Owners have filed 14 complaints
about the 2004 Infiniti Q45 with NHTSA between 2005 and 2019.
The largest single group is the electrical system.
Across this model's run it ranks 7 of 8 worst.
The letter says how bad. This says what kind — whether this year drew
an unusual number of complaints, unusually dangerous
ones, or failures that arrived unusually early.
The dashed ring is 50 — the national norm. Further out is worse.
Complaint volume — 35
Against the median year of the Infiniti Q45. 50 means typical for this
model; 100 means roughly double.
Severity — 0
0% of these complaints
involved a crash, fire, injury or death, against a national rate of
9.7%.
Early failure — 15
9% of failures with a mileage on record happened under
36,000 miles, against a national rate of
29%.
Complaints filed with NHTSA, by model year. Bar colour is the FaultScore grade:
A
B
C
D
F
ungraded
What breaks on a 2004 Infiniti Q45
Every complaint is filed against a part. Follow any row for the complaints about that part alone.
Electrical System
321.4%
Median failure at 42,173 miles
Lights
214.3%
Median failure at 39,886 miles
Acceleration & Cruise Control
214.3%
Median failure at 1,000 miles
Steering
214.3%
Median failure at 95,000 miles
Engine & Cooling
214.3%
Median failure at 103,000 miles
Seats
17.1%
Median failure at 42,173 miles
Body & Structure
17.1%
Brakes
17.1%
Median failure at 42,173 miles
When it fails
Odometer readings owners gave when they filed. About half of all
complaints include one.
1,000 – 9,999 miles
19.1%
25,000 – 49,999 miles
654.5%
75,000 – 99,999 miles
327.3%
100,000 – 149,999 miles
19.1%
When owners complained
A spike years after the car went on sale usually means a part wearing
out on schedule across the whole fleet — the kind of pattern no single
owner can see from inside their own car.
Feb 2005peak 4Jan 2019
NHTSA investigations into the 2004 Infiniti Q45
An investigation is the step before a recall: the agency has seen enough
complaints to look into a pattern itself. An open one means it thinks
something may be wrong and nothing has been fixed yet.
The subject vehicles are equipped with seat-mounted, side thorax air bags for the driver and front passenger.This investigation revealed that faulty side air bag module electrical connectors located under the driver and front passenger seats can cause an interruption in the electrical circuit that will drop the input voltage below the specified range.As a result, the air bag warning lamp illuminates on the instrument panel and the affected side air bag becomes deactivated.In June 2009, Nissan conducted a service campaign to repair the defective air bag electrical connectors in the subject vehi...
PE08067Opened 2 Dec 2008Closed 1 Apr 2009AIR BAGS:SIDE/WINDOW
SIDE AIR BAG NON-DEPLOYMENT
THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH SEAT-MOUNTED, SIDE TORSO AIR BAGS FOR THE DRIVER AND FRONT PASSENGER.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS REVEALED THAT FAULTY SIDE AIR BAG MODULE CONNECTORS LOCATED UNDER THE FRONT SEATS CAN CAUSE AN INTERRUPTION IN THE ELECTRICAL CURRENT THAT WILL DROP THE INPUT VOLTAGE BELOW THE SPECIFIED RANGE.AS A RESULT, THE AIR BAG WARNING LAMP ILLUMINATES AND THE AFFECTED SIDE AIR BAG IS DEACTIVATED.THE RATES OF COMPLAINTS, FIELD REPORTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT ISSUE ARE VERY HIGH.FOR EXAMPLE, NISSAN SUBMITTED 4,853 WARRANTY CLAIMS ON 3,551 DISTINCT SUBJECT V...
Recalls on the 2004 Infiniti Q45
A complaint is one owner's allegation. A recall is the point at which
the manufacturer or a regulator agreed the defect is real and dangerous
enough to fix for free — however old the car is.
Canada — Transport Canada
Canada runs its own recall programme, and its campaigns do not
always mirror the American ones.
Recall 2012069139 units in Canada
Airbag
Certain vehicles may develop increased electrical resistance in the intermediate connector for the seat-mounted side airbags. As a result, the airbags may not function as intended, causing the instrument panel warning lamp to illuminate. Failure of the side airbags to deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will change the mounting location of both side airbag intermediate connectors and add epoxy to prevent movement inside the connectors.
