NHTSA Investigation PE86060

CO INTRUSION

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM THE MANUFACTURER:THE MANUFACTURER ADVISEDTHAT THE AUXILIARY POWER UNITS (APU'S) AND THEIR EXHAUST SYSTEMS ARE ALLFACTORY INSTALLED.IN ADDITION, THE MANUFACTURER PROVIDED TWO INSTANCESOF CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) ASPHYXIATION WITH THREE FATALITIES.HOWEVER,THESE WERE NOT IN THE SUBJECT 1985 MODEL VEHICLES BUT IN EARLIER MODELS.IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT ONE HAD BEEN AN AFTERMARKET TAILPIPE REPLACEMENTPROBLEM AND THE OTHER RELATED TO PARKING IN A SNOWBANK.ANALYSIS:A MODEL 33 UNIT IN RICHLAND, WA, WAS EXAMINED.THE INVESTI-GATOR CONFIRMED THAT THE UNIT HAD NOT BEEN MODIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITHINSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S SAFETY RECALL CAMPAIGN(85V-138).PICTURES TAKEN SHOWED THAT THE APU EXHAUST OUTLETS FOR BOTHTHE PRODUCTION AND MODIFIED VERSIONS SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS EXPRESSED INTHE ANSI STANDARD FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 4.3.TESTS FOR CO INTRUSION WITH THE APU IN OPERATION SHOWED OFF-SCALE (ABOVE500 PARTS PER MILLION) READINGS IN THE REAR CENTER TO LEFT REAR CORNERWHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ABOVE A TRANSVERSELY LOCATED BED.THE VEHICLECUSTODIAN WOULD PERMIT NO DISTURBANCE OF THE BED.PICTURES AND VISUALEXAMINATION OF THE UNDERBODY REVEALED THE APU TAIL PIPE TO BE CRUSHED ANDMISLOCATED INSIDE THE CORNER OF THE SKIRTING SURROUNDING THE BODY.THEVEHICLE WAS IDENTIFIED AS ONE TO WHICH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECALL APPLIED;THE ANGLED TAILPIPE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY ONE WHICH EXITS AT NINETYDEGREES FROM THE SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND FORWARD OF THE APU.A SECOND ISSUE CONCERNING THIS VEHICLE WAS RAISED BY THE ATTORNEY REPRE-SENTING THE DECEASED'S ESTATE.HE CLAIMED THAT IMPACT WITH A FIXEDOBJECT CAUSED THE REAR WALL TO BE SEPARATED SO THAT THE LOWER SILL OF THEREAR WINDOW COULD BE OBSERVED FROM UNDER THE VEHICLE.INFORMATION FROMTHE MANUFACTURER REVEALED THAT AN OUTER COSMETIC SKIN HAD BEEN ADDEDTO THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AS A BEAUTY TREATMENT.THE OBSERVED LOWERSILL WAS IN FACT PART OF THE METAL REINFORCEMENT FOR THE REAR WALL.THEMULTIPLICITY OF WITNESS MARKS ON THE UNDER SIDE OF THE BODY SKIRT INDICATESTHAT THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN GROUNDED MORE THAN ONCE.EXAMINATION OF THE CURBIN FRONT OF THE DECEASED'S RESIDENCE REVEALED A NUMBER OF SCRAPE MARKSRESULTING FROM CONTACT BY THE REAR OF THE MOTOR HOME.ANOTHER ISSUE CONCERNING A SOUTHWIND J MODEL WAS RAISED BY A FLORIDAATTORNEY.HE CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE DESIGNATION, J, HAD BEENOMITTED FROM THE MANUFACTURER'S SAFETY DEFECT NOTIFICATION.INQUIRY TO THEMANUFACTURER REVEALED THAT THE DESIGNATION HAD BEEN INADVERTENTLY OMITTEDFROM THE RECALL NOTICE BUT THAT ALL THE J MODELS HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THERECALL BECAUSE THE J MODEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS WERE INCLUDED IN THELISTING USED FOR CONSUMER MAILINGS.RECOMMENDATION:CLOSE THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION.===

An investigation is a separate record from a recall and from a manufacturer communication. A manufacturer campaign to repair a safety defect or a failure to meet a federal safety standard.