Nissan Murano Forum banner

New Recall Announced - Fuel Shields!

92K views 351 replies 80 participants last post by  njjoe  
#1 ·
Wow! I didn't think this was that big a deal, but it looks like Nissan is stepping up to the plate without the pressure it took to get the alternator recall (which, IMHO, was a bigger issue). Here's a blurb from the official Nissan press release:

Nissan will be conducting a voluntary safety recall on approximately 226,000 Model Year 2003-2006 Murano vehicles to add a fuel tank shield in front of the fuel tank. Note: This issue was first raised as a preliminary investigation in September of 2005 – GOV05:190
Guess those guys with fuel tank punctures really weren't kidding!

JC
 
#52 ·
Can you just imagine the look on the mechanic's face if MightyMo left the skid plates in place and brought his MO in to have the shields installed?! :eek:

-njjoe
 
#53 ·
njjoe said:
Can you just imagine the look on the mechanic's face if MightyMo left the skid plates in place and brought his MO in to have the shields installed?! :eek:

-njjoe
Knowing the dealer, they would remove the hefty ones on the "Mighty MO" and install the plastic ones!
 
#55 ·
jaak said:
Looks like something that can get torn off by road debris...
They do look a little weak. But they are strong and on there pretty good. It you were to encounter road debris large enough to tear them off, it would have also damaged the tank (if they were not there) as well as other items such as the exaust, rear diff, etc...

pacmo
 
#56 ·
Hey NJJoe - you're right in that this is a "voluntary recall." But the "voluntary" part applies to Nissan doing this without NHTSA issuing an enforceable order from them to do it (i.e., the voluntary part doesn't apply to vehicle owners!). Actually, almost 100% of all recalls are "voluntary." Generally, manufacturers will fight this only for so long if they don't want to do a recall. NHTSA then has to go through formal judicial proceedings to get an enforceable order issued. Usually, when manufacturers see the handwriting on the wall, they'll cave and do the recall.

Because the recall is formal (with NHTSA assigned number, etc.), Nissan will want as high a compliance rate as possible. Especially since they have to report the results of the recall to NHTSA, who has the authority to require another recall if the return rate on the first is not high enough. If I (or anyone else) doesn't get the fix done, any subsequent problem (i.e., fuel tank puncture and attendant damage) is on my own dime.

Although I'm not crazy about adding MORE weight to my Murano and potentially reducing wind drag even more (i.e., lower fuel economy), guess I probably don't have much choice on getting this done. Oh well . . .
 
#57 ·
BTW - just got off the phone with my dealer service station. They do NOT have shields in stock yet, but told me to check back in a couple of weeks. No hassles on admitting the issue or requiring a notice or anything. My service managered admitted up front that there was a recall and he'd be happy to help - just needed to get the parts in from Parts Distribution.
 
#58 ·
Great now I have a reason to take the MO to the dealer.

I can get the "new" plastic gas tank shield & also get my badly bent metal CVT snow scoup replaced with a new plastic one! :rolleyes:
 
#59 ·
Interesting facts from NHTSA

Okay guys, its a slow morning at the office for me. So I did a little digging. Here's what I found out:

From the Summary Page of the Defects Investigation opened into the Murano fuel tank issue:

ODI HAS RECEIVED FOUR CONSUMER COMPLAINTS OF THE FUEL TANKS BEING PUNCTURED BY ROAD DEBRIS DURING NORMAL DRIVING (NON OFF-ROAD CONDITIONS) IN 2004 AND 2005 MODEL YEAR NISSAN MURANOS. THE RESULT OF EACH OF THE PUNCTURES HAS BEEN FUEL LEAKAGE AT THE PUNCTURE AND SUBSEQUENT NEED FOR FUEL TANK REPLACEMENTS. TWO OF THE CONSUMERS HAVE REPORTED PUNCTURES ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE FUEL TANK. ONE CONSUMER REPORTED A PUNCTURE ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE OF THE FUEL TANK. THE FOURTH CONSUMER REPORTED MULTIPLE PUNCTURES. THREE OF THE INCIDENTS OCCURRED AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. THE FOURTH INCIDENT OCCURRED AT APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN. A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN OPENED TO ASSESS THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE, AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.

In addition, in checking the "DOCUMENTS" page of the investigation, I discovered that "peer review" letters were sent to Toyota, Honda, Ford and DaimlerChrsyler where NHTSA asked about mid-size SUV production and the rate of incidents of fuel tank failures. You can see the details at this web-link:

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/defect/results.cfm

On the left hand menu, just do a search under defects investigations. You can also find out more information about the recall itself. Here's what I was able to pull from the NHTSA website:

Image


Image


There's also a dealer service notice with step-by-step procedures for the installation of the new shields here (also pulled from the NHTSA website):

Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image
 
#61 ·
Kinda hard to tell from the pics, but it looks like they had to make it extra wide to find proper mounting points just like I did, so you do end up seeing it a bit in front of the rear wheels even when standing fairly close to the vehicle.

I would hope that the aluminum shields would be stronger and therefore less big and bulky, but who knows until somebody gets a set put on...
 
#62 ·
Gonzo said:
Hmmm I wonder. Which might be a little better, plastic or aluminum... plastic? Less chance of rattles?
The service pictures didn't scan so well but is sort of looks like the aluminum ones may be angled back about 45 degrees. While the plastic ones I have are clearly 90 from the the undercarriage. So to me that would mean aluminum = less drag and wind noise.

