2013 International Prostar Recalls

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.