Motoring: A Fix for a Chirp Under the Hood

The bulletins, which are compiled by alldatapro.com, offer automakers’ insights into some recurring problems with various models. The bulletins, known as T.S.B.’s, are not recalls; they are information provided by manufacturers to dealers’ service departments and mechanics.

Unless otherwise noted, the carmakers do not offer payment assistance for these repairs beyond normal warranty coverage. Alldata.com sells a more comprehensive version of the bulletins to consumers. Here are some recent examples:

BMW Corrosion may develop around the positive battery terminal of some 3 Series models. In T.S.B. 610713 issued on Aug. 1, BMW said the problem on 2012-13 models might be caused by a lack of an anticorrosion coating on the panel that houses the battery. Coating the area with underbody protection spray should keep the corrosion at bay.

CHEVROLET Owners would be dismayed to hear the phrases “dimensionally incorrect” and “bent valves” in reference to their new vehicles. But those words may apply to some of the 4-cylinder engines in 2013-14 Impalas and Malibus. In T.S.B. 13283 issued on Sept. 6, General Motors said a problem with the engine block casting, possibly causing the valves to contact pistons, meant the engines might need to be replaced before the vehicles were delivered to customers.

CHRYSLER A chirping sound from the engine compartment may plague some Dodge and Ram pickups. In T.S.B. 07-003-13 issued on Sept. 4, Chrysler said the noise from 2009-13 pickups stemmed from the serpentine accessory drive belt. Replacing the belt with one that compensates for a slightly misaligned pulley should quiet things.

FORD The power transfer unit of some all-wheel-drive models may have a leak. In T.S.B. 13-9-16 issued on Sept. 17, Ford said a lubricant leak on Taurus, Explorer and Lincoln MKS all-wheel-drive models might stem from a missing or disconnected hose at the transfer unit, which distributes power to the rear axle. Fitting a new hose, or reinstalling a disconnected hose, should stop the leak.

HONDA A powertrain warranty extension may offer help for some Crosstour owners. In T.S.B. 13-079 issued on Oct. 8, Honda said that as part of a class-action-lawsuit settlement, the company would extend the warranty to cover repairs related to a condition in 2010-12 V-6 models.

The company said that the piston rings in some cylinders might rotate and align their end gaps, leading to oil fouling the spark plugs. This can cause a misfire, rough running and the Check Engine light to illuminate. The revised warranty is eight years with unlimited mileage for repairs related to the condition, from five years or 60,000 miles. Replacing the piston rings, spark plugs and related parts will fix the trouble.

Also, cracking, chalking or clouding paint on the horizontal surfaces of some Civics is the subject of two T.S.B.’s. The warranty is extended to seven years, with no mileage limit, but applies to only nine colors from the 2006-11 model years. The T.S.B.’s include 13-060 of Aug. 13 for the roof and trunk and 12-049 for the hood.

JEEP Owners of some 2013-14 Wranglers may notice the engine running hot. In T.S.B. 08-069-13 issued on Sept. 12, Chrysler said the problem might be caused by a failure of the cooling fans to turn on. The fix involves reprogramming the control unit.

KIA Rear lower control arms may need to be replaced in some 2011-12 Optima sedans. In T.S.B. CHA040 issued on Aug. 6, Kia said the parts might not stand up to road salt in 21 Snow Belt states. The parts will be replaced free on vehicles covered by the campaign.

TOYOTA Disengaged rear driveshafts could pose a problem for some Highlander Hybrid owners. In T.S.B. SC-D0N issued on Oct. 2, Toyota said the rear driveshaft on some 2011-12 hybrids could disengage from the inboard joint assembly. A loud rattling noise will alert drivers, which is good, because continuing to drive the vehicle can do damage. The company will inspect, and replace as needed, the rear driveshaft assemblies.

Motoring: Redefining ‘Under the Influence’

Which raises a knotty question: How many tokes can a driver take before the ability to control a vehicle is compromised to the point of being a danger on the road?

Unlike alcohol, which has an undisputed — and usually quite apparent — influence on driving, there is no clear-cut consensus on the amount of marijuana that must be consumed to impair a driver’s ability.

This year, as Colorado lawmakers worked out regulatory matters, including taxes on sales, they also passed legislation that set legal limits on marijuana levels in the bloodstream. Under the new law, which took effect on May 28, a driver is assumed to be impaired if a blood test shows a level of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, that is five or more nanograms per milliliter. A nanogram is a billionth of a gram.

“What this bill does is create a standard like we have for driving under the influence of alcohol,” said State Representative Mark Waller, a Republican from Colorado Springs and the bill’s chief sponsor. “Juries have come to expect that standard. So this aids in the prosecution of these cases.”

