2013 International Prostar

The Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE15-013) on 2012-2013 model year (MY) Navistar Prostar vehicles for throttle pedals failing to return to the idle position after being depressed.EWR field reports supplied by Navistar describe the non-returning throttle pedals as preventing the engine brake from activating and elevated engine speed making it difficult to stop the vehicle.ODI contacted complainants who alleged the accelerator pedal didn?t return to the idle position.Some drivers indicated they were annoyed, while others stated that at idle they were able to keep the vehicle stopped but need to apply more pressure to the brake pedal.Some consumers indicated that the engine speed was so high with a manual transmission that the engine-brake would not work, while other stated they were able to pull the accelerator pedal back from underneath with their foot and bring the engine speed back to normal.In Navistar?s response to an ODI information request letter, they made ODI aware of 24 consumer complaints concerning non-returning pedals, mostly on manual transmission vehicles.There were no crashes, property damage, injuries or fatalities reported.Navistar identified 1,233 warranty clams related to all accelerator pedal issues, with 70.3% of these claims were on manual transmission vehicles.Navistar informed ODI that they became aware of an unauthorized part change to the throttle control unit assembly (manufactured by Williams Controls) from April 2012 to March 2013.This unauthorized change was corrected and all vehicles were being retrofitted with the new/original designed part.The design of the subject vehicle throttle pedal is a solid-state rotary position sensor device, which transfers voltage based on shaft rotation in either direction from a reference angle.Shaft rotation is obtained by the driver stepping on the accelerator pedal or allowing the pedal to return back to closed throttle (CT) position.Navistar has described how the throttle does not return completely to the CT position due to stack up tolerance issues and backlash in the pinion/lever arm gear set.The accelerator pedal sensor stator can move slightly on the mounting bracket if the accelerator pedal is pushed with extra force.On two separate occasions an ODI investigator drove several of the subject vehicles.The vehicles that had a high idle with automatic transmissions were reasonable to stop even at the elevated engine speeds.Due to the architecture of an automatic transmission, the engine speeds never got high enough to demonstrate a safety related defect while being driven by the ODI investigator.However, the manual transmission vehicles showed a propensity to increase engine speeds in excess of 2,300 RPM?s while the vehicle was at rest.This condition occurs when the clutch is depressed the engine can rise to the elevated governed RPM, resulting in difficulty selecting gears while shifting.In the condition of a loaded vehicle going down a long grade, the inability to down shift could cause difficulty in maintaining or reducing vehicle speed with just the service brakes.Navistar recognizes the pedal issue as a safety related defect and is preforming Safety Recall 15V-776.The recall will only address vehicles with the manual transmission.ODI believes the manual transmission population exhibits a failure mechanism that represents a safety defect and the automatic supplied transmissions vehicles are drivable without similar consequence.The remedy involves recalibration of the engine Electronic Control Module (ECM) to eliminate the high idle condition caused by pedal housing tooling chan

