[Eric L.]

47.22%

With all due respect, any use of the "47.22%" figure is irresponsible and shows a lack of understanding of statistics and research design. When NHTSA talks about "population," they're referring to the total number of Muranos sold, not a subset of Muranos sold. When we apply that term to this forum, it refers to the total number of members of the forum, not some subset of people who responded to a poll. If you're going to compare your poll to the statistics in the NHTSA document, then you have to compare population to population, not sample to population. That means that the denominators are the total number of Muranos sold and the total number of members on the forum, and the respective numerators are the number of failures reported to NHTSA and the number of failures reported on the forum.

You can persist with the "47%" figure if you want, but it's a figure without a shred of credibility. And when the numbers that you use have no credibility, neither does your argument. I would hate to see what you've worked so hard to achieve go down the drain because of the faulty use of statistics.

zofsuvs did say that number was unrealistically high.

Truth be told, the percentage of failures is probably higher than 1.3% or whatever NHTSA report says.

 

[zofsuvs]

Jeff, here's what you said...

The 1.3% failure rate isn't all that different from the results of the poll on this site. The poll shows 102 reported failures out of 2955 members, which is 3.45%. However, 1.3% is probably a bit low, since that reflects only warranty claims and does not reflect how many alternators were replaced out of warranty.

Jeff

Here's what I said...

Actually, the poll shows 102 reported failures out of 216 responses, not 2955. That comes to 47.22%.

Only 216 people have actually participated in the poll, which is higher than any poll on this forum. Using the 2955 number would suggest that some 2700 members are active, know about the poll, and have chosen not to participate in the poll because they have not had an alternator failure. Based on how many people I see actually posting on this forum, I don't think that is the case.

But I have to assume that the 47% number is way too high as the poll is presumably biased in attracting people who have had alternator failures. So it's very difficult to use the poll as a real gauge. When you compare the Alternator Failure Poll to the Failed CVT Poll, the percentage is much higher for alternators. Seems that might be telling us something at least.

The whole problem with poll numbers has been discussed on the "Alternator Failure Poll" thread. The only solution I can think of is to have a different kind of poll which would allow for multiple questions to avoid bias related to just one question currently being allowed in a poll.

Until then, I'm just trying to use a "common sense" approach. Is it realistic that so many failures (over 160 so far at F.A. and here) would be reported by members if the actual percentage is very low? (Keep in mind how many people actually actively participate on these forums.) I'm doubting that, but that's just my opinion.

I stand by my post.

The numbers Nissan gave to the DOT are warranty claims on all Muranos sold during a specific period. The 102 reported failures here are responses to a poll. You can't draw a comparable percentage from the poll because it's a poll. 102 people responded that they had alternator failures. 114 responded that they did not. You can't conclude from the poll that all other members in this forum have not had alternator failures. They did not vote, therefore we simply do not know.

The "47%" is the result of the poll. I never said there is a 47% failure rate worldwide. In fact, I said that the poll result is probably "way too high". Read my whole post. The number may well be only about 1% or so if the Nissan numbers are right. And those are the best numbers we have to work with right now. But the poll is just a poll. And whether we like it or not, the result is currently a 47% reported failure rate. It may not be representative of the general population, but it is a real number.

And, no, it's not my poll, it's everyone's poll who chooses to participate in it. I didn't start the poll, but I commend the person who did for helping bring this issue to the forefront. Perhaps it's made a difference in getting the NHTSA's attention as well.

I have nothing to lose by discussing the poll or the alternator issue, and hope you and others will continue to do so as well. The more discussion on it the better. That's why we're raising the topic to begin with.

 

[dmacfarl]

Alternator Investigation

Hi,

Does any or all of this discussion apply to 2005 Muranos ? I have 2005 AWD SL here in Calgary (with ~4500km on it ) and the last thing I need is a dead Murano on the middle of winter at -40C !!