Recall 200626135 units in Canada
Lights And Instruments
Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of CMVSS 108 pertaining to stop lamps and reflex reflectors. Correction: Dealers will install updated rear combination lamp assemblies.
In the owners' own words, exactly as filed with NHTSA.
Aberdeen, MD
STEERING
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 INFINITI Q45. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE'S FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 11V244000 (STEERING, SUSPENSION). THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT PAY FOR THE REPAIR. THE DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE CONTACT KEPT THE VEHICLE PARKED AND HAD NOT DRIVEN IT IN OVER TWO YEARS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
NHTSA complaint #11173306 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
Aberdeen, MD
STRUCTURE:BODY
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 INFINITI Q45. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE'S FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 11V244000 (STEERING, SUSPENSION). THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT PAY FOR THE REPAIR. THE DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE CONTACT KEPT THE VEHICLE PARKED AND HAD NOT DRIVEN IT IN OVER TWO YEARS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
NHTSA complaint #11173306 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 111,000 milesSanta FE, NM
ENGINE
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 INFINITI Q45. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT 40 MPH, THE ENGINE STALLED WHILE THE SERVICE ENGINE SOON WARNING LIGHT AND ANOTHER UNKNOWN LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO RESTART. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE AFTER THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE CAM POSITION SENSOR FAILED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED, HOWEVER THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 111,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA complaint #10984183 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 95,000 milesSilver Spring, MD
STEERING
I WAS DRIVING AND DASHBOARD LIGHTS CAME ON, THEN VEHICLE CUT OFF ON THE HIGHWAY. I ASSUMED IT WAS A BAD ALTERNATOR, BUT IT WAS A DEFECTIVE CRANK SENSOR.
NHTSA complaint #10638308 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 95,000 milesSilver Spring, MD
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
I WAS DRIVING AND DASHBOARD LIGHTS CAME ON, THEN VEHICLE CUT OFF ON THE HIGHWAY. I ASSUMED IT WAS A BAD ALTERNATOR, BUT IT WAS A DEFECTIVE CRANK SENSOR.
NHTSA complaint #10638308 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 95,000 milesSilver Spring, MD
ENGINE
I WAS DRIVING AND DASHBOARD LIGHTS CAME ON, THEN VEHICLE CUT OFF ON THE HIGHWAY. I ASSUMED IT WAS A BAD ALTERNATOR, BUT IT WAS A DEFECTIVE CRANK SENSOR.
NHTSA complaint #10638308 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 37,600 milesLeawood, KS
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
MY LOW BEAM HEADLAMP SYSTEM HAS NOW FAILED AT TWO SEPARATE TIMES, BOTH DURING NIGHTTIME DRIVING. THE FIRST WAS ON NOVEMBER 2, 2009, AT 37,600 MILES, THE LEFT HID BALLAST FAILED; NISSAN REPAIRED THE FAILURE UNDER WARRANTY ALTHOUGH ITS TIME-PORTION HAD EXPIRED. THE SECOND FAILURE WAS AT 47,600 MILES ON DECEMBER 1, 2011. NISSAN/INFINITI CONSUMER AFFAIRS WERE TOLD AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT MILEAGE WARRANTY WAS NO-WHERE-NEAR EXPIRED - BUT TIME HAD - YET, TALKED AS THOUGH THEY WOULD HELP WITH THE REPAIR. THE QUID-PRO-QUO WAS THAT I GET AN INFINITI DEALER TO VERIFY PROBLEM AND COST TO REPAIR. AT MY COST OF $125.88 THE INFINITI DEALER AGREED THE RIGHT BALLAST WAS NOW BAD; COST TO REPAIR APPROXIMATELY $1100. NISSAN CONSUMER AFFAIRS WERE INSTRUCTED (ACCORDING TO CA) BY A HIGHER ECHELON OF NISSAN NOT TO REPAIR. CA DID AGREE TO REFUND MY DEALER COST OF $125.88. CONCLUSION: IN 2004 THIS WAS NISSAN/INFINITI'S PREMIUM PRODUCT. THIS CAR WAS EARLIER REPORTED TO NHTSA BECAUSE THE FORE-AFT POWER FUNCTION OF THE DRIVER'S SEAT FAILED AT 42,170 MILES AND NISSAN WOULD ACCEPT NO RESPONSIBILITY. SURELY THE NHTSA MUST REASONABLY THINK THAT FAILURE OF A DRIVER'S SEAT IN ITS REARMOST POSITION AND TWO FAILURES OF THE LOW-BEAM HEADLAMP SYSTEM COULD EASILY PLACE ANY DRIVER AND HIS/HER PASSENGERS IN A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION.
