Freightliner recall query RQ17001
Steering Arm Capscrew Failures. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this recall query about the arm on 2 model years (2016–2017). Opened Apr 3, 2017, closed Dec 25, 2017 after 9 months without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedThe Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation based on one (1) Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) and associated Police Accident Report (PAR) that described a crash where the vehicle had a separated steering linkage at one wheel-end as the result of lower steering arm capscrew failures. It was unknown at the time whether the separation caused the crash or was the result of the crash. Recall 15V-613 corrected an under-torque issue in upper steering arm capscrews on these vehicles. ODI opened this Recall Query to assess the scope and remedy of the 15V-613 recall. ODI collected the front axle from the crash vehicle for inspection and sent an Information Request Letter (IR) to Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA).The Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) analyzed the crash truck's front axle. Based on the fracture surfaces of the capscrews and numerous witness marks on the tires, wheels, and vehicle, VRTC determined that the steering linkage separated due to the crash and was not the cause of the crash. However, VRTC noted that the capscrews on the opposite wheel end were at a much lower torque value than specified by the manufacturer. In DTNA's IR response, they reported one additional crash where a separated steering linkage was observed. DTNA determined the separation was the result of the crash and not the cause of the crash. DTNA had no complaints and all warranty reports were related to the upper steering knuckles and recall 15V-613. During the investigation ODI received one crash report from a transportation investigator retained by a fleet which involved a similar vehicle and alleged defect. The steering linkage was observed to have separated at the lower knuckle arm capscrews on the driver's side. The passenger side capscrews were found to be at a lower torque value than specified. In order to prevent a future assembly defect as identified in recall 15V-613, Detroit Axle, who manufactured the axles in the subject vehicles, made several production process changes to ensure capscrews were properly torqued. On October 14, 2015, the assembly tool was modified to monitor torque and turn of each capscrew. On this date, the tool was also changed to ?Lock on Reject.? If a bolt was not properly torqued the tool would not release until the operator acknowledged and corrected the defect. ODI conduced a roadside inspection study to help explain the low torque observed in the crash vehicle. With the help of the Virginia State Police Motor Carrier Enforcement Division ODI inspected thirty-nine (39) trucks and 156 capscrews over a two day period. No trucks were found to have under-torqued capscrews. ODI included some older trucks outside the scope of this investigation to offer additional time in service. One such truck was twelve (12) years old and had nearly 1 million miles. It too, was within specification. Based on the information collected, this investigation is closed. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following complaint identification number: 10926527
A Recall Query is a look at a recall that already exists — whether its remedy works, whether it reached every vehicle it should have, whether the manufacturer met its obligations. 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 | 2017 | 2 files 12 |
| Closing resume | INCLA | 2017 | |
| Manufacturer's response — data | INRD | 2017 | 3 files 123 |
| Manufacturer's response — full submission | INRL | 2017 | |
| Memo to the investigation file | INME | 2017 | 8 files 12345678 |
| Memo granting a response extension | INRE | 2017 | |
| Correspondence | INOT | 2017 |
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 Apr 3, 2017, owners had filed 5 complaints with the agency about the model years above, of which 1 named the steering NHTSA went on to investigate. 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 is closed. A recall query ends with NHTSA’s finding on the recall it examined — the remedy stands, is widened, or a new campaign follows; the file names the recall it concerned and NHTSA’s closing resume carries the reasoning.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themAlso named: 2016 Freightliner Cascadia; 2017 Freightliner Cascadia.
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 RQ17001 a recall?
No. A recall query 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 RQ17001 still open?
No. It closed on Dec 25, 2017 without a recall.
Which vehicles does RQ17001 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 2 model years: 2016 Freightliner Cascadia, 2017 Freightliner Cascadia. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.