Pierce preliminary evaluation PE11001
RPM's surging during pump mode. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this preliminary evaluation about the diesel on 1 model year (2007). Opened Jan 10, 2011, closed Jul 20, 2011 after 6 months. It led to safety recall 12V523000. became a recall
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedOn January 10, 2011 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE11-001) based on a product improvement program (PIP) (ODI TSB # 10036912) submitted by Caterpillar dated August 18, 2010. The PIP was for engine RPM's that could surge while in a water pumping mode on 2005 through 2009 Pierce fire trucks equipped with a Caterpillar C9 engine. This engine surge could cause a fluctuation in water pressure that is being directed onto a fire through a hose. The bulletin states that this condition in conjunction with other factors or circumstances could result in a risk of personal injury or death. Caterpillar's product improvement program released information involving the installation of new engine software on the subject vehicles. On April 11, 2011 ODI received Pierce's response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter. Based on the information received, an ODI investigator contacted several fleets and complainants regarding this defect phenomena and everyone contacted expressedconcern related to the inherent danger involved with pressure oscillations in a fire hose. Several fire fighters stated that the frequency of failure even after Software fixes have been performed per the PIP are still happening. In a supplemental IR letter dated May 27, 2011 Pierce identified a total population of 241 vehicles with the C9 engine from MY 2005 - 2008. Pierce also specified that they had 15 unique complaints coupled with 2 complaints from Caterpillar; totaling 17 consumer complaints. These consumer complaints were for MY 2006 through 2008 fire trucks. Pierce had 2 warranty claims while Caterpillar had 19 warranty claims, totaling 21 warranty claims for this investigation. ODI notes that the complaints applied to 5 vehicles and the warranty claims applied to 5 different vehicles (based on VIN).There were multiple complaints or claims on one vehicle in some cases. An ODI investigator spoke with a fire chief in Sherwood, AR who alleged a Caterpillar representative, on several occasions, came to his fire house to fix the problem of engine surge while in water pumping mode. The Caterpillar technician installed several updates to modify the software which communicates with the engine and its fueling strategies (i.e. idle function).Allegedly, after each attempt to fix the problem a fire fighter would alert the fire chief that the problem persisted in spite of constant updates. The result of this malfunction puts fire fighters at risk. ODI is concerned that a fire hose that does nor function properly has safety ramifications to the user of the fire hose and others dependent on its performance. This Preliminary Evaluation is being closed and upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA11-008).
A Preliminary Evaluation is the first formal stage: NHTSA has decided the complaints and other information it screened are worth a closer look, and asks the manufacturer for its own data on the condition. 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: 2007 Pierce Custom Contender.
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 PE11001 a recall?
No — it is the investigation that led to one. Recall 12V523000 is the campaign; its page carries the remedy.
Is PE11001 still open?
No. It closed on Jul 20, 2011 and led to recall 12V523000.
Which vehicles does PE11001 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 1 model year: 2007 Pierce Custom Contender. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.