Previous attempts to pass such legislation have met strong opposition. Some legislators felt that the five-nanogram threshold was too low, in part because medical marijuana users always have some THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their blood. Others said that the blood test needed to measure the THC level was too intrusive.

Studies conducted to determine just how much THC it takes to diminish a driver’s ability have differed in their conclusions.

Even the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which warns against taking the wheel under the influence of any drug that affects the ability to drive safely, acknowledges that detecting impairment caused by marijuana can be trickier than it is for alcohol. The safety agency is studying the effects of cannabis on drivers, and the results are expected late next year.

Some states, like Arizona, have enacted zero-tolerance laws that make driving with any trace of marijuana in the blood unlawful. A handful of other states have set their own thresholds for THC in the bloodstream.

Washington State, where recreational marijuana is also legal, has established the same THC limit as Colorado.

Earlier this year, in a widely viewed broadcast, a Seattle TV station, KIRO, had three volunteers smoke marijuana before driving.

They started out well enough, even after each far exceeded the state’s five-nanogram limit. Predictably, the more they smoked, the worse they drove.

Colorado’s law tries to strike a balance. Even with its five nanogram standard, the law has some flexibility, letting defendants present evidence that they were not too impaired to drive even when their THC levels exceeded the statutory level.

“I think certainly for the consumer, this is better law than a per se law, because it allows the defendant a chance to offer evidence of their innocence at trial,” said Paul Armentano, deputy director of Norml, which advocates for the legalization of marijuana.

“We have this notion that since we have a magic number for alcohol, that we are going to have a similar number for marijuana,” he said. “The problem is that marijuana is not metabolized and absorbed by the body in the same way alcohol is.”

A spokesman for the Colorado State Patrol, Trooper Josh Lewis, said the law would not have a significant effect on how the police handled stops, though he noted that more officers would be trained in drug recognition.

“We’ll still patrol the same way we did before,” he said. “We’ll look for signs of impairment.”

Jeremy Rosenthal, a Denver lawyer who handles cases of driving under the influence, said he thought the law was a good compromise, and he liked that it did not rely solely on a measurement from a blood test.

Mr. Rosenthal said he still thought most juries would end up convicting people who had more than five nanograms in their bloodstream. But allowing a certain measure of leeway in marijuana cases seemed fair to him, given that such cases were different from those involving alcohol.

“I think people in Colorado generally support the right to use marijuana,” he said. “But they also don’t like people driving around impaired.”

Motoring: Guide Revisions Provoke Uproar

Proposed changes to the used-car Buyers Guide required by the Federal Trade Commission have been criticized by consumer groups and the attorneys general of 22 states, who say the revisions would be a setback in consumer protection.

The critics are urging the F.T.C. not to adopt the changes — the first since 1995 — which they say could result in consumers’ being misled about their legal rights or not learning the full history of a car damaged in a flood or a crash.

The National Automobile Dealers Association, a trade group, took a different view. It told the agency that over all, the proposed revisions “represent an improvement for dealers and consumers.”

Since 1985, dealers have been required to post the Buyers Guide on the window of used vehicles. Its intent was to tell buyers whether the vehicle was covered by a warranty and to provide details of who would pay for repairs. The regulation does not apply to private sales.

In a news release, the F.T.C. said the changes were made to “empower consumers without adding burdens to businesses.”

But in a letter last month, 14 consumer groups warned the F.T.C. that the changes would make “an antiquated, bad rule even worse.” The groups included the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, the United States Public Interest Research Group and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.

“We are extremely disappointed with where this rule-making stands,” the Center for Auto Safety, another of the dissenters, noted in its letter.

The group of state attorneys general, including those from New York and Connecticut, was more direct, stating that one proposed change, involving vehicles being sold “as is” without any warranty coverage, was so poorly worded that they would prefer to scrap the entire revised Buyers Guide.

In its current form, that section says: “The dealer assumes no responsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle.” The proposed wording reads: “The dealer won’t pay for any repairs. The dealer is not responsible for any repairs, regardless of what anybody tells you.”

The phrase that is drawing protests is “regardless of what anybody tells you.”

The attorneys general are concerned that a dishonest or ill-informed dealer could more easily mislead consumers by saying “what anybody tells you” is an indisputable statement of the law by the federal government.

However, the attorneys general group said, a dealer can be held responsible “for repairs to a vehicle if the dealer makes false statements to a consumer about the vehicle’s condition or title/damage history.”

The F.T.C. tried to make it easier to understand, but it got the law wrong, said William Brauch, a special assistant attorney general and director of the Consumer Protection Division in Iowa, one of the states protesting the change.

