Help with 1992 Recall Notice

And you still drive, eh?

Yabbut. I just took a look, and on the web site you are only prompted for the last eight digits of the VIN -- this doesn't include the check digit, so an error is very, very possible. It returns the whole VIN (and a description of the vehicle) as part of its response.

I'll agree this is an almost unbelievably stupid way for it to be set up -- and I don't think I would have believed it if I hadn't just tried it myself. But it is what they do.

'04 Pacifica - embossed black on black, extremely easy to read; '96 T&C LXi - embossed charcoal gray on charcoal gray, extremely easy to read; '93 GC Laredo - embossed silver on silver, extremely easy to read; '91 Accord - etched silver on blue, extremely easy to read.

Better have your eyes checked, Art!

If that were the case, you'd think that the message would say something to that effect, i.e., "Recall and Satisfaction Notification information on this vehicle not available", or "Recall and Satisfaction Notification information on model years before 1989 not available".

But I'm not surprised at anything that modern business does. However, if that's the case, the consumer is knowingly misinformed about something that could (maybe not in this specific instance) be a safety related issue - i.e., led to believe that their vehicle has had an important recall done when in fact it possibly hasn't - as is apparently now the case for the OP - left not knowing - or actually mis-informed by the database that's supposed to inform). More MBA's at work - would have taken 30 more man-hours of budget to set it up right, so they didn't. Might mean a few more injuries or deaths, but what the hey.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Several of the cars you posted have vertical windshields compared to the

300M and probably limit reflections and make the plate easier to read. As for my Toyota, check one out in a parking lot some day. The background watermark makes it very difficult to read. In fact the dealer always go for the door plate when I bring it in.

Your wasting your time trying to explain that to Dan. I tried in a previous post. As someone posted a few days ago, he must be off his drugs again.

x-no-archive: yes (OH CRAP .. just noticed a mistake I made writing D-C, I wrote my Gran Fury was an 1982 instead of a 1987 )well, I used the dodge.com to get to Dal-Chrysler ..I Don't want to even call the 800 # I am just so tired of this mess. Since everything on the recall relates to the stupid EPA and the emmisons test and it's not a safety issue.. ( I finally called my brother and asked him what parts needed to be replaced ) I've just about worried enough and I sure will not go near a Dealership. anyhow sure do thank ya'll for your help ! just got this reply from D-C :

"Thank you for your recent email to DaimlerChrysler Motors regarding your Gran Fury." Our records do not go back that far. Please call our Recall Department at 800-853-1403. Thank you again for your email."

NOTE: Please do not use the 'Reply' function of your email system. If you have a need to respond to this message, please visit us at our reply

form (link provided below). Our system is NOT able to accept any emails at this address.

For any future communications related to this email, please refer to the

following information: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12465424 REPLY LINK:

Sincerely,

Chris Senior Staff Representative DaimlerChrysler Customer Assistance Center

Original Message Follows:

------------------------ Form Selected: -------------- Category: Recall Information Brief Description: ------------------ Recall on my 1982 Gran Fury, issued in 1992 ! ! ! Comments: --------- I was informed yesterday when I had my car inspected (It ALWAYS passes easily) that I had recall on my Gran Fury. ISSUED IN 1992 ! ! ! ! This is the first Time I've heard about this. It's recall 515. Spark Control and

A/T something. I can't even find any records online of this recall. I don't want a new car,this one is still just perfect. Good as new with only

40,450 actual miles. Let me know if this is important. Or maybe the recall is obsolete. I never have any problem passing the TX emissions test thank you

Just one question: D'you like to breathe?

-DS

No, I would actually be surprised if it did say this.

It is rather common in the computer industry for programmers to use a single somewhat generic error message for just about every error that a user encounters. Most often this is because the organization that contracts with the programmers doesen't supply complete data as to what the errors are supposed to be, and when they happen. In particular in this case, it could be that they don't supply data older than

1989 because in 1989 they changed databases, or it also could be that they have a policy of only retaining recall data in that particular database for 15 years. The programmer that wrote the application for the website most likely only knows how to program and probably never bought an auto part at an auto parts store in his or her life. Almost certainly they wouldn't even know that it is usual for automakers to declare obsolescense on model years after a certain date, and so wouldn't even suspect that a failure to retrieve records might be due to records that were deliberately purged, rather than just that the vehicle queried was OK on the recall lists.

Ted

This is true. Now, I have to ask - have you or anyone even bothered to e-mail Chrysler about the recall response on their website? All it would take is to simple change the wording on the error message from:

"No Incomplete Recalls or Customer Satisfaction Notifications Exist"

to

""No Incomplete Recalls or Customer Satisfaction Notifications Exist, or the vehicle is too old to be listed in this database, please contact a local Chrysler dealership to verify your vehicle"

to take care of the problem. If you haven't, then you have no moral highground to bitch about it.

You might consider that a telephone call to a dealership isn't much more reliable as you are totally dependent on the competence of the person operating the recall computer program at the dealership. The service advisor at the dealership might make the exact same assumption - that the recall on the car was completed - rather than guessing that the lack of response on his program is due to a database purge, and just to be sure, he should call into the national recall center.

And then what are you going to do if someone at a dealership hands out bad data over the phone? At least the website is somewhat verifyable so that if someone does get killed as a result, the lawyers are going to have a chance of holding someone at Chrysler accountable - rather than trying to make a case in court that so-and-so said the car was fine over the phone!!!

Ted

Believe me - I am very aware of that. That doesn't make the practice right.

Yes, and in their minds, that is a cost effective solution. It helps them come in budget but they forgot that the original goal was to help the end user who paid for a working product that isn't to get it working right. All so they can say "We don't understand why people complain about our product and our tech support! We spent $X on creating a troubleshooting guide and web site, and just because it is worhtless in actually troubleshooting and correcting problems, they're going to complain!"

In

If that is truly the case, that just illustrates the stupidity of how they went about creating the data base. If they really left it up to a programmer to come up with the substance of the messages that the system spits out, then that is stupider than I thought. How difficult is it to tell the programmer "Hey - if the vehicle being inquired about is older than 19XX, then respond with this message "...". You'd think that one of the first steps would be to sit down with people who knew this end of their business and develop a flow chart. But that probalaby costs too much money.

Ummm - they could tell the programmer that and have him inorporate it into the database.

You want me to personally contact every company every time I see some stupid error of omission in some of their technical support literature or web pages? And if I don't do that, I'm never able to make any comments or judgements about how stupid their practices are when I know good and well it is almost by design that those bits of misinformation are there? Should I go through a Haynes manual and find every error that it has, document it and inform them of the fact and believe that they will fix the problem? And if I don't do that, I have no right to tell people that I don't like Haynes manuals and why? And throw on top of that that 99 times out of 100, based on past experience, they aren't going to fix the problem, if for no other reason that they have no budget to make system changes like that anymore (it would be number

11,327 on their list of priorities for errors that they already know about). Sorry - I used to think I could save the world, but stopped doing that many years ago. I have myself and a family to take care of.

Yeah - the next step is to close down that site because all it does is expose them to liability risk, never mind that the consumer needs the information. More MBA-think.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Happened to check the VIN of my father's new Saturn wagon. The windshield VIN plate was so clear to read it was almost blinding. My eyes are fine for those of you who were worried. LOL