NHTSA complaint #10443498 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 37,600 milesLeawood, KS
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
MY LOW BEAM HEADLAMP SYSTEM HAS NOW FAILED AT TWO SEPARATE TIMES, BOTH DURING NIGHTTIME DRIVING. THE FIRST WAS ON NOVEMBER 2, 2009, AT 37,600 MILES, THE LEFT HID BALLAST FAILED; NISSAN REPAIRED THE FAILURE UNDER WARRANTY ALTHOUGH ITS TIME-PORTION HAD EXPIRED. THE SECOND FAILURE WAS AT 47,600 MILES ON DECEMBER 1, 2011. NISSAN/INFINITI CONSUMER AFFAIRS WERE TOLD AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT MILEAGE WARRANTY WAS NO-WHERE-NEAR EXPIRED - BUT TIME HAD - YET, TALKED AS THOUGH THEY WOULD HELP WITH THE REPAIR. THE QUID-PRO-QUO WAS THAT I GET AN INFINITI DEALER TO VERIFY PROBLEM AND COST TO REPAIR. AT MY COST OF $125.88 THE INFINITI DEALER AGREED THE RIGHT BALLAST WAS NOW BAD; COST TO REPAIR APPROXIMATELY $1100. NISSAN CONSUMER AFFAIRS WERE INSTRUCTED (ACCORDING TO CA) BY A HIGHER ECHELON OF NISSAN NOT TO REPAIR. CA DID AGREE TO REFUND MY DEALER COST OF $125.88. CONCLUSION: IN 2004 THIS WAS NISSAN/INFINITI'S PREMIUM PRODUCT. THIS CAR WAS EARLIER REPORTED TO NHTSA BECAUSE THE FORE-AFT POWER FUNCTION OF THE DRIVER'S SEAT FAILED AT 42,170 MILES AND NISSAN WOULD ACCEPT NO RESPONSIBILITY. SURELY THE NHTSA MUST REASONABLY THINK THAT FAILURE OF A DRIVER'S SEAT IN ITS REARMOST POSITION AND TWO FAILURES OF THE LOW-BEAM HEADLAMP SYSTEM COULD EASILY PLACE ANY DRIVER AND HIS/HER PASSENGERS IN A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION.
NHTSA complaint #10443498 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 42,173 milesLeawood, KS
SEATS
2004 INFINITI Q45 LEMON THIS AUTOMOBILE HAS AN IN-SERVICE DATE OF 12-17-04, PURCHASED BY ME ON 02-08-08 AT 26,670 MILES WITH 10 MONTHS REMAINING ON THE TIME WARRANTY THAT'S EXPIRED. IT WAS RETURNED TO MAJOR INFINITI ON 09-29-10 WITH 42,171 MILES ^0,000 WARRANTY) AND AN INOPERATIVE DRIVER'S SEAT (NO REAR/FORWARD FUNCTION) FIXED IN AN UNSAFE POSITION FOR ME AND IMPOSSIBLE FOR MY WIFE - (7) INCHES SHORTER. AFTER DIAGNOSIS, MAJOR INFORMED ME THE REPAIR COST WOULD BE $1300 AND THAT INFINITI REFUSED ANY WARRANTY RESPONSIBILITY. I CALLED NISSAN CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND SPOKE TO EMILY WHO GAVE ME A FILE # [XXX] AND TOLD ME A REGIONAL SPECIALIST WOULD CALL WITHIN TWO DAYS, NEXT DAY, SEPTEMBER 30, I CALLED NCA AGAIN AND TALKED TO [XXX], REGIONAL SPECIALIST. SHE TOLD ME I COULDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER ON NCA COVERING THE SEAT PROBLEM UNTIL MONDAY 10-4-10. OCTOBER 1, I AUTHORIZED ORDERING OF THE SEAT ADJUSTER ASSEMBLY AS I HAD NO OPTION SINCE OUR OTHER CAR WOULD BE UNAVAILABLE AFTER MONDAY. [XXX] CALLED OCTOBER 4 AND SAID NISSAN WOULD DO NOTHING TOWARD A WARRANTY REPAIR. MY COMPLAINT: FIRST, AN INOPERATIVE DRIVER'S SEAT SHOULD QUALIFY AS A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT. MY WIFE AND I DRIVE WITH A 9 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL AND WITH AN INOPERATIVE SEAT - AS IT WAS - SHE COULDN'T DRIVE WITHOUT PERCHING ON THE VERY FRONT EDGE. WITHOUT A SEAT BELT. I HAD NO OPTION BUT TO REPAIR THIS SEAT OR ABANDON ANY NOTION OF DRIVING OUT OF TOWN. IF WE DROVE OUT OF CELL PHONE COVERAGE AND I BECAME UNABLE TO DRIVE, AS IN AN EMERGENCY, MY WIFE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO DRIVE US WITHOUT THE SECURITY OF ADEQUATE SEATING AND SEAT RESTRAINTS. SECOND, AND ANOTHER REASON MY COMPLAINT, THIS CAR HAS A HISTORY OF ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS: CD @ 28395; CRUISE CONTROL @ 32442; BATTERY@35193; HEADLIGHT BALLAST AND LAMP @ 37694. UNRELATED BRAKE REPLACEMENT @ 36396. A DRIVER'S SEAT SHOULD QUALIFY AS SAFETY-RELATED. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).
NHTSA complaint #10359119 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 42,173 milesLeawood, KS
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
2004 INFINITI Q45 LEMON THIS AUTOMOBILE HAS AN IN-SERVICE DATE OF 12-17-04, PURCHASED BY ME ON 02-08-08 AT 26,670 MILES WITH 10 MONTHS REMAINING ON THE TIME WARRANTY THAT'S EXPIRED. IT WAS RETURNED TO MAJOR INFINITI ON 09-29-10 WITH 42,171 MILES ^0,000 WARRANTY) AND AN INOPERATIVE DRIVER'S SEAT (NO REAR/FORWARD FUNCTION) FIXED IN AN UNSAFE POSITION FOR ME AND IMPOSSIBLE FOR MY WIFE - (7) INCHES SHORTER. AFTER DIAGNOSIS, MAJOR INFORMED ME THE REPAIR COST WOULD BE $1300 AND THAT INFINITI REFUSED ANY WARRANTY RESPONSIBILITY. I CALLED NISSAN CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND SPOKE TO EMILY WHO GAVE ME A FILE # [XXX] AND TOLD ME A REGIONAL SPECIALIST WOULD CALL WITHIN TWO DAYS, NEXT DAY, SEPTEMBER 30, I CALLED NCA AGAIN AND TALKED TO [XXX], REGIONAL SPECIALIST. SHE TOLD ME I COULDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER ON NCA COVERING THE SEAT PROBLEM UNTIL MONDAY 10-4-10. OCTOBER 1, I AUTHORIZED ORDERING OF THE SEAT ADJUSTER ASSEMBLY AS I HAD NO OPTION SINCE OUR OTHER CAR WOULD BE UNAVAILABLE AFTER MONDAY. [XXX] CALLED OCTOBER 4 AND SAID NISSAN WOULD DO NOTHING TOWARD A WARRANTY REPAIR. MY COMPLAINT: FIRST, AN INOPERATIVE DRIVER'S SEAT SHOULD QUALIFY AS A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT. MY WIFE AND I DRIVE WITH A 9 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL AND WITH AN INOPERATIVE SEAT - AS IT WAS - SHE COULDN'T DRIVE WITHOUT PERCHING ON THE VERY FRONT EDGE. WITHOUT A SEAT BELT. I HAD NO OPTION BUT TO REPAIR THIS SEAT OR ABANDON ANY NOTION OF DRIVING OUT OF TOWN. IF WE DROVE OUT OF CELL PHONE COVERAGE AND I BECAME UNABLE TO DRIVE, AS IN AN EMERGENCY, MY WIFE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO DRIVE US WITHOUT THE SECURITY OF ADEQUATE SEATING AND SEAT RESTRAINTS. SECOND, AND ANOTHER REASON MY COMPLAINT, THIS CAR HAS A HISTORY OF ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS: CD @ 28395; CRUISE CONTROL @ 32442; BATTERY@35193; HEADLIGHT BALLAST AND LAMP @ 37694. UNRELATED BRAKE REPLACEMENT @ 36396. A DRIVER'S SEAT SHOULD QUALIFY AS SAFETY-RELATED. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).
