Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Main Battery and 12V battery failure in the middle of the intersection.

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Here's an example of a probe that's begun...
Ford Focus EV stalling problem under NHTSA probe

Probe doesn't always lead a recall. Sometimes, they're closed. But, sometimes they progress into a recall.
See the comments in that article. A probe is as good as a recall. And you can bet the reporting of the closure would be less than for the probe.

And those complaints rose from Ford dealers not diagnosing/acknowledging the problem (while in all cases, Tesla does full diagnosis) forcing people to go to the internet to post and then that led to the NHTSA.

We've already seen shorters trying to posting fake NHTSA complaints, so there's definitely negative effects from this.

If there's a real problem, we've seen Tesla do voluntary recalls.
 
Last edited:
^^^
Not necessarily, probes are frequently closed too. I just dug up these, for example:
NHTSA closes probes on Jeep Grand Cherokee, Ford Freestar and Mercury Monterey - Autoblog
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/01/us-autos-nhtsa-probes-idUSBRE9600MJ20130701
NHTSA Closes Jeep Probe, Says Influenced By Web - AutoObserver

So, you think it's better for those who've experienced legitimate safety defects in a vehicle to NOT report them to NHTSA? If so, why?

To me, it doesn't matter the brand of car, even makes and models that I'm a fan of. (Assuming one lives and drives in the US), if one experiences a legitimate safety defect for which there isn't already a recall, it should be submitted to NHTSA.
 
I think you do have to take into consideration that a company such as Ford can handle such a probe with almost no ill effects while for a startup such as Tesla, with so many gunning for it, would potentially be severely damaged. Cars stop working every day for various reasons, I say we give Tesla a chance to deal with the issue before sounding an alarm that may be unwarranted and would certainly hurt the company unnecessarily.
 
Yes, because I expect my government to do everything for me so that I'm freed from the burden of contacting or working with one of those evil, evil corporations!! You know, the ones that are out to suppress and oppress me! Thank you, Mother Government, may I have my bread and cheese now?

Obligatory Content Requirement Satisfaction: A safety defect is a safety defect, an operational defect is an operational defect. If you're calling the NHSTA because Slacker keeps skipping songs, there's something seriously wrong with you. Call Tesla first, don't go running to Mommy Government.
 
^^^
Not necessarily, probes are frequently closed too. I just dug up these, for example:
NHTSA closes probes on Jeep Grand Cherokee, Ford Freestar and Mercury Monterey - Autoblog
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/01/us-autos-nhtsa-probes-idUSBRE9600MJ20130701
NHTSA Closes Jeep Probe, Says Influenced By Web - AutoObserver

So, you think it's better for those who've experienced legitimate safety defects in a vehicle to NOT report them to NHTSA? If so, why?

To me, it doesn't matter the brand of car, even makes and models that I'm a fan of. (Assuming one lives and drives in the US), if one experiences a legitimate safety defect for which there isn't already a recall, it should be submitted to NHTSA.
I think you are confused about the meaning of a safety defect. Reporting a random mechanical or electrical failure is stupidity.
 
I think you do have to take into consideration that a company such as Ford can handle such a probe with almost no ill effects while for a startup such as Tesla, with so many gunning for it, would potentially be severely damaged. Cars stop working every day for various reasons, I say we give Tesla a chance to deal with the issue before sounding an alarm that may be unwarranted and would certainly hurt the company unnecessarily.
So, "protecting" a company from potential negative PR is more important than safety of yourself and other drivers of the same vehicle? So, because an automaker is small, owners should avoid reporting legitimate safety defects encountered to NHTSA?

As I quoted from my post at:
"Automakers are required to report any safety defects to NHTSA swiftly, and we expect them to do so," said NHTSA Administrator David Strickland.
If there is a safety defect, Tesla would be obligated by law to report and issue an recall anyway.

I think you are confused about the meaning of a safety defect. Reporting a random mechanical or electrical failure is stupidity.
No, I am not. The OP stated "The car stopped right in the middle of the intersection. Luckily it was only 3 way stop and light traffic. I would hate to have had this happen on the freeway." Re-read the rest of his 1st post. How is this not a safety defect? Millions of cars across all other automakers have been recalled for "stalling" or losing power unexpectedly.

How can owners who experience legitimate safety defects distinguish between it being "not" a safety defect and a "random mechanical or electrical failure" that is "stupidity to report"? Have you ever looked at recall documentation submitted to NHTSA and the correspondence that goes back and forth? I attached 2 examples at Right front door popped open while driving.