Duncan

 

[zofsuvs]

There has been only one reported alternator failure in a 2005 Murano on this forum so far. It was at 8900 mi. I might have expected a few more by now if there was a similar problem to the 2003/2004's. It's too early to tell, but personally I'm being cautiously optimistic.

 

[hasaanbhutta]

ok guys,
here is the email i got from NHTSA, i am just pasting the text of the email w/o the contact info.

I must say i am really impressed by NHTSA.
great job guys, at least someone is out there to listen to our cries


Dear Mr. Bhutta,
We here at the Office of Defects Investigation at the U.S. Department of Transportation recieved a complaint that you put in about your 2003 Nissan Murano a while back. We have an open investigation on the 2003-2004 Nissan Muranos, specifically dealing with alternator failure and vehicle stalling. Please feel free to call me at xxx.yyy.zzzz. If you are too busy to call me, please answer the following questions about your particular alternator failure incident. Thank you very much.

Questions:

1) How long and at what speed were you driving when the vehicle lost power?

2) What time of day was it when the vehicle lost power?

3) What were the driving conditions when the vehicle lost power?

a) Were you on a highway or a side street?

b) Were you accelerating, decelerating, or driving at a steady- state?

c) Were you at a stop sign/light, making a lane change, or making a turn?

d) What were the road conditions (wet, dry, etc.)?

4) Had you had any problems with the vehicle previous to the incident?

5) Did you see any warning lights appear before and/or after the incident occurred?

If YES:
a) Which lights were lit?

b) What did you think the lights indicated?

c) Did you call dealer to determine what to do?

d) What did the dealer tell you to do?

6) After the vehicle lost power, was the driver able to continue driving the vehicle?

7) Did the vehicle eventually stall and come to a stop?

If YES:
a) How long did this occur after the warning lights were lit?

b) Did you lose power steering and/ or power brake assistance?

c) Where did the vehicle stop (in the road, on the shoulder, etc.)?

d) How far from home and/or a dealer were you when the vehicle stalled?

8) Were you able to restart the vehicle right after it stalled?

If YES: How long did it take (# of attempts and/ or time - ex: 3-4 times or 2-3 minutes)

9) Were you able to restart the vehicle after letting it sit awhile?

10)Was the vehicle towed?

If YES: How far was it towed?

11) Did you bring the vehicle to a dealer?

If YES:
a) What did the dealer say was wrong with the vehicle?

b) Did the dealer replace the alternator?

c) Has the vehicle had any problems since the repair?

12) Was there any property damage or damage to any vehicles?

13) Were there any crashes or injuries?

 

[zofsuvs]

I must say i am really impressed by NHTSA.
great job guys, at least someone is out there to listen to our cries

I agree. They really do seem to be polite and diligent in the investigation.

Thanks for posting the info.

 

[hasaanbhutta]

well, got a call yesterday from NHTSA Law dept as well.

apparently its not the issue with Mo's in north america, they said they have heard of this issue in Japan as well. which is really weired since i believe MO was introduced only this year in Japan and Europe and still they got issues with it.

 

[zofsuvs]

Can you tell us a little more about what they said? And any update on the investigation?

 

[9231]

Latest update - last night Nissan announced a full recall for all 2003-2004 Muranos and early production 2005 Muranos. Expect to see letters starting in August. For those that have had replacements done outside of warranty - DIG UP YOUR RECEIPTS - you should be able to get REIMBURSED. More details posted in a separate thread found
here

 

[zofsuvs]

Latest update - last night Nissan announced a full recall for all 2003-2004 Muranos and early production 2005 Muranos. Expect to see letters starting in August. For those that have had replacements done outside of warranty - DIG UP YOUR RECEIPTS - you should be able to get REIMBURSED. More details posted in a separate thread found
here

I'm not clear where you found this. Can you post a link to the source? Thanks.

 

[Eric L.]

I'm not clear where you found this. Can you post a link to the source? Thanks.

Even if there is no source listed, I've confirmed this with my NHTSA contact. Nissan filed a recall with NHTSA on July 12, 2005.