NHTSA complaint #10359119 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 42,173 milesLeawood, KS
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
2004 INFINITI Q45 LEMON THIS AUTOMOBILE HAS AN IN-SERVICE DATE OF 12-17-04, PURCHASED BY ME ON 02-08-08 AT 26,670 MILES WITH 10 MONTHS REMAINING ON THE TIME WARRANTY THAT'S EXPIRED. IT WAS RETURNED TO MAJOR INFINITI ON 09-29-10 WITH 42,171 MILES ^0,000 WARRANTY) AND AN INOPERATIVE DRIVER'S SEAT (NO REAR/FORWARD FUNCTION) FIXED IN AN UNSAFE POSITION FOR ME AND IMPOSSIBLE FOR MY WIFE - (7) INCHES SHORTER. AFTER DIAGNOSIS, MAJOR INFORMED ME THE REPAIR COST WOULD BE $1300 AND THAT INFINITI REFUSED ANY WARRANTY RESPONSIBILITY. I CALLED NISSAN CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND SPOKE TO EMILY WHO GAVE ME A FILE # [XXX] AND TOLD ME A REGIONAL SPECIALIST WOULD CALL WITHIN TWO DAYS, NEXT DAY, SEPTEMBER 30, I CALLED NCA AGAIN AND TALKED TO [XXX], REGIONAL SPECIALIST. SHE TOLD ME I COULDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER ON NCA COVERING THE SEAT PROBLEM UNTIL MONDAY 10-4-10. OCTOBER 1, I AUTHORIZED ORDERING OF THE SEAT ADJUSTER ASSEMBLY AS I HAD NO OPTION SINCE OUR OTHER CAR WOULD BE UNAVAILABLE AFTER MONDAY. [XXX] CALLED OCTOBER 4 AND SAID NISSAN WOULD DO NOTHING TOWARD A WARRANTY REPAIR. MY COMPLAINT: FIRST, AN INOPERATIVE DRIVER'S SEAT SHOULD QUALIFY AS A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT. MY WIFE AND I DRIVE WITH A 9 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL AND WITH AN INOPERATIVE SEAT - AS IT WAS - SHE COULDN'T DRIVE WITHOUT PERCHING ON THE VERY FRONT EDGE. WITHOUT A SEAT BELT. I HAD NO OPTION BUT TO REPAIR THIS SEAT OR ABANDON ANY NOTION OF DRIVING OUT OF TOWN. IF WE DROVE OUT OF CELL PHONE COVERAGE AND I BECAME UNABLE TO DRIVE, AS IN AN EMERGENCY, MY WIFE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO DRIVE US WITHOUT THE SECURITY OF ADEQUATE SEATING AND SEAT RESTRAINTS. SECOND, AND ANOTHER REASON MY COMPLAINT, THIS CAR HAS A HISTORY OF ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS: CD @ 28395; CRUISE CONTROL @ 32442; BATTERY@35193; HEADLIGHT BALLAST AND LAMP @ 37694. UNRELATED BRAKE REPLACEMENT @ 36396. A DRIVER'S SEAT SHOULD QUALIFY AS SAFETY-RELATED. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).