Have you looked at Motor Vehicle Defects and Safety Recalls: What Every Vehicle Owner Should Know | Safercar.gov | NHTSA To quote from there:
Generally, a safety defect is defined as a problem that exists in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that:

poses an risk to motor vehicle safety, and
may exist in a group of vehicles of the same design or manufacture, or items of equipment of the same type and manufacture.
Sure sounds like the OP experienced the 1st. We have no idea if the 2nd exists, but if others experience it too and NONE of them report it, and Tesla (or whatever automaker) doesn't put 2 and 2 together, then problem continues to exist, putting others at risk. Toyota didn't put 2 and 2 together, when it came to the sticky pedals and originally considered the symptom they were seeing w/accelerators being slow to return to idle of rough operaion as a "drivability issue unrelated to safety". I attached a document that says just that at Right front door popped open while driving - Page 2.

If you don't believe me, in general, go search for car recalls at Home | Safercar -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and click on the nn Associated Documents link and view the associated PDFs.

- - - Updated - - -

Obligatory Content Requirement Satisfaction: A safety defect is a safety defect, an operational defect is an operational defect. If you're calling the NHSTA because Slacker keeps skipping songs, there's something seriously wrong with you. Call Tesla first,don't go runningto Mommy Government.
Agree w/the bolded part. Slacker skipping songs is NOT a safety defect.

I even suggested that at
For those in this thread who have experienced a legitimate safety defect and not user error, I suggest you report it to NHTSA at safercar.gov. It might be better do it after the cause has been determined and the repair completed. And yes, there have been plenty of (non-Tesla) cars recalled for "stalling" or losing power.
 
Discussion is fine, but at the end of the day it is up to the consumer and the agency reviewing the claim to come to the conclusion if it is a systemic safety concern.

As a consumer, I've had 7 cars in my life and 3 have left me stranded due to issues like the OP's issue. None of which were systemic.
 
The question is if you bought a new Mercedes and this same thing happened, would you automatically file a report with the NTHSA without first going through dealership and Mercedes? I would guess not but maybe you would.
 
The question is if you bought a new Mercedes and this same thing happened, would you automatically file a report with the NTHSA without first going through dealership and Mercedes? I would guess not but maybe you would.

While I agree with you 100% (contact the manufacturer first), I actually have been the recipient of an official recall notice for nothing other than the car could stall out. It was for the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix and had something to do with a bad component in the car's ECM. (GM had a lot of fun in the recall letter pointing out it was a Toyota part that was defective!)
 
So, "protecting" a company from potential negative PR is more important than safety of yourself and other drivers of the same vehicle? So, because an automaker is small, owners should avoid reporting legitimate safety defects encountered to NHTSA?
There's major difference between a voluntary recall (as Tesla has done before) and a mandatory NHTSA initiated recall. I think people opposed to your idea want to allow Tesla the chance to address the issue first (assuming there is one).

Tesla has shown time and time again that they take safety issues seriously and will address them (unlike the larger automakers, which tend to fail to diagnose the problem at the dealer level and there's usually no direct corporate contact). Reporting this to the NHTSA means you want them to look into this particular issue as a potential safety issue that possibly affects multiple cars (and usually used when there's no response from the automaker or its dealers). Not sure if this qualifies yet.
 
The question is if you bought a new Mercedes and this same thing happened, would you automatically file a report with the NTHSA without first going through dealership and Mercedes? I would guess not but maybe you would.
I wouldn't. I would take to the dealer, if it were under warranty and have them address. I would them file safety complaint, once I find out what they fixed.

IMHO, not reporting it at all to NHTSA in the event of a legitimate safety defect (not user error) is a bad idea. I don't care if the automaker is large or small or whether I'm a fan of them or not. It would make no more sense to not report because a company is on the ropes (e.g. GM and Chrysler in their dark days, both of which went bankrupt) or small.

If everyone decided to withhold reporting legitimate safety defects (whether or not they chose to have them addressed by the automaker first), that could lead to unsafe cars not being recalled at all or a substantial delay in the recall happening, due to lag. As I said, the criteria others are using are fuzzy and vague at best.

How can an owner know how many others have experienced the same issue? Not everyone is on a car forum monitoring that or reporting them on a forum. How can they know if it's a "random mechanical or electrical failure" or not and that it is "stupidity" to report it?

