RoadVitals

2011 Forest River Salem Problems

Owner-reported complaints filed with NHTSA, grouped by component

Data refreshed

Owner complaintsComplaints are reports submitted to NHTSA by owners and drivers. NHTSA does not verify most reports before publishing them, and a complaint does not establish that a defect exists. Volume is influenced by how many of a vehicle were sold, how long it has been on the road, and how much attention an issue has received.
2
Latest Feb 8, 2012
Components namedHow many of our component categories appear on at least one report for this model year. One report can name several.
3
Crash or fire reportedComplaints whose submitter recorded that a crash or a fire occurred. These are the reporter's own answers on the NHTSA form, not verified findings.
1

What this page shows

Everything below is an owner-reported complaint submitted to NHTSA about the 2011 Forest River Salem, grouped by the component NHTSA recorded on the report. These are not confirmed defects, and they are not recalls. NHTSA does not verify most reports before publishing them, and a category with more reports in it is not evidence that a part is defective.

Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.

Reports by component

Ranked by how many owner reports name each component category

  • Body & structure133.3%
  • Brakes133.3%
  • Suspension133.3%

Percentages are of component mentions. A single complaint can name more than one component, so these do not sum to the total complaint count.

Each component in detail

What the reports in each category say, in the owners' own words

Body & structure

Reports naming the vehicle structure, frame, body panels, doors, hood and trim.

1
report

From owner reports, verbatim

THE MAIN FRAME OF THE TRAILER HAS FAILED DOE TO A GROSS ERROR OF THE MECHANICAL DESIGN IN MAKING THE FRONT CROSSMEMBER TOO THIN TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE TRAILER. ADDITIONALLY, THE REQUIREMENT TO USE A LOAD LEVELER BY THE DEALER AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER INCREASES THIS LOAD TO THE POINT THAT THE CALCULATED SAFETY MARGIN OF THE CROSSMEMBER THAT SUPPORTS THE TONGUE IS 1:1. THE CROSSMEMBER MATERIAL IS STANDARD A36 STEEL WITH A NOMINAL THICKNESS OF .1 INCHES AND IS BENT IN THE SHAPE OF A C CHANNEL, WELDED TO THE FRONT OF A 10 INCH I-BEAM WHICH COMPRISES THE MAJORITY OF THE LOAD BEARING STRUCTURE OF THE MAIN FRAME. THE FRONT CROSSMEMBER IN QUESTION IS USED AS A SUPPORT POINT FOR THE UNDERSLUNG TONGUE THAT IS WELDED TO THE LOWERMOST POINT OF THE I BEAM AND THE FRONT CROSSMEMBER CREATING A FULCRUM RATIO OF APPROXIMATELY 2.896 : 1. THE LEVER BEING THE TONGUE TUBING ITSELF THAT IS THEN PUSHED UPWARD INTO THE FRONT CROSSMEMBER WITH A FORCE OF 2400 POUNDS AS CALCULATED USING A MEASURED TONGUE WEIGHT OF 830 POUNDS WITH THE VEHICLE COMPLETELY UNLOADED OF ALL CARGO AND WASTEWATER AND WITH EMPTY PROPANE CYLINDERS. THIS FORCE IS SUPPORTED BY A TONGUE COMPRISED OF A 2X6 RECTANGULAR TUBING WITH A NOMINAL WALL THICKNESS OF .098 INCHES THAT HAS DEFORMED LONGITUDINALLY AND EXPANDED LATERALLY ACROSS THE SHORT AXIS DIRECTLY UNDER THE FRONT CROSSMEMEBER. THE FRONT CROSSMEMBER HAS THEN RECEDED INTO THE UNDERBELLY OF THE CAMPER AND BEGUN A VERTICAL CRACK THAT HAS COMPROMISED THE HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF BOTH THE TOW VEHICLE AND THE TRAILER AT SPEED. ADDITIONALLY, THE ELECTRICAL BRAKING SYSTEM HAS FAILED DUE TO OTHER DESIGN FLAWS IN THE PROTECTION OF WIRING WITHIN THE WHEEL AND THE DESIGN OF THE MECHANICAL ACTUATION THAT IMPINGES ON THE WIRING HARNESSES FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT WHILE BEING ACTUATED. *TR

NHTSA ID 10447180 · filed Feb 8, 2012

Too few reports in this category for a page of its own — they appear in the full complaint list.