NHTSA complaint #10359119 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 42,173 milesLeawood, KS
SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC
2004 INFINITI Q45 LEMON THIS AUTOMOBILE HAS AN IN-SERVICE DATE OF 12-17-04, PURCHASED BY ME ON 02-08-08 AT 26,670 MILES WITH 10 MONTHS REMAINING ON THE TIME WARRANTY THAT'S EXPIRED. IT WAS RETURNED TO MAJOR INFINITI ON 09-29-10 WITH 42,171 MILES ^0,000 WARRANTY) AND AN INOPERATIVE DRIVER'S SEAT (NO REAR/FORWARD FUNCTION) FIXED IN AN UNSAFE POSITION FOR ME AND IMPOSSIBLE FOR MY WIFE - (7) INCHES SHORTER. AFTER DIAGNOSIS, MAJOR INFORMED ME THE REPAIR COST WOULD BE $1300 AND THAT INFINITI REFUSED ANY WARRANTY RESPONSIBILITY. I CALLED NISSAN CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND SPOKE TO EMILY WHO GAVE ME A FILE # [XXX] AND TOLD ME A REGIONAL SPECIALIST WOULD CALL WITHIN TWO DAYS, NEXT DAY, SEPTEMBER 30, I CALLED NCA AGAIN AND TALKED TO [XXX], REGIONAL SPECIALIST. SHE TOLD ME I COULDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER ON NCA COVERING THE SEAT PROBLEM UNTIL MONDAY 10-4-10. OCTOBER 1, I AUTHORIZED ORDERING OF THE SEAT ADJUSTER ASSEMBLY AS I HAD NO OPTION SINCE OUR OTHER CAR WOULD BE UNAVAILABLE AFTER MONDAY. [XXX] CALLED OCTOBER 4 AND SAID NISSAN WOULD DO NOTHING TOWARD A WARRANTY REPAIR. MY COMPLAINT: FIRST, AN INOPERATIVE DRIVER'S SEAT SHOULD QUALIFY AS A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT. MY WIFE AND I DRIVE WITH A 9 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL AND WITH AN INOPERATIVE SEAT - AS IT WAS - SHE COULDN'T DRIVE WITHOUT PERCHING ON THE VERY FRONT EDGE. WITHOUT A SEAT BELT. I HAD NO OPTION BUT TO REPAIR THIS SEAT OR ABANDON ANY NOTION OF DRIVING OUT OF TOWN. IF WE DROVE OUT OF CELL PHONE COVERAGE AND I BECAME UNABLE TO DRIVE, AS IN AN EMERGENCY, MY WIFE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO DRIVE US WITHOUT THE SECURITY OF ADEQUATE SEATING AND SEAT RESTRAINTS. SECOND, AND ANOTHER REASON MY COMPLAINT, THIS CAR HAS A HISTORY OF ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS: CD @ 28395; CRUISE CONTROL @ 32442; BATTERY@35193; HEADLIGHT BALLAST AND LAMP @ 37694. UNRELATED BRAKE REPLACEMENT @ 36396. A DRIVER'S SEAT SHOULD QUALIFY AS SAFETY-RELATED. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).
NHTSA complaint #10359119 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 1,000 milesMaryville, TN
VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUISE CONTROL
DT:THE CONSUMERS VEHICLE HAS A CRUISE CONTROL THAT HAS A CHIP THAT IF A CAR GETS TOO CLOSE TO IT SLOWS DOWN. WHEN DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AND SOMEBODY CUTS THE CONSUMER OFF IT FEELS LIKE SOMEONE STEPPED ON THE BRAKE DUE TO AN ABRUPT DROP IN SPEED. CONTACTED MANUFACTURER, THEY SAID CAN'T SEPARATE THEM BECAUSE IT ONLY SHUTS DOWN CRUISE CONTROL OR IT GOES INTO THE ICC. THE DEALERSHIP SAYS THEY HAD MANY COMPLAINTS, BUT MANUFACTURER SAYS IT IS NOT A PROBLEM. *AK
NHTSA complaint #10127114 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
Omaha, NE
VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUISE CONTROL
THE CONSUMER BELIEVES THAT THE LASER CONTROLLED CRUISE CONTROL COULD BE A POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUE TO AN UNWARY DRIVER. *NM THE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK IN THE RAIN OR WHEN DRIVING INTO THE SUN AT SUNSET. THE SYSTEM ACTIVATES THE BRAKES WHILE PASSING OTHER VEHICLE AND THERE IS NO AUDIBLE ACKNOWLEDGEMET WHEN THE SYSTEM SLOW DOWN FOR A SLOWER VEHICLE.
NHTSA complaint #10110831 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.