2003 Dodge RAM 3500 problems

What is wrong

Chrysler (FCA US LLC) is recalling certain model year 2003 Dodge Ram 1500, 2500, and 3500 trucks manufactured August 29, 2002, to July 25, 2003 to address a safety defect in the passenger side frontal air bag inflator which may produce excessive internal pressure causing the inflator to rupture upon deployment of the air bag. This recall addresses both the passenger side frontal air bags that were originally installed in the vehicles, as well as replacement air bags that may have been installed as replacement service parts. A replacement air bag may have been installed, as one example, if a vehicle had been in a crash necessitating the replacement of the passenger side frontal air bag.

Risk

In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the passenger’s frontal air bag, the inflator could rupture with metal fragments striking the vehicle occupants potentially resulting in serious injury or death.

Remedy

Owners are advised not to drive their vehicle until the recall repair is complete. Owners are advised not to drive their vehicles until the remedy is completed. Chrysler will notify owners, and dealers will replace the passenger frontal air bag, free of charge. The recall began on March 16, 2016. Owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 1‑800‑853‑1403. Chrysler's number for this recall is R26. Note: This recall partially supersedes recall 14V770.

Recall number 15V312000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Chrysler Group LLC (Chrysler) is recalling certain model year 2003-2008 Dodge RAM 2500 4x4 and 3500 4x4, model year 2007-2008 Dodge RAM 3500 4x2 Cab Chassis and model year 2006-2008 Dodge RAM 1500 Mega Cab 4x4 trucks manufactured February 12, 2002, through February 13, 2008. The left tie rod assembly may break.

Risk

A failure of the tie rod assembly may result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Chrysler notified owners and launched its recall campaign in January 2014. Owners may contact Chrysler at 1‑800‑247‑9753. Chrysler's recall campaign number is N62.

Recall number 13V528000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Chrysler is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 dodge ram 2500/3500 4x4, manufactured from february 14, 2008, through march 28, 2011; model year 2008-2011 dodge ram 3500 cab chassis 4x2, manufactured from february 14, 2008, through march 28, 2011; and model year 2008 dodge ram 1500 mega cab 4x4, manufactured from february 14, 2008, through august 15, 2008, because the left tie rod ball stud may fracture. This condition tends to occur during low speed parking lot type maneuvers when the customer is making a tight turn. Additionally, model year 2003-2008 dodge ram 2500/3500 vehicles may have received the affected tie rod assembly as a replacement part during normal service.

Risk

This condition could result in the potential loss of directional stability in the left hand front wheel, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the tie rod ends for relative orientation and replace the left outer tie rod as required and perform a front end toe alignment as needed. This service will be performed free of charge. The safety recall began on october 3, 2011. Owners may contact chrysler at 1‑800‑853‑1403.

Recall number 11V350000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain pickup trucks equipped with diesel engines and automatic transmissions, in an attempt to exit the vehicle quickly without shutting off the engine and removing the key, the driver may inadvertently leave the automatic transmission shift control in indicated reverse.

Risk

This error is an unintended action that may result in a lack of transmission park pawl engagement and possibly delayed rearward movement of the vehicle.

Remedy

Dealers will perform a software modification to equip these vehicles with an out-of-park alarm. Owners may contact daimlerchrysler at 1‑800‑853‑1403.

Recall number 05V462000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Certain heavy duty pickup trucks, the aluminum wheels may have excessive porosity in the center hub area which can cause a wheel to crack.

Risk

This could cause a loss of vehicle control and result in a crash without warning.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the wheels and replace them if necessary. Owner notification is expected to begin june 17, 2003.. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact daimlerchrysler at 1‑800‑992‑1997.

Recall number 03V212000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Certain pickup trucks, equipped with cummins diesel engines and manual transmissions, may experience an elevated idle speed after extended cruise control use.

Risk

This can result in unintended acceleration and a reduction in braking effectiveness, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Dealers will reprogram the software in the cummins engine controller. Owner notification began on march 10, 2003. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact daimlerchrysler at 1‑800‑853‑1403.

Recall number 03V033000 · Recall details

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 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 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

EA21002

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.the federal safety agency.dot.gov/owners/Searchreference under the following identification numbers: 10537899, 10568848, 10585224, 10605877, 10651492

EA15001

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 the federal safety agency. 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.

AQ14003

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.the federal safety agency.dot.gov/owners/Searchreference under the following identification numbers: 10537899, 10568848, 10585224, 10605877, 10651492

PE14016

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 the federal safety agency, daimlerchrysler corporation (dcc) will conduct a safety recall (the federal safety agency 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.

EA04025

There have been 50 complaints to odi and daimlerchrysler alleging incidents of reverse powered rollaway in subject vehicles that were parked with the engine running and the parking brake disengaged.the incidents are alleged to have resulted in 42 crashes and 3 injuries. According to daimlerchrysler, incident vehicle inspections have not identified any misadjusted or broken parts.a typical incident is believed to involve the following set of conditions:(1) with the vehicle on a relatively level surface, an attempted shift into park inadvertently places the transmission in a position between the reverse and park gear detents; (2) the driver exits the vehicle with the key in the ignition, the engine running, and the parking brake disengaged; and (3) after some delay, the vehicle begins traveling rearward.in prior investigations of other daimlerchrysler products, reverse motion was found to result from a gradual pressurization of the reverse circuit (hydraulic reverse). Daimlerchrysler attributes the incidents to operator error in using a system that functioned as designed.according to daimlerchrysler, the alleged defect cannot occur if the driver:(1) shifts fully into park as indicated by end of shifter travel slam, the forward throw of the shift lever, and/or the illumination of the park indication in the prndl display; (2) removes the key from the ignition; (3) turns the engine off; or (4) engages the parking brake. The subject vehicles are equipped with:(1) daimlerchrysler's re-specific transmissions that have been the subject of two previous odi reverse powered rollaway investigations (ea96-006 & ea01-017); and (2) a column mounted shift mechanism with an electronic gear position indicator (prndl) that is located in the dash display directly forward of the steering wheel.two peer populations of dodge ram pickup trucks were analyzed for comparison with the subject vehicles:(1) my 2001-02 ram 2500/3500 pickup trucks equipped with similar transmissions, but a different shifter with a mechanical prndl; and (2) my 2003-04 ram 1500 pickup trucks equipped with the same shifter as the subject vehicles but different transmissions.the complaint rate in the subject vehicles is significantly higher than in the two peer populations.this investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis.

PE04039