To give another example of a safety recall, see 1st attachment, which came from Information on Steering and Hybrid Coolant Pump Recalls C0T and C0U | PriusChat or 2004-2009 Prius recall for Steering and water pump issue | PriusChat
Vehicle Make / Model: Model Year(s):
TOYOTA / FCHV-ADV 2009-2011
TOYOTA / PRIUS 2004-2009
Manufacturer: Toyota Motor North America, Inc. Report Receipt Date: NOV 14, 2012
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 12V536000 NHTSA Action Number: N/A

Component: ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING
Potential Number of Units Affected: 350,662
Summary:
Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 6, 2003, through March 30, 2009 and FCHV-adv vehicles manufactured December 12, 2008, through September 13, 2011. During manufacturing, a scratch may have occurred inside of the electrically driven water pump at the coil wire. The coil wire may corrode at the scratched portion.
Consequence:
[IMG] The corroded coil wire may break and the water pump could stop. The corroded coil wire could cause a short circuit between coil wires and a possible open fuse, [B]creating a stall-like condition of the hybrid system while the vehicle is being driven. This may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Mine was an 06 but unfortunately, I didn't get a free replacement pump as mine was replaced already for free by [url="http://priuschat.com/threads/lsc-a0n-hv-inverter-water-pump-dealer-letter-and-technical-instructions.87161/"]LSC A0N - HV (Inverter) Water Pump; Dealer Letter and Technical Instructions | PriusChat[/url]. Supposedly, the LSC A0N replacement pumps don't have the problem that 12V536000 addresses.

The second attachment has some more interesting info about the chronology and investigation. And guess what set the ball in motion? A field report! Unclear if it came from the dealer or some other channel (e.g. Toyota JDM customer service, Japan's NHTSA equivalent, etc.)...
 

Attachments

  • T-CP-C1U-A110-D.pdf
    219.9 KB · Views: 99
  • RCDNN-12V536-6290.pdf
    1.8 MB · Views: 132
Last edited:
While I agree with you 100% (contact the manufacturer first), I actually have been the recipient of an official recall notice for nothing other than the car could stall out. It was for the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix and had something to do with a bad component in the car's ECM. (GM had a lot of fun in the recall letter pointing out it was a Toyota part that was defective!)
If you want to see more details on this, on the Toyota version of the recall, go to http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID, check Recall and enter id 10V384000. There are 27 associated documents and only 2 recalls for the 05 Toyota Matrix (twin of the Pontiac Vibe).

I've attached the owner notification letter and the defect notice, which has some details.

These 2 associated investigations were also interesting. (emphasis added by me)
NHTSA Action Number: EA10006 Engine Stall
SUMMARY:
On August 26, 2010, Toyota submitted a Defect Information Report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding problems with Engine Control Modules that could result in engine stall while driving in certain model year (MY) 2005 through 2008 Toyota Corolla, Corolla Matrix and Pontiac Vibe vehicles equipped with the 1ZZ-FE engine and two-wheel drive and manufactured between April 19, 2004 and January 2, 2008. Toyota's report indicated that cracks may develop at certain solder point or on varistors on the ECMs. According to Toyota, such cracks generally resulted in engine warning lamp illumination, harsh shifting or engine no-start. In some cases, if the cracking occurs on particular solder points or varistors, the engine could stop while the vehicle is being driven. Toyota will notify owners of subject vehicles that they should return their vehicles to a Toyota or Pontiac dealer. Dealers will be instructed to inspect the production number of the ECM for each vehicle and replace the ECM if necessary. On November 30, 2009, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE09-054) to investigate alleged engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2006 Toyota Corolla and Corolla Matrix vehicles. In its response to ODI's information request, submitted on March 2, 2010, Toyota indicated that it had identified two possible conditions with ECMs used in MY 2005 through 2007 Toyota Corolla and Matrix vehicles: 1) cracks forming between the IC and the board caused by an improperly cured conformal coating applied to the circuit boards after the soldering process is completed; and 2) cracks occurring in a variable resistor (varistor) due to overheating. During the manufacturing process a glass coating is created on the surface of the varistor. Between March and August 2010, Toyota began collecting ECMs from the field to further investigate failure modes that may result in engine stall. Toyota also conducted durability testing on ECMs collected from in-use vehicles to assess whether the problems may be a continuing trend. In addition, they conducted durability testing in order to assess whether this problem was a continuing trend. Toyota found that 4 of 32 collected ECMs malfunctioned after thermal shock testing. Toyota also confirmed that cracking could develop at solder points on the ECM circuit board that could lead to engine stall while driving and that this trend was likely to continue. The manufacturer failure data in this resume is limited to MY 2005 through 2007 Toyota Corolla and Corolla Matrix vehicles. Based on Toyota's recall, this Engineering analysis has been closed.

