Nissan engineering analysis EA18001
Extended Braking Distances. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this engineering analysis about the antilock/traction control/electronic limited slip on 1 model year (2009). Opened Apr 18, 2018, closed Jan 17, 2023 after 4.8 years. It led to safety recall 18V916000. became a recall
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedOn April 18, 2018, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Engineering Analysis (EA) 18-001 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year (MY) 2009 Nissan Murano vehicles. A failure of the hydraulic control unit (HCU) portion of the antilock brake system (ABS), which involves improper operation of an internal hydraulic control valve(s), can cause extended brake pedal travel and may result in a reduction in overall braking effectiveness. Tier-one supplier Continental manufactured the HCU for Nissan. The corrosion-preventive, zinc coating used on the armatures of the normally closed (NC) valves within ABS HCU may react with brake fluids lacking sufficient corrosion-preventative additives. This reaction can cause the formation of a gelatinous material, which may cause the NC valves to close slowly. Over time, the gel can solidify to an extent such that the spring used to return the valve to the closed position may not be able to overcome the gel buildup, allowing the NC valve to remain open. If any of the four NC valves remains open, fluid will be diverted to one or two accumulator(s). This misdirected fluid has the net effect of causing brake pedal travel to increase, however enough stroke remains in the pedal to generate braking force. Although the hydraulic braking system remains intact and full braking force is maintained once the pedal travels the additional distance, when this condition occurs, the initial increase in brake pedal travel could result in increased stopping distance. An existing Nissan Service Campaign was launched for MY 2009 vehicles built prior to 11/1/2007. After consultation with ODI as part of EA18-001, Nissan decided to expand this population to the full range of MY2009 Murano vehicles. Later Murano vehicles exhibit significantly lower rates of malfunction. During this investigation 156 complaints were identified that related to the braking concern. Within the complainants 2 allege crashes with 4 injuries. The Nissan reports from investigation Information Request letter responses, were similar in content and identified 870 reports with 16 crashes and no injuries. On December 19, 2018, Nissan notified ODI it would conduct a safety recall (18V916) to remedy the ABS modules on certain MY 2009 Nissan Murano vehicles. The remedy procedure involves dealers flushing the brake system with DOT 4 fluid. The HCU will then be tested to detect a possible stuck valve condition. If necessary, the HCU will be replaced. The 2010-14 Murano SUVs outside the recall population and equipped with zinc-coated armatures will be inspected under a service campaign P0A08 using the same procedure as recall 18V916. Continental HCUs with a redesigned armature coating were phased into new vehicle production after December 2014 and do not appear to be experiencing corrosion. The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks of concern to ODI. Accordingly, the investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or MY vehicles outside of the recall scope. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances. For a complete summary of this investigation and related consumer complaints, please see attached closing resume document.
A Engineering Analysis is the deeper stage, usually upgraded from a Preliminary Evaluation: NHTSA tests, requests engineering documents and decides whether a safety defect exists. The summary is the agency’s own text from its investigation file, unedited; the opening and closing resumes with the full reasoning are on NHTSA’s site under this number.
What this means for an owner
Source: and what happens nextAn investigation is not a finding that a defect exists, and it puts no duty on anyone. NHTSA opens a Preliminary Evaluation when complaints and other reports suggest a condition worth asking the manufacturer about; it upgrades to an Engineering Analysis when the answers warrant testing; it closes either when it recommends a recall, when the manufacturer recalls on its own, or when no defect trend is found. The agency’s own goals are about four months for a petition, eight for a Preliminary Evaluation or a Recall Query and eighteen for an Engineering Analysis; many run longer.
This one became a recall. The campaign page carries the manufacturer’s filed defect, risk and remedy, the build window and every model year covered; whether one specific vehicle is included is settled by VIN at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themAlso named: 2009 Nissan Murano.
A vehicle page’s investigation list carries the same action; a name here is the scope NHTSA opened, not a list of affected VINs.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs EA18001 a recall?
No — it is the investigation that led to one. Recall 18V916000 is the campaign; its page carries the remedy.
Is EA18001 still open?
No. It closed on Jan 17, 2023 and led to recall 18V916000.
Which vehicles does EA18001 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 1 model year: 2009 Nissan Murano. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.