certain 2015 Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV automobile’s may not meet the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for occupant crash protection. The vehicles involved were manufactured between April 06, 2014 to May 13, 2014. GM’s recall number is 14220 and the NHTSA campaign number is 14V-259. Continue reading →