NHTSA Action Number: PE09054 Engine Stalling
SUMMARY:
On November 30, 2009, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation (PE09-054) to investigate alleged engine stalling, while driving in model year (MY) 2006 Toyota Corolla and Corolla Matrix vehicles . In its response to ODI's information request submitted on March 2, 2010, Toyota indicated that it had identified two possible causes of production defects of the engine control units (ECU) used in the MY 2005 through 2007 Corolla and Matrix vehicles equipped with the 1ZZ-FE engine. Failure mode A1 - BGA ball failure caused by improperly cured conformal coating applied to ECU circuit boards. This can cause cracks to form in the soldered joints of some components. Failure mode A2 - Varistor over heating; a glass coating is created on the surface of the Varistor during its production process. In case of an insufficient coating, a crack can occur in the surface of the glass coating. When ions are charged in the plating electrolytes after the glass coating process, the plating electrolytes can penetrate into the Varistor through the glass crack then an electrical short occurs. With respect to these failures, if the condition arises, it can potentially lead to one or more of the following: MIL on, engine stall or engine no start, harsh shifting. Of the approximately 155,000 warranty and extended warranty claims Toyota has analyzed the projected 5 year failure rate of the ECU associated with an engine stall is 0.8%. This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA10-006) to further assess the scope, frequency and safety risks associated with the identified defects.
 

Attachments

  • RCONL-10V384-7887.pdf
    41 KB · Views: 101
  • RCDNN-10V384-2199.pdf
    279.3 KB · Views: 142
If you want to see more details on this, on the Toyota version of the recall, go to http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID, check Recall and enter id 10V384000. There are 27 associated documents and only 2 recalls for the 05 Toyota Matrix (twin of the Pontiac Vibe).

Yes, that looks like it, but the GM wording was slightly different as I recall. They did replace the PCM but I personally never did experience any kind of problems.
 
Thanks for the reputation downvote-at least sign your name to the insult next time. I stand by my opinion that reporting through the NHSTA is not the right place to report this, and that Mommy Government isn't the solution to every problem. That's no reason to insult me using anonymous downvoting.
 
Last edited:
Maybe these are the first ripples of what I simply know what's going to happen - defects show up after some time. Not all is as shiny as during the first months/years(s) . TESLA is a company as every other company, only their products are special. They'll start to suffer bit by bit from increasing error rates caused by aging. I'm curious what'll happen to the stock if error rates increase. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish TESLA any harm. It's just reality. So, do you guys think that in this case there could be a hefty decrease in stock prices?
 
Actually with a startup company building a car for the first time I'd expect errors to decrease as they learn. Certainly after a point when volume increases significantly more problems may start to show up, say when the start Gen 3 production.
 
Thanks for the reputation downvote-at least sign your name to the insult next time. I stand by my opinion that reporting through the NHSTA is not the right place to report this, and that Mommy Government isn't the solution to every problem. That's no reason to insult me using anonymous downvoting.
Someone else also anonymously downvoted me w/"Let's try to be more civil please." apparently to post #33. :rolleyes:

No, government is not only solution but the fact that we have NHTSA in the first place and rule of law helps.

I stand by what I said. If someone has personally encountered a legitimate safety defect w/their vehicle (NOT user error) and it is still under whatever legal obligation the automaker has to do recall work (10 years?), it should be reported to NHTSA. But, I do believe (and have stated many times) that it'd probably be better AFTER the problem has been corrected and it is known what work was done.

I already stated the consequences to yourself and others by failing to do so. If parts are replaced to correct a safety defect, there's no guarantee the replacement parts won't fail in the same manner if no improvements were made in the first place.

Trying to "protect" the automaker isn't a good idea. And, the automaker may not put two and two together, even if they have the best intentions. Please read details on the sticky CTS accelerator pedals that involved Toyota and how they failed to put two and two together, for a long time.

As I said, the automaker doesn't matter. I am somewhat of a fan of both Toyota and Nissan as I have vehicles from both. I would do the above, if the above happened to me.
 
Last edited:
Was about a half block from my client when I heard a thud after take off at an intersection. Car claimed to pull over immediately and restart car. Pulled onto side street and car came back to life. Made it to the client's and forgot about it. Saw this thread and thought it might be similar to my experience. Now I am waiting for a tow truck. Can't get the suspension to raise or lower, no gear but Park is available.

No power at all now. Even supplying 12 volts won't wake the car up.

Replacement of the battery solved the problem.

During my experience, there were no major safety issues. This was similar to flooding the carburetor on an ICE vehicle.

Next time, I will contact service immediately and avoid getting towed.