Brakes

Reports naming service brakes, the antilock braking system, brake hoses, master cylinders or the parking brake.

1
report

From owner reports, verbatim

THE MAIN FRAME OF THE TRAILER HAS FAILED DOE TO A GROSS ERROR OF THE MECHANICAL DESIGN IN MAKING THE FRONT CROSSMEMBER TOO THIN TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE TRAILER. ADDITIONALLY, THE REQUIREMENT TO USE A LOAD LEVELER BY THE DEALER AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER INCREASES THIS LOAD TO THE POINT THAT THE CALCULATED SAFETY MARGIN OF THE CROSSMEMBER THAT SUPPORTS THE TONGUE IS 1:1. THE CROSSMEMBER MATERIAL IS STANDARD A36 STEEL WITH A NOMINAL THICKNESS OF .1 INCHES AND IS BENT IN THE SHAPE OF A C CHANNEL, WELDED TO THE FRONT OF A 10 INCH I-BEAM WHICH COMPRISES THE MAJORITY OF THE LOAD BEARING STRUCTURE OF THE MAIN FRAME. THE FRONT CROSSMEMBER IN QUESTION IS USED AS A SUPPORT POINT FOR THE UNDERSLUNG TONGUE THAT IS WELDED TO THE LOWERMOST POINT OF THE I BEAM AND THE FRONT CROSSMEMBER CREATING A FULCRUM RATIO OF APPROXIMATELY 2.896 : 1. THE LEVER BEING THE TONGUE TUBING ITSELF THAT IS THEN PUSHED UPWARD INTO THE FRONT CROSSMEMBER WITH A FORCE OF 2400 POUNDS AS CALCULATED USING A MEASURED TONGUE WEIGHT OF 830 POUNDS WITH THE VEHICLE COMPLETELY UNLOADED OF ALL CARGO AND WASTEWATER AND WITH EMPTY PROPANE CYLINDERS. THIS FORCE IS SUPPORTED BY A TONGUE COMPRISED OF A 2X6 RECTANGULAR TUBING WITH A NOMINAL WALL THICKNESS OF .098 INCHES THAT HAS DEFORMED LONGITUDINALLY AND EXPANDED LATERALLY ACROSS THE SHORT AXIS DIRECTLY UNDER THE FRONT CROSSMEMEBER. THE FRONT CROSSMEMBER HAS THEN RECEDED INTO THE UNDERBELLY OF THE CAMPER AND BEGUN A VERTICAL CRACK THAT HAS COMPROMISED THE HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF BOTH THE TOW VEHICLE AND THE TRAILER AT SPEED. ADDITIONALLY, THE ELECTRICAL BRAKING SYSTEM HAS FAILED DUE TO OTHER DESIGN FLAWS IN THE PROTECTION OF WIRING WITHIN THE WHEEL AND THE DESIGN OF THE MECHANICAL ACTUATION THAT IMPINGES ON THE WIRING HARNESSES FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT WHILE BEING ACTUATED. *TR

NHTSA ID 10447180 · filed Feb 8, 2012

Too few reports in this category for a page of its own — they appear in the full complaint list.

Suspension

Reports naming suspension components — springs, struts, shocks, control arms and related hardware.

1
report

From owner reports, verbatim

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORREST RIVER SALEM. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH, ANOTHER DRIVER ALERTED HER THAT THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE WAS ON FIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS MANEUVERED TO THE SHOULDER. THE CONTACT EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE, WHICH WAS LOCATED ON THE REAR AXLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP AND THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE REAR AXLE MELTED DUE TO A BEARING FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 1,000.

NHTSA ID 10435453 · filed Nov 14, 2011

Too few reports in this category for a page of its own — they appear in the full complaint list.

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.

Elsewhere on this vehicle

Data sources

Data on this page last refreshed .