Volkswagen preliminary evaluation PE18001
Seat Belt Webbing Failure. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this preliminary evaluation about the webbing on 1 model year (2018). Opened Jan 10, 2018, closed Jul 3, 2018 after 6 months without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedIn December 2017, NHTSA conducted two New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) tests on the 2018 MY Volkswagen (VW) Tiguan. Both tests were 35 mph, full frontal impacts into a rigid barrier with a 50th percentile male dummy seat-belted in the driver position and a 5th percentile female seat-belted in the right front-passenger position. The tests were conducted on December 8, 2017 at MGA Research Corp. in Wisconsin (MGA) and December 13, 2017 at the Transportation Research Center of Ohio (TRC).During both crash tests, the driver seat belt webbing completely separated in tension where it looped through the seat belt latch tongue (see attached photos). Based on its analysis of the NCAP test results, VW asserted that the test dummy umbilical cord exerted additional forces on the seat belt system causing the separation. To support this theory, VW conducted several sled tests. The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE18-001) on 01/10/2018 to evaluate the two (2) incidents of seat belt separation. ODI and NCAP reviewed the sled test data submitted by VW in support of their theory. Micro analysis, conducted by the Materials Laboratory at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), verified the seat belts failed in tension and not due to cuts or abrasion. PE18-001 has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA18-005) to further examine seat belt behavior in the subject vehicles and to determine, among other things, a root cause for the seat belt separation. ODI will perform a thorough review of any vehicle and seat belt design changes for the new 2018 MY Tiguan platform and their effects on the performance of the seat belt system.
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 resumes carrying the full reasoning are linked below.
The paperwork NHTSA filed
Source: every document on this action, at nhtsa.gov- Opening resume — ODI’s own summary of why it opened this — the subject, what prompted it, and the vehicles in scope.
- Closing resume — ODI’s own summary of why it closed this, and what it concluded.
| Document | Code | Filed | At NHTSA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening resume | INOA | 2018 | |
| Closing resume | INCLA | 2018 | |
| Information request to the manufacturer | INIM | 2018 | |
| Manufacturer's response — data | INRD | 2018 | 30 files 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 |
| Manufacturer's response — full submission | INRL | 2018 | 3 files 123 |
| Memo to the investigation file | INME | 2018 | |
| Memo granting a response extension | INRE | 2018 | 2 files 12 |
These are NHTSA’s own files, served from the agency’s site — the resumes are what ODI wrote when it opened and closed the action, and the rest is the correspondence behind them, including what the manufacturer sent when the agency asked. They are linked, not copied: where a document names the people who wrote in, that redaction is the agency’s to make and its copy is the one you should read.
What owners had already reported
Source: complaints on file the day it openedWhen NHTSA opened this on Jan 10, 2018, owners had filed 5 complaints with the agency about the model years above. Owner complaints are the agency’s main early signal: ODI screens them, and a Preliminary Evaluation is usually where a pattern in them ends up.
This is what the complaint file held on that date, not a claim about which reports prompted the investigation — NHTSA’s complaint records carry no investigation number, so nobody can make that link from the data alone. The opening resume linked above names the reports ODI itself cited. Complaint records on this site begin with 2016.
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 closed without a recall. That means NHTSA found no defect trend it chose to act on at the time, or the manufacturer addressed the condition another way (a service campaign or a bulletin, which have their own pages). A closed file can be reopened if new reports arrive.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themA 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 PE18001 a recall?
No. A preliminary evaluation is NHTSA asking questions, not a recall. A safety recall carries an NHTSA campaign number and a duty to repair for free; this one closed without one. Whether one particular vehicle has an open recall is a VIN question at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Is PE18001 still open?
No. It closed on Jul 3, 2018 without a recall.
Which vehicles does PE18001 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 1 model year: 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.