 

[9231]

The NHTSA regulations at 49 C.F.R. 573.6(c)(8) require that as part of a recall plan, manufacturers must also include provisions for reimbursing vehicle owners who have had to pay for repair of defects conducted within a reasonable time prior to the recall. I think that since the Murano recall encompasses all MY 2003-2004 vehicles, that anyone who has had to have an alternator replacement on their vehicle will be eligible for reimbursement.

If you're referring to the source of the announcement - I believe the recall experience thread has a similar notice posted from a dealer network bulletin here

 

[zofsuvs]

If you're referring to the source of the announcement - I believe the recall experience thread has a similar notice posted from a dealer network bulletin here

Okay. Shappy0869's response to the same request may apply here as well. Thanks for giving us the advance notice. It's much appreciated.

 

[zofsuvs]

In order to avoid duplication of discussion on the breaking news of the recall, I suggest people interested in this topic post at Jim C's Alternator Recall thread at link.

 

[zofsuvs]

Richie, would you be willing to have this thread become a regular "non-sticky" one? With the resolution of the NHTSA investigation and announcement of the recall, perhaps the focus should go to the newer Recall thread with the updated information. (The other previously "sticky" alternator threads, except for the failure warning notice, have already been "un-stuck".)

Jaak, can we "un-stick" my "Your Vote Counts - Please Vote" in the General Discussions section as well? (I'd post this request there but the thread's locked.) Thanks.

 

[Eric L.]

Richie, would you be willing to have this thread become a regular "non-sticky" one? With the resolution of the NHTSA investigation and announcement of the recall, perhaps the focus should go to the newer Recall thread with the updated information. (The other previously "sticky" alternator threads, except for the failure warning notice, have already been "un-stuck".)

Jaak, can we "un-stick" my "Your Vote Counts - Please Vote" in the General Discussions section as well? (I'd post this request there but the thread's locked.) Thanks.

I'll unstick the "vote" thread. I'll wait for the concensus for an action on this thread though.

 

[zofsuvs]

Thanks Eric.

 

[Richie]

Richie, would you be willing to have this thread become a regular "non-sticky" one? With the resolution of the NHTSA investigation and announcement of the recall, perhaps the focus should go to the newer Recall thread with the updated information. (The other previously "sticky" alternator threads, except for the failure warning notice, have already been "un-stuck".)

Jaak, can we "un-stick" my "Your Vote Counts - Please Vote" in the General Discussions section as well? (I'd post this request there but the thread's locked.) Thanks.

Richie says YES.
:2:

 

[Jo's MO]

Here's the Recall Notice on NHTSA site

Make : NISSAN Model : MURANO Year : 2004
Manufacturer : NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 05V319000 Recall Date : JUL 12, 2005
Component: ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:ALTERNATOR/GENERATOR/REGULATOR
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 125466
Summary:
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT A WIRE BREAKING INSIDE THE ALTERNATOR COULD STOP THE BATTERY FROM CHARGING.
Consequence:
IF THIS HAPPENS, THE CHARGER WARNING AND BRAKE WARNING LAMPS WILL IMMEDIATELY COME ON AND THE BATTERY WILL BEGIN TO DISCHARGE. AFTER A SHORT TIME, THE ENGINE WILL GO INTO A "FALL SAFE" CONDITION WHICH WILL LIMIT VEHICLE SPEED. THE ENGINE WILL STOP RUNNING WHICH COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy:
DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND REPLACE THE ALTERNATOR WITH A NEW VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO PREVENT MOVEMENT OF THE COIL. THE RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN ON AUGUST 3, 2005. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT NISSAN AT 1-800-647-7261.
Notes:
CUSTOMERS CAN ALSO CONTACT THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION’S VEHICLE SAFETY HOTLINE AT 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153); OR GO TO HTTP://WWW.SAFERCAR.GOV.

 

[zofsuvs]

Richie says YES.
:2:

Thanks Richie, but I think somebody accidently unstuck the Recall thread instead! Jaak, Eric, any ideas?