2002 Volvo Vn recalls and problems

ODI opened Recall Query RQ11-001 after a review of EWR Field Reports identified lower bunk window separations on the subject vehicles.Volvo had issued three recalls for sleeper window separations since 2003.Additionally, Volvo had issued two bulletins for sleeper window issues during the same time period.The frequency of related actions led ODI to open this formal investigation.An Information Request (IR) letter was sent to Volvo on 23 June 2011.Volvo responded on 17 August 2011 and then provided updated warranty information on 9 January 2012.Volvo provided production change data and warranty information which was correlated to vehicle build month and failure date.ODI analyzed the data to determine if additional production time frames should have been included in previous recalls.ODI also requested information from its network of fleet owners.The response from this network reaffirmed the accuracy of the updated warranty information.Based on the information and data received, ODI has concluded that all production periods have been appropriately addressed by Volvo's previous recalls and no additional recall action is required at this time.

ODI OPENED THIS INVESTIGATION BASED ON A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN AND EWR DATA. EWR WARRANTY DATA IS AGGREGATE DATA AND INDIVIDUAL REPORTS ARE NOT SUBMITTED.VOLVO REVIEWED THEIR WARRANTY DATA AND DETERMINED THAT ONLY 63 OF THE EWR WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLES DISPLAYED SYMPTOMS CONSISTENT WITH THE TSB.VOLVO ALSO NOTED IN THEIR IR RESPONSE THAT THE TAIL LIGHT CONFIGURATION IS USED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON TRACTORS THAT ARE NORMALLY ATTACHED TO SEMI TRAILERS.THEREFORE, THE TRACTOR LIGHTS ARE NORMALLY NOT THE REAR MOST LIGHTS ON THE VEHICLE.IN A NORMAL APPLICATION, EVEN IF ONE TAIL LIGHT ON THE TRACTOR WAS OUT, THE TAIL LIGHT ON THE TRAILER WOULD CONTINUE TO ILLUMINATE AND PROVIDE OTHER DRIVERS OF THE INTENTIONS OF THE SEMI TRAILER DRIVER.PURSUANT TO 49 CFR 396.11 & 13, A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATOR IS REQUIRED TO PERFORM A PRE-TRIP AND POST-TRIP INSPECTION, WHICH INCLUDES CHECKING THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE TAIL LIGHTS.GIVEN THE ABOVE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

VOLVO REPORTED FOUR FIELD REPORTS AND 62 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO HOOD STRUT FAILURE ON THE SUBJECT TRUCK/TRACTORS. THE HOOD STRUTS ARE A SINGLE ACTING OIL SHOCK THAT CONTROLS THE RATE OF THE OPENING OF THE HOOD. THERE ARE TWO STRUTS ATTACHED TO THE HOOD ASSEMBLY, ONE ON EACH SIDE. ODI'S CONCERN WAS THAT A FAILED HOOD STRUT WOULD ALLOW THE HOOD TO DROP ON ONE SIDE, POSSIBLY INJURING SOMEONE WORKING ON THE ENGINE. IN EXAMINING THE LIFE CYCLE OF HOOD STRUTS IN BOTH TRUCK AND PASSENGER CAR APPLICATIONS, ODI FOUND THATALL HOOD STRUTS REQUIRE PERIODIC REPLACEMENT DUE TO NORMAL ?WEAR-OUT.?DURING THE INVESTIGATION, ODI DISCOVERED THAT WHEN THE STRUTS WERE REPLACED, THE PROBLEM STARTED TO OCCUR ON THE SUBJECT TRUCKS.THE FAILURES RESULTED FROM THE IMPROPER INSTALLATION OF THE HOOD STRUT.THIS FINDING WAS SUBSTANTIATED BY FLEETS CONTACTED FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY VOLVO, AS WELL AS VISITS TO LOCAL DEALERS. DURING THISINVESTIGATION, ODI PERFORMED THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:A.REVIEWED WARRANTY/ENGINEERING DATA PROVIDED BY VOLVO;B.CONTACTED THE TWO INITIAL COMPLAINANTS TO GATHER MOREINFORMATION;C.CONDUCTED FIELD TRIPS TO AREA DEALERS TO INSPECT SUBJECTVEHICLES;D.CONTACTED TWO FLEETS FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON D.C. AREA TO DISCUSS THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH THESE HOOD STRUTS;ANDE.REVIEWED THE APPROPRIATE SERVICE MANUALS.BASED ON THE DATA PROVIDED BY VOLVO AND THE INFORMATION GATHERED BY ODI, IT IS APPARENT THAT SOME DEALERS AND OWNERS MAY HAVE BEENINSTALLINGREPLACEMENT STRUTS INCORRECTLY.DEPEND…