Nissan Murano Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
SHIFT_FASTER
Joined
·
1,422 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So someone tried to roll down my passenger window when it was frozen, and it wouldn't budge. I pressed the window up button after that out of habit. After driving and the window thawed, it fell partially into the door, front portion first.

After pushing the window on both sides, and forcing it back into place, I pressed the window up button again, and this time it held the window. When I tried to roll it down again, the same thing happened.

Just got it fixed yesterday, and they said they had to adjust the tracks. I asked why it wasn't covered by warranty, and they said that it was an adjustment, so it would have been covered for 20,000km only.
 

·
Mr. 3 K, 3/3/5. 5K,10/5/7
Joined
·
4,994 Posts
I would send a letter to NNA and appeal that. Include a copy of the bill. You might just get a refund cheque. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,226 Posts
I agree. Make a stink about that. That's just pure BS. The MO is supposed to have a resistance monitor (or whatever you call it) to help prevent problems when the window can't move for some reason (like a child's arm in the way). Seems only reasonable that it should have realized the window wasn't moving and given up rather than screwing up the track...
 

·
SHIFT_FASTER
Joined
·
1,422 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Does that resistance monitor work in both directions? Because it would make sense to me that it only works when putting the window up, and I was trying to put it down.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,226 Posts
Tyler_Canada said:
Does that resistance monitor work in both directions? Because it would make sense to me that it only works when putting the window up, and I was trying to put it down.
I don't see why it WOULDN'T work in both directions. Sure, it's DESIGNED for closing the window, but you would think that they would have the insight to check resistance in general, not just in one direction. Then again, these are Nissan engineers.... :rolleyes:
 

·
Mr. 3 K, 3/3/5. 5K,10/5/7
Joined
·
4,994 Posts
Development of FMVSS 118

Regulation of power windows was first proposed in separate Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued oŸn August 23, 1969.7 oŸne of the notices addressed power window operation and proposed that automatic reverse switches be installed oŸn all power windows as a failsafe mechanism to protect children.8 However, the agency responded to nearly unanimous opposition from the industry by dropping the auto-reverse sensor requirement from the final rule promulgated in 1970.9 The common thread of the manufacturers’ comments argued that they were currently doing enough to protect children, not that the technology was unavailable or too costly.10 With respect to the issues of cost and feasibility, two component parts manufacturers, H.T. Golde GMBH & Company and Robert Bosch, commented that the technology was available and could be affordably produced. H.T. Golde wrote oŸn Nov. 7, 1969: ". . . [T]here will be no difficulties at all to technically safeguard the operational requirements set forth. . ." with respect to 69-11b. Despite these assurances, the agency cited "engineering and economic problems of a substantial magnitude"11 in its decision not to require anti-trap mechanisms.

FMVSS 118 took effect oŸn February 1, 1971, and imposed minimum performance requirements for power-operated windows. Since that time, FMVSS 118 has been expanded to include power roof panels,12 and extended to light trucks.13 However, the standard has been modified primarily at the behest of manufacturers wishing to increase occupant convenience rather than safety.14 The current standard has not been substantively modified since March 31, 1993.15

FMVSS 118 provides a standard for the operation of power windows, moon roofs, sunroofs, and other "power operated roof panels" in passenger vehicles.16 It prohibits the operation of any power window unless certain enumerated conditions are met. The key must either be in the ignition and be in an "approved" position,17 the window may be raised or lowered by means of direct manual force, the window may be closed by means of a locking system oŸn the exterior of the vehicle,18 the window may be closed by a remote actuation device,19 the key has been removed from the ignition but neither of the front doors to the vehicle have been opened, or the window was open no more than four millimeters and was in a static position prior to being closed. These safeguards have not adequately protected children located in or around vehicles not in operation. Children were still able to engage these switches, with resulting deaths and injuries.20

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Inaction

Power windows and sunroofs may deviate from the current regulatory requirements if they are equipped with an automatic reversing mechanism and meet the requirements of FMVSS 118 S5.21 Though this section of the standard provides requirements for how auto-reverse mechanisms are to function in vehicles equipped with such technology, it fails to require manufacturers to use auto-reverse technology in production. The standard also does not require manufacturers to take other, additional steps to prevent the inadvertent operation of power windows that may lead to injuries absent the use of auto-reverse technology. In response to a petition by Prospects Corporation, NHTSA issued a proposed rule oŸn June 4, 1996, that amended FMVSS 118 to require auto-reversing windows and roof panels. Since that time, however, no action has been taken oŸn this rulemaking.

FMVSS 118 also does not currently include a requirement to prevent power window switches from being inadvertently tripped. Although a large number of manufacturers world-wide have installed push/pull type switches to prevent such incidents, many continue to use the unsafe toggle or rocker type switches that can be activated by an occupant’s elbow, knee, or other appendage with the potential for a moving window or panel to entrap an occupant as the tragic result. A rulemaking intended to remedy this problem was proposed by NHTSA oŸn November 11, 1996, in response to a petition by Michael Garth Moore.22 Inexplicably, this rulemaking has also remained in limbo for more than seven years without further action. Even though a majority of manufacturers have decided to include such technology in their vehicles, other manufacturers have failed to incorporate these safety designs into their vehicles, and NHTSA has taken no action to require these fail-safe

NOW YOU KNOW!
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top