This investigation was opened based on a consumer complaint alleging a headlight fire on a MY 2013 International Prostar.A fire cause and origin report accompanied the complaint and placed the origin at the headlight assembly but did not confirm the first material ignited.The complainant reported two injuries due to smoke inhalation by the driver and passenger as well as a broken ankle suffered by the passenger when they jumped out of the vehicle.During the investigation, ODI collected and reviewed subject and peer vehicle information related to the alleged defect.ODI selected model year 2012 and 2014 Navistar Prostar vehicles as peer vehicles.ODI sent an Information Request letter to Navistar in order to collect production, complaint, warranty, part sales, and design information.Navistar provided all requested information.A thorough review of available data revealed the only known complaint and injury event was the single complaint submitted to NHTSA.Navistar reported having received 250 warranty claims relative to the alleged defect on the subject vehicle.A detailed review of these claims indicated that single headlights failed sporadically over the life of the truck.No incidents were found to include simultaneous failure of both the left and right headlights.ODI also analyzed data for 39,687 peer MY 2012 and 2014 Prostar vehicles.Navistar used the same search criteria on the peer vehicles as the subject vehicles and identified 439 warranty claims. Again, no fires, injuries or simultaneous failures were identified.No design changes were reported for the headlights on subject vehicles.However, Navistar reported three design changes for the 2014 peer vehicles.One of the changes was to offer LED headlights.Another involved a changed in the headlight assembly supplier as a cost savings initiative, and the third was in response to warranty claims.All designs are interchangeable with the subject vehicles.Change 91885Z was put into vehicle production on November 4, 2013 and improved the headlight connections.The majority of warranty claims received reported the headlight failed as a result of the connection melting.This change was implemented to correct this issue.ODI surveyed five fleets and all reported they did not have repeat headlight failures with the new harness connectors.Navistar assessed the alleged fire reported to ODI.While the fire did originate in the headlight assembly area,Navistar does not believe it was due to the headlight harness or connections.Navistar believes it originated in the marker/turn signal harness or connection, which is also located in the headlight assembly.Pictures in the cause and origin report clearly show the headlight harness intact, which wouldn't be the case if it was the initial material ignited.This correlates with the driver's statement that the headlights weren't on at the time of failure as there would be no current in the headlight harness if the headlights were not illuminated.ODI does not dispute Navistar's assessment of the alleged defect and did not identify a trend of headlight failures or fires.There is redundancy when a single light fails and it is easily identified and remedied.Additionally, the Prostar features software to alert the driver when a headlight goes out and if properly equipped with satellite communication can simultaneously alert fleet management.This investigation is closed as further use of agency resources does not appear warranted.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that no safety-related defect exists.The agency reserves the right to take further action if warra

BACKGROUNDIn a letter dated January 15, 2012, Navistar, Inc. (Navistar) notified the NHTSA that it had decided a defect exists in certain Model Year 2012 and 2013 International brand ProStar and TranStar commercial trucks, manufactured from August 1, 2011 through June 12, 2012, and equipped with brake S-Cam tube bracket assemblies.The brake S-Cam tube bracket assembly on the steering axle may exhibit fractures between the wing bracket and the tube steel when mounted.According to Navistars filing, fractures between the wing bracket and the tube steel may result in an inoperative brake on the affected wheel end resulting in an unexpected pull condition during braking application or an unexpected increase in stopping distance.Either result may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.NHTSA assigned recall number 12V-546 to this matter.On May 28, 2013, the Recall Management Division (RMD) opened this Equipment Query Investigation in order to write to the company that supplied Navistar with these brake S-cam tube bracket assemblies, to notify the supplier of this defect, and to ensure thorough safety recalls are conducted where appropriate.An Information Request (IR) letter was sent to Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) on May 31, 2013 requesting: a list of original equipment vehicle manufacturers and after-market customers that purchased the affected brakes; the name, address and phone number of a contact for each customer; the quantity sold; the dates shipped; and, a defect report.MERITOR RESPONSEIn a letter dated June 13, 2013, Meritor responded to the IR letter and reported that based on its review of the data and information on the brake S-cam tube bracket assemblies, it did not believe these brake assemblies contain a safety related defect.Meritor investigated returned components and determined that fractures in the brake S-Cam tube bracket assemblies resulted from vehicle front-end system vibration; and, there were no defects in the design, material or manufacture of the returned components.Accordingly, Meritor stated that it will not file a defect report or conduct a recall of any equipment.However, as requested by RMD, Meritor provided a purchaser list identifying Navistar as the only purchaser of these brake S-Cam tube bracket assemblies. RECALL MANAGEMENT DIVISION ACTION All vehicle and replacement equipment manufacturers have been identified and have either filed a recall report and are conducting a recall, or have provided a response explaining why they do not believe the products they manufactured are defective.Accordingly, this equipment query is closed.

The summary for this investigation is provided in a separate attachment to this resume.This equipment query is closed.

