2012 Jeep Liberty airbags problems

What is wrong

Chrysler is recalling certain model year 2011-2013 Sebring and 200 vehicles manufactured June 28, 2011, through December 13, 2012; model year 2011-2013 Dodge Avenger vehicles manufactured June 25, 2011, through January 14, 2013; model year 2011-2012 Dodge Nitro vehicles manufactured June 17, 2011, through December 15, 2011; and model year 2011-2012 Jeep Liberty vehicles manufactured June 17, 2011, through August 15, 2012. Electrical over-stress of a resistor in the occupant restraint control module may lead to the non-deployment of the active head restraints during a rear impact collision.

Risk

In the event of a crash necessitating the deployment of the active head restraints , their non-deployment could increase the risk of injury.

Remedy

Chrysler will notify owners, and dealers will flash the Totally Integrated Power Module (TIPM) or replace the occupant restraint control module, as needed, free of charge. The recall began on November 19, 2013. Owners may contact Chrysler at 1‑800‑247‑9753. Chrysler's recall campaign number is N38.

Recall number 13V282000 · 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 this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect. During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications.  The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V‑668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU.  In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment. FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle.  Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW. These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes. An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time.  In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU. This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners.  Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW. The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation. The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage. There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation. The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU. If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC. Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC. All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled. In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V‑668, 18E-043, 18V‑137, 18V‑363, and 20V‑024. With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by the federal safety agency that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

EA19001

The Office of Defects Investigation opened this Preliminary Evaluation to investigate VOQ complaints alleging a failure of the Occupant Restraint Controller (ORC) module in model year (MY) 2012 Jeep Liberty.The purpose of the investigation was to understand Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints stating that the air bag warning light remained illuminated while the vehicle was in operation.In many cases the warning light issue was reportedly corrected by a replacement of the ORC module. In 2013 FCA issued the federal safety agency safety recall 13V282 to address ORC module failures caused by an electrical over stress (EOS) condition that damaged an internal resistor.The failure lead to non-deployment of the active head restraints in rear impact crashes of sufficient severity to require deployment.This condition would also result in illumination of the air bag warning light and set a B2208 diagnostic trouble code (DTC).Recall 13V282 involved two different remedies based on the model year and model of the recalled vehicle.Some models were repaired by replacing the ORC with an updated unit.However the subject vehicles of this investigation, which made up the largest population in the recall, received a software update to the Totally Integrated Power Module (TIPM), another electronic device that is involved in powering of the ORC. After the investigation was opened, FCA began collecting failed subject vehicle ORC modules so they could be analyzed for failure causation.From June 2017 to August 2017 FCA obtained 13 ORC modules and analyzed 10 of them.FCA determined 9 contained evidence of the resistor over stress condition.Of that group, 7 had experienced resistor failures prior to the TIPM being re-flashed under the recall action.In these cases, replacement of the ORC module would have been the only effective repair to extinguish the air bag warning lamp.This observation correlates well with VOQ complaints ODI received from consumers who experienced an airbag warning light illuminated when they presented their vehicle in for the original 13V282 repair.Many of these consumers were told the TIPM re-flash did not fix the warning light issue, and that their ORC module needed to be replaced (at the consumer's expense). ODI notes that 8 of the 10 analyzed ORCs displaying the resistor EOS condition also had DTC B1BCF stored.This code is related to the detection of a possible internal fault with a rollover sensor.FCA conducted additional testing and concluded that the presence of the resistor failure caused the subsequent setting of the this DTC. On October 4, 2017 FCA decided to conduct a safety recall to replace the subject vehicle ORC modules with a redesigned device.FCA submitted the defect information report to the agency on October 10, 2017. See the federal safety agency 17V640 for further details.Accordingly the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at under the following ID numbers: 10994134, 10994095, 10993838, 10993675, 10993482, 10991764, 10985011, 10984531, 10980350, 10970003, 10969021, 10957076, 10948802, 10945162, 10938664, 10928226, 10917300, 10904332, 10896571, 10893915, 10888324, 10887727, 10865180, 10862586, 10860359, 10853737, 10850921, 10850366, 10837723, 10837086, 10816784, 10816174, 10810454, 10787829, 10778572, 10766688, 10761468, 10761189, 10747749, 10746608, 10744774, 10736037, 10730658, 10717657, 10706097, 10684125, 10681813, 10652841, 10648367, 10641248, 10622487, 10619379, 10618765, 10617657, 10614874, 10608301, 10605955, 11041327, 11047850, 11030130, 11012891, 11024995, 11051267, 11012170

PE17003