STRUCTURE
2014 Autocar Acx
Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data
Data refreshed
Overview
Our database contains 1 NHTSA owner-reported complaint for the 2014 Autocar Acx, most frequently naming the other / unspecified and tires & wheels categories. 2 safety recalls have been issued covering this model year; and 1 NHTSA investigation names it.
Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.
Complaint activity over time
When owners filed reports about this model year
Not enough dated records to plot a meaningful trend — 1 month of data.
What owners report
Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded
- Other / unspecified150.0%
- Tires & wheels150.0%
Percentages are of component mentions. A single complaint can name more than one component, so these do not sum to the total complaint count.
Safety recalls
2 campaigns cover this model year
Recalls apply to specific vehicles, not to every vehicle of a model year. Check your VIN with NHTSA or your manufacturer's dealer to confirm whether a recall affects your vehicle.
Check a VIN on NHTSA.govENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING:ENGINE
Safety investigations
NHTSA inquiries naming this vehicle. An investigation is not a finding of a defect.
CNG Fuel Container Burst During A Fire
On January 27, 2015 in Indianapolis, Indiana, a model year 2014 Autocar ACX / Heil Half/Pack Freedom refuse collection truck caught fire and experienced a catastrophic CNG fuel container burst. Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) personnel conducted a field examination of the incident vehicle, an exemplar vehicle and the incident scene, and subsequently sent information request letters to Autocar LLC, The Heil Company, Agility Fuel Systems Inc. and Hexagon Lincoln Inc.After a review of all available information, it appears that this was an isolated incident. The vehicle fire originated in the refuse storage bay and was caused by a hot load, which is a quantity of solid waste that catches fire, smolders or spontaneously combusts as a result of incompatible waste materials mixing together. Drivers are trained to eject the hot load in an empty lot, when feasible. In this instance, the driver did not eject the hot load. After expending a hand-held fire extinguisher into the hopper area of the refuse storage bay, the driver retreated from the vehicle. Fire fighters arrived at the incident scene within minutes. During firefighting efforts, two CNG fuel containers burst, sending materials into the air and across a large debris field.One fire fighter was struck in the head and shoulder area by falling debris and sustained minor injury. He was examined at the scene and did not require transport but was later transported post-incident to a medical clinic where he was diagnosed with a muscle strain to his left shoulder. Multiple structures suffered property damage and the subject vehicle was a total loss. The fire was brought under control and was extinguished 1 hour and 38 minutes after fire fighters first arrived.Post-incident analysis, including a review of the fire department?s after action report, identified several contributing factors. The truck driver was unable or unwilling to eject the hot load. Fire fighters initially misidentified the subject fuel system as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and believed cooling was necessary to prevent a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE). Fire fighters were unfamiliar with natural gas vehicle fires, associated risks and best practices for firefighting techniques and tactics. The CNG fuel containers were located directly above the origin of the fire and were impinged by flame, thus weakening their structural integrity. The CNG fuel containers were mounted transversely with thermally-activated pressure relief devices (PRDs) mounted in each end, away from where the fire was localized. The CNG fuel containers were of Type 4 construction and thus were not good conductors of heat away from where the fire was localized and towards the PRDs. The CNG fuel containers were covered by a steel enclosure with small, circular openings providing access to the manual fuel container isolation valves equipped with integrated PRDs. Water applied to the fire likely cooled the PRDs but did not reach the area of the fuel containers where the fire was localized, thus keeping the PRDs below the activation temperature threshold as the fire progressed.ODI is aware of at least one other incident in which a substantially similar CNG refuse truck caught fire due to a hot load. In that case, the PRDs activated as intended. There was no fire suppression effort prior to the PRDs activating.The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) Safety Training project (http://www.evsafetytraining.org) provides training for first responders who face emergency situations involving motor vehicles.NFPA training advises that attempts to extinguish a significant CNG fire could prevent
Recent owner complaints
Reports submitted to NHTSA, shown in the owner's own words
THE REAR TIRES CAME LOOSE AFTER BEING TORQUED AT 42 MILE ON THE PDI AND THERE MUST BE A PROBLEM, I HAVE 13 TRUCK LIKE THIS ALL NEW AND ALL HAD LOOSE WHEELS. ON THIS TRUCK ONLY 4 LUG NUT WHERE LEFT HOLDING THE WHEEL ON TRUCK RAN THREE DAYS AND HAD 231 MILE ON IT AFTER WE PUT IT IN SERVICE. ALL THE TRUCK SHOW HAVING THE WHEELS TORQUED ON THE PDI AND IN THREE DAY WHERE LOOSE. AUTO CAR IS DENYING THE WARRANTY SAY THE WHEELS USED HAVE BEEN RE-TORQUED AFTER THEY WHERE ALREADY TORQUED TWICE. *TR
- NHTSA ID
- 10619241
- Incident
- Jul 28, 2014
- Mileage
- 320 mi
Compare model years
Complaint and recall counts across every year of this model
Higher-selling and older vehicles accumulate more reports. Counts are not failure rates and are not directly comparable between vehicles that sold in very different numbers. Older model years have had longer for reports to accumulate.