LOS INJECTORES TIENEN PROBLEMAS Y EL CAMION TIENE MENOS DE 75K MILLAS , SE PIENZA QUE HAY UN DESGASTE EN EL ARBOL DE LEBA PRODUCTO A AL PROBLEMA DEL INJECTOR , QUE CUESTA EL ORIGINAL 850.00 SEGUN EL DEALER

NHTSA ID

11195528

Incident

Apr 3, 2019

MY DRIVER WAS HEADING UP THE 93/95 RENO WHEN THE FRONT SEAL BROKE ON THE NAVISTAR MAXXFORCE ENGINE. MY TRACTOR RELEASED ALL OF THE OIL ONTO THE HIGHWAY. WHICH CAUSES ENGINE TO SHUT DOWN. I WAS TOLD BY THE TECH THAT THIS PROBLEM IS VERY COMMON WITH THIS PARTICULAR ENGINE I'VE ALREADY REPLACED TWO TWO FRONT SEALS WITH MY OTHER TRACTORS WHICH ARE 2013 PROSTAR MAXXFORCE ENG

NHTSA ID

11154866

Incident

Nov 27, 2018

WHILE IN MOTION THE ALUMINUN HANGARS ON MUD FLAP SPLASH GUARD ASSEMBLY BROKE OFF AT HANGAR SECURMENT AREA WEAKENED IN FRONT OF DUAL TIRES FAILED AT 465;000 MILES BOTH BRAKETS FAILED LEFT AND RIGHT AND FELL OFF ON TO ROAD, HANGAR, MUDFLAP ASSEMBLY DUE TO POOR TENSILE DESIGN OF ALUMINUM SERATED.. I REPLACED AT $500.00 BOTH HANGR AND MUD FLAP COST TO ME NOTIFIED NAVIISTAR INYTERTNATIONAL AND CREATED A CASE FILE THERE 3775108 LAST MAY. SUBSEQUENTLY, LAST WEEK 7.18.2017, THE HOOGD GRILLE CLIPS FAILED ON BUMPY RAODS AND THE GRILLE ASSEMBLYFLEW OFF. THERE ARE 4 BOLTS ON ON THE BOTTOME OF THE GRILLE SECUREING THE GRILL TO THE BODY. CLIPS AT THE TOP HOLD THE GRILL IN BUT FAILED OVER BUMPY ROADS AND GRILL FELL FOREWARD IN MOTION CRACKED OFF BROKE PLASTIC SECUREMENT 4 SCREW PLASTIC HOLDERS PART OF THE HOOD BODY AND RIPED OFF. NAVISTAR NOW HAS 4 MORE BOLTS AT THE TOP ON THEIR 2016, 2017 NEW TRUCK MODELS ADMITTING 4 BOLTS WERE NOT A VIABLE ENGINEERING SECUREMENT. MUD FLAPS ASSEMPBLEY 2 OF THEM ARE ON THE ROADS AND A GRILE FROM POOR NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING. FLEET NEEDS TO BE GROUNDED. PEOPLE WILL GET KILLED. SO, IN 3 MONTHS 2 MUD FLAPS FELL OFF THE TRACTOR AND THE GRILLE FLEW OFF DUE TO IMPROPER SECUREMENT TO THE TRACTOR. ENGINEERING DID A CHEAP JOB. MORE WILL FAIL. MORE COMPONENTS WILL FAIL ON 1,000S OF TRACTORS OUT THERE. I EXPECT TO BE REIMBURDSED IN FULL. REPAIRS OVERALL WILL COST ME $20,000 IN LOST LOADS DUE TO NAVISTAR ENGINEERING FAILING ON MY GRILLE, HOOD, MUD FLAPS AND THEY WILL KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE AS WE SPEAK DUT TO THEIR NEGLAGENCE. THJE NEW TRUCKS HAVE 4 MORE BOLTS ADDED TO THE TOP OF THE GRILL THEY FIXED THE PROBLEM BUT NOT ON THE 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012S THE GRILL WILL FALL OFF THEY RECOGNIZE THERE SCREWUP AND GRILLS FELL OFF

NHTSA ID

11010344

Incident

Jul 18, 2017

Mileage

465,000 mi

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 INTERNATIONAL PROSTAR. WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS AND APPROACHING A STOP, THE ENGINE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE RETURNED TO NORMAL AFTER IT WAS RESTARTED. THE FAILURE RECURRED ON VARIOUS OTHER OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 53,000.

