Vehicle experienced failure of the recall component (99V-340) prior to recall notification, which resulted in vehicle collision due to loss of brake control.

- Clifton, NJ, USA

Consumer was in for recall repair and denied additional work, when having the additional work performed at another location it was found that the recall repair was not completed as stated on the invoice (99V-340), consumer is requesting reimbursement for repairs completed.

- East Falmo, MA, USA

Consumer is not able to have recall repair (00V-136) completed, there is no dealership in the area of residence, owner is requesting information regarding lack of service.

- Siasconset, MA, USA

Rear brakes rotors corroded which caused extended stopping distance and may result in a crash. Owner received a recall for the front rotors which have the same problem as the rear rotors. Consumer did not understand that if the front brake rotors needed to be repaied due to corrosion why the rear brake rotors are not being recalled. Front cv boot was broken, during the process of changing the boot the mechanic broke the hub.

- St Augustine, FL, USA

Front brake rotors failed prior to recall notice 99V-340. Nlm

- Williamsport, PA, USA

Had recall repairs done on front disc brake rotors. However, rear rotors are rusting & disintergrating. Also, brake drums disintegrate when touched or when brakes are applied.

- Tarboro, NC, USA

R/R front brake pads and rotors failed prior to recall notice 99V-340. Nlm

- Syracuse, NY, USA

Consumer was told the day before scheduled repair that there were no parts available for front brake rotor recall 99V-340 called later to find out when they would be in and was told they were in and had to rescedule because the original appointment was given to another customer. Nlm

- Cumberland, MD, USA

Rusted, defective disc rotors compromised the brake's performance in an emergency situation. In heavy traffic, on a two lane road, there was an accident ahead, drivers slammed on their brakes, but my son was unable to stop quickly enough and hit the '84 Volvo ahead of him. My son was cited for following too closely, although he does not think he was following too closely. Vehicular damage appeared very minor, but the other driver is claiming that his '84 Volvo is totaled. The impact was at very low speed. My son received no injuries, and his airbag did not deploy. The other driver complained of a headache and backache, saw his doctor, was treated with naprosyn (alleve), and is fine. We had received no information from Chrysler about the recall on the front brake rotors. We found out about the recall the next day (1/21/2000) when it was announced on cnn. I called Chrysler and had the recall performed. (our Jeep was affected because it had been housed in Ohio prior to 8/99 when we bought it). The receipt from the dealer for the recall work says the rotors were defective. After the new rotors were installed we noticed a very signigicant difference in stopping ability. I reported this to Chrysler, requested that a test of stopping time/ability with the old rotors and with the new rotors be done, but Chrysler refused. If we had been informed of the recall, we could have had the rotors replaced and avoided the accident. I understand that rotors are a wear item, but obviously, rust causes metal to wear and thin more quickly. We believe the rusted rotors adversely affected the ability of the brakes to stop our Jeep quickly enough in an emergency situation.

- Lilburn, GA, USA

Vehicle experienced severe failure of the recall component (rotors) prior to notification, resulting in additional repairs and charges, requesting reimbursement for all charges related to the defective rotors. (99V-340)

- Thornton , PA, USA

Recall component failed three times prior to receiving notification. (99V-340)

- Mt. Lake Park, MD, USA

While driving vehicle began to shake- this happened right after the recall was done on the brake rotors.consumer is afraid to drive because she may lose control.

- Maywood, IL, USA

Brake rotors failed prior to recall notice (99V-340).

- West Haven , CT, USA

Vehicle experienced failure of the recall (99V-340) prior to notice, owner replaced all rotors and pads as well.

- Epsom, NH, USA

Recall 99V340000 concerning front brake rotors were not sent to consumer. Also, she has been the only owner of this vehicle. Consumer contacted manufacturer. Manufacturer noted that vehicle was included in the recall. However, they neglected to send the information to consumer.

- New City, NY, USA

Vehicle recall repair completed, however additional repairs necessary to completely repair vehicle, these additional repairs were not included in the recall (99V-340).

- Wexford, PA, USA

Front brake rotors are on recall, manufacturer's recall 9845. Consumer is having the same problem with the rear brake rotors, they are warped, and the surface is rusted. Owner feels rear rotors should be recalled also.

- Maple Hill, KS, USA

Recall component (99V340) failed prior to recall notice and were replaced.

- Londonderry, NH, USA

Recall component replaced and failed prior to notice (99V-340), consumer would like to be reimbursed for prior repair.

- Underhill, VT, USA

Total front brake failure caused by breakage of the rotors, causing separation of the center hub from the rotor. Vehicle lost control, resulting in a crash/injury. Dealer has been contacted.

- Eightyfour, PA, USA