Charles Harwood, the acting director of the F.T.C.’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a telephone interview that the comments from the consumer groups and attorneys general were “very useful” and would be considered.

“If it is not the right approach, fortunately the process would allow for us and allow for the commission to revisit the approach and think about a better way to do it,” he said.

One thing consumer advocates and the attorneys general wanted, but didn’t get, was a requirement that dealers give consumers vehicle-history information to help check for incidents like theft or damage in a flood or crash.

California requires dealers to check the new federally backed National Motor Vehicle Title Information System and use a red warning sticker if there is a serious problem.

In comments filed with the F.T.C., many dealers objected, saying they worried about the accuracy of history reports and potential legal liability for providing incomplete information to buyers.

Instead of requiring dealers to provide vehicle histories, the F.T.C. is proposing a statement encouraging buyers to consider buying such vehicle histories. It would create an F.T.C. Web site for details.

Motoring: Ram Dashboards Cracking

When Joe Longo bought a new 2003 Dodge Ram 2500 he figured, even with a heavy-duty pickup, normal wear and tear would cause some parts to fail. But something happened that he had never imagined.

About three years ago, he saw a crack on the dashboard and figured it was a freak occurrence. “The last thing I ever thought would go bad on a vehicle would be the dashboard,” said Mr. Longo of Norwalk, Conn. “I was pretty ticked off. I thought that maybe something fell on it.”

Then he searched the Internet and found other reports of disintegrating dashes. And it seemed that Chrysler was often refusing to pay for repairs.

Mr. Longo is one of about 150 owners who have filed Ram dashboard complaints with the Center for Auto Safety.

Michael Wickenden, who operates the site CarComplaints.com, which tracks owners’ gripes about their cars, called the Ram dashboards “definitely one of the top problems right now, mainly in model years from 1999 to 2003, all across the Dodge Ram model line from the 1500 all the way up to the 3500.”

Mr. Wickenden said he had received almost 1,700 complaints for the 1998-2007 model years, with the heaviest concentration in 2003 models. He said some people reported cracks, while others said chunks of their dashboards had fallen off.

In an e-mail, a Chrysler spokeswoman, Ann Smith, wrote that the automaker was “aware of some dashboard complaints that are generally isolated to older vehicles outside of the warranty period.”

She added, “There are a variety of environmental factors which may impact the long-term performance of the dashboard, but it is difficult to identify common factors on 10-year-old vehicles.”

A review of files on the Web site of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found about 200 complaints from owners of 2003 models alone. One owner wrote: “The entire dashboard was separated from the vehicle, causing the wires to shorten. As a result, the horn and exterior lighting failed intermittently. The air bag was also exposed.”

Another owner described driving with the windows down and having “part of the cracked dashboard to fly up and hit my face.” The writer added that “it caused me to lose control for a second.”

Other Ram owners described jagged and sharp plastic edges and wondered what might happen in a crash.

Allan Kam, a safety consultant in Bethesda, Md., who was once the senior enforcement lawyer for the traffic safety administration, said the summaries suggested conditions that should be investigated as a possible safety issue.

Another former agency official, Michael Brownlee, who had headed the office of defect investigations and was associate administrator for enforcement when he retired in 1997, said an agency review was warranted by the reports of flying debris, sharp edges and concerns about whether an air bag might properly deploy.

A N.H.T.S.A. spokeswoman, Karen Aldana, said the agency “is aware of the condition and is reviewing consumer complaints” but “sees no basis on which to open a safety defect investigation.” She added, “As always, we will continue to monitor the issue.”

There is a precedent for a dash-related recall, said Clarence Ditlow, the executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, a nonprofit advocacy group. In 1977, Ford recalled 252,000 of its 1975-77 Econoline vans because the plastic on the dash could fracture if struck and the sharp pieces “could contribute to occupant injury.”

Mr. Ditlow said the situation with Rams was worse, because the dashboards were already broken.

Mr. Wickenden of CarComplaints.com said the agency’s failure to require a recall was a sore point with owners. “A lot of people are frustrated because they feel it is a safety issue because of the jagged edges,” he said.

Ms. Smith of Chrysler said there wasn’t a safety problem because “2003-4 trucks have been on the road for a long time with a lot of customers and a lot of miles.” She added, “We don’t have any injury claims.”

Many owners also complained that Chrysler wouldn’t repair the dashes, even under warranty, calling it a cosmetic issue. “When I think of a cosmetic problem, I think of something like the color of the paint,” Mr. Kam said.

Ms. Smith said “the manufacturer’s warranty would have covered cracked dashboard repairs for the original owner.” She said claims for out-of-warranty repairs were reviewed on a case-by-case basis “with the goal of satisfying the customer.”