NHTSA ID

10956714

Incident

Feb 6, 2017

Mileage

53,000 mi

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 INTERNATIONAL PROSTAR. WHEN THE IGNITION WAS TURNED TO THE ON POSITION, THE VEHICLE REVVED WITHOUT WARNING. WHEN THE DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO TURN THE IGNITION OFF, THE VEHICLE FAILED AND THE ENGINE STALLED. THE FAILURE RECURRED NUMEROUS TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE TURBO SEAL FAILED AND PUMPED OIL INTO THE ENGINE, WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO FAIL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 301,272.

NHTSA ID

10824156

Incident

Dec 19, 2015

Mileage

301,272 mi

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 INTERNATIONAL PROSTAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT SUDDENLY BURST INTO FLAMES. THE CONTACT PERSONALLY EXTINGUISHED THE FLAMES. THE FIRE AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS WERE SUMMONED. THE CONTACT AND PASSENGER SUFFERED FROM SMOKE INHALATION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE AND VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.

NHTSA ID

10564940

Incident

Feb 17, 2014

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 INTERNATIONAL PROSTAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT FAILED. UPON INSPECTION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS A WIRING ISSUE. LATER, THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT BECAME ENGULFED IN FLAMES WHILE THE CONTACT WAS ASLEEP IN THE VEHICLE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CALLED AND DETERMINED THAT THE FIRE ORIGINATED AT THE DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT. THE PASSENGER SUSTAINED A BROKEN ANKLE FROM JUMPING OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND BOTH THE CONTACT AND PASSENGER SUFFERED FROM SMOKE INHALATION. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 115,097. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.

NHTSA ID

10564939

Incident

Feb 12, 2014

Mileage

157,250 mi

I HAVE A 2013 NAVISTAR PROSTAR THAT I'VE HAD TO TAKE INTO THE DEALER FOR VARIOUS REPAIRS. CURRENTLY, I HAVE EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM WITH THE DIESEL EXHAUST ENTERING THE CAB THAT HAS CAUSED MY EYES TO BURN, A LACK OF STRENGTH AND OTHER HEALTH ISSUES THAT ACCORDING TO MY DOCTOR, I SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING UNTIL THE PROBLEM IS RESOLVED. THE DEALER HAS OFFERED LITTLE OR NO ASSISTANCE CLAIMING THEY WILL HAVE TO REMOVE THE CAB TO INSPECT THE EXHAUST. ALSO, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL NOT SLOWING THE TRUCK DOWN WHEN GOING OVER A HILL. I HAVE TO TAP THE BRAKES IN ORDER DEACTIVATE THE SYSTEM AND THEN USE THE JAKES BRAKE AND REGULAR BRAKE TO SLOW THE TRUCK DONW.

NHTSA ID

10542698

Incident

Sep 1, 2013

The new clusters in the post-2007 models store the mileage in memory. When replacing the cluster, follow these instructions to program the current vehicle mileage into the memory of the new cluster.

This document will guide the user through the necessary steps to install the Pressure Transducer (PT) Switch Conversion Kit onto model year 2012 thru 2016 ProStar® and LoneStar®(Built prior to January 20,2015). This conversion is required to be performed during a A/C system failure in which the refrigerant system is opened.

New CARB Idle Reduction Change Request

This tool is designed to compare Diamond Logic feature data across multiple vehicle configuration files. It allows users to quickly load files either manually or directly from the Diamond Logic Builder Vehicles folder using VIN-based selection. As files are added or removed, the comparison runs automatically with no manual action required. The program presents results in an interactive table that shows feature codes, descriptions, access levels, and whether each feature is present in each selected file. Built-in search, filtering, and sorting make it easy to locate specific features or focus only on differences between files. Column visibility can be customized to show or hide descriptions and access information as needed. Users can remove files individually or clear all files at once, with results updating instantly. The tool also includes reporting and export options that reflect exactly what is visible on screen, allowing results to be printed, copied, saved as text, or exported to CSV for use in Excel or other spreadsheet tools. Overall, the program streamlines the process of comparing vehicle feature configurations, helping users quickly identify differences, validate setups, and document results without manual comparison or external tools.

This document provides guidance for assessing the feasibility of implementing a customer-requested change to an engine or vehicle parameter/feature. Customer requested changes will be approved in accordance with the requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 1037 to ensure continued compliance with greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations.

Engine replacements for all International engines will need to follow this procedure.