Pacmo
 
#64 ·
Service bulletin picture quality

Hey guys - yea, sorry about the picture quality (or lack thereof). I pulled these directly off the NHTSA website so I'm guessing that it was a copy of the official file version - and the copy was then scanned into PDF format. I converted it to JPG for posting, but the quality is the same regardless of format. Maybe someone friendly with a dealer service manager can get a better copy?
 
#65 ·
Jim C.-

Excellent post. Thanx for posting the bulletin.

Now the debate begins.... Aluminum or Plastic.

Since the recall does not affect units made after November 24 I can only assume those new cars either have different tanks or the shields already installed. It will be interesting to see how the 2006 tanks are protected.

Thanx again.

-njjoe
 
#66 ·
I have to give NissanUSA credit.

There were only 4 complaints out of a population of 205,000. That is less than 0.002%. There were no accidents, no fires, and no injuries.

I had assumed all along that there had to be at least one hundred incidents. I never would never have guessed there were only 4.

Kudos to NissanUSA for stepping up to the plate.

-njjoe
 
#67 ·
njjoe said:
I have to give NissanUSA credit.

There were only 4 complaints out of a population of 205,000. That is less than 0.002%. There were no accidents, no fires, and no injuries.

I had assumed all along that there had to be at least one hundred incidents. I never would never have guessed there were only 4.

Kudos to NissanUSA for stepping up to the plate.

-njjoe
I think credit should go to NHTSA, not Nissan. I doubt Nissan would have done anything unless NHTSA had a talk with them.....just as in the alternator case. It was not Nissan who decided to launch a recall campaign (even though they were being bombarded by alternator replacements and compliants) and did so only after NHTSA sent them a letter...They are ignoring it now but I bet if NHTSA sends them a letter on the 03-04 steering issue they will jump again...
 
#68 ·
I don't know for sure, but after looking at the Defects Investigation file from NHTSA, it appears that NHTSA really took this one seriously and obtained a lot of data on comparable failure rates from Toyota, Honda, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler. Seems to me (and this is pure speculation) that the rates and descriptions of failures from peer vehicles was probably such that it made the Murano look bad. Either that or Nissan didn't want to get into the dogfight and figured recall was easier.
 
#69 ·
Jim C said:
I don't know for sure, but after looking at the Defects Investigation file from NHTSA, it appears that NHTSA really took this one seriously and obtained a lot of data on comparable failure rates from Toyota, Honda, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler. Seems to me (and this is pure speculation) that the rates and descriptions of failures from peer vehicles was probably such that it made the Murano look bad. Either that or Nissan didn't want to get into the dogfight and figured recall was easier.
Fact:
One of NHTSA main office is in downtown DC.
Older forum member: remember the campaign when we keep writing/calling the NHTSA about their website not allowing ppl to file complain for alt failure a while ago? I got a call from one of their directors in DC, literally. He told me that the 'problem' with their website will be fixed. He apologized and he did chat with me for a couple minutes on the problem on Murano alternator. Gave me his direct # and tell me to call him if anyday NHTSA website does not look right in future.

Theory:
Now this same director (or his family) may drive a murano too. This will lead him to take any Murano defects problem as 'personal'. Gas tank puncture? NHTSA slaps them a recall letter :2:
 
#70 ·
Just got a call from my dealership that some other parts for TSBs they had ordered for me (sunvisor clips - the second time, and the drivers lumbar support) had come in (after waiting nearly a month), so I asked the service manager about the fuel shield recall. He said yes he knows of the recall, but so far he only had VIN numbers for 2005 models affected, but not 2003-2004. I told him the NHTSA recall notice documents say 2003-2006 Muranos, and he said unless he had it "in the computer" he could not install the fuel shield for me.

Yep Nissan does it to me again. :rolleyes:
 
#71 ·
My dealer told me that my alternator for my year was not part of the alternator recall. So, either they fixed the problem in the 05 or my dealer has no clue on what they are talking about.

As far as the fuel tank goes with the 05 versus the 03 - 04 models - I guess they "unfixed it" in the 05. :confused:
 
#72 ·
biggun said:
My dealer told me that my alternator for my year was not part of the alternator recall. So, either they fixed the problem in the 05 or my dealer has no clue on what they are talking about.

As far as the fuel tank goes with the 05 versus the 03 - 04 models - I guess they "unfixed it" in the 05. :confused:
Reconfigured (improved) alternators were factory installed on new Muranos beginning in June/July '05. MOs arriving in the USA from August on have the "good" alternators.

It appears that all "older" (2003 - 2005) Muranos are affected by the fuel shield recall.

-njjoe
 
#74 ·
biggun said:
I purchased my MO in February 05. Should I get a second opinion?
Have your dealership run your VIN again, or have them physically inspect the part number on the alternator. Posts involving alternators should go into the alternator thread, not the fuel tank shield recall thread.
 
#75 ·
I'm waiting to see a picture of the aluminum shield. I'm thinking that might look better on my Platinum MO, but want to see before I go for it.

I plan to call around to different dealers to fine one that will install the particular part that I want (plastic or aluminum).

Has anyone else had it installed?