cancel
Showing results forย 
Search instead forย 
Did you mean:ย 

Dometic Refer Recall - Possible Fire Hazard -Update 2/13/07

MELM
Explorer
Explorer
Click here to go directly to Updates.
Update Number 1 Nov 23, 2006
Update Number 2 Dec 5, 2006
Update Number 3 Jan 10, 2007
Update Number 4 Jan 19, 2007 - Recall Instructions - click here: Dometic Recall You need your model and serial numbers.
Update Number 5 Feb 13, 2007 - Added links to new info on the NHTSA website including the info/form for claiming reimbursement for a failure. These are at the end of the post below where all the updates are posted.

Also, edited the below Recall to include the change made prior to the Dec 5 update showing the proposed remedy.

Below is information from the NHTSA website on a recall of certain Dometic refrigerators. This recall is in its very early stages, and there is no resolution in place as of Nov 1, 2006.

From the NHTSA website:

Dometic Recall NHTSA Campaign ID 06E076000

Make / Models : Model/Build Years:
DOMETIC / NDR1062 9999
DOMETIC / RM2652 9999
DOMETIC / RM2662 9999
DOMETIC / RM2663 9999
DOMETIC / RM2852 9999
DOMETIC / RM2862 9999
DOMETIC / RM3662 9999
DOMETIC / RM3663 9999
DOMETIC / RM3862 9999
DOMETIC / RM3863 9999

Manufacturer : DOMETIC CORPORATION

NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 06E076000 Mfg's Report Date : AUG 28, 2006

Component: EQUIPMENT: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE

Potential Number Of Units Affected : 926877

Summary:
CERTAIN DOMETIC TWO-DOOR REFRIGERATORS MANUFACTURED BETWEEN APRIL 1997 AND MAY 2003: SERIAL NOS.
713XXXXX THROUGH 752XXXXX;
801XXXXX THROUGH 852XXXXX;
901XXXXX THROUGH 952XXXXX;
001XXXXX THROUGH 052XXXXX;
101XXXXX THROUGH 152XXXXX;
201XXXXX THROUGH 252XXXXX;
301XXXXX THROUGH 319XXXXX,
INSTALLED IN CERTAIN RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT AND SOLD AS AFTERMARKET EQUIPMENT. A FATIGUE CRACK MAY DEVELOP IN THE BOILER TUBE WHICH MAY RELEASE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF PRESSURIZED COOLANT SOLUTION INTO AN AREA WHERE AN IGNITION SOURCE (GAS FLAME) IS PRESENT.

Consequence:
THE RELEASE OF COOLANT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS COULD IGNITE AND RESULT IN A FIRE.

Remedy:
THE VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS WILL NOTIFY OWNERS OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES THAT HAD THE REFRIGERATORS INSTALLED AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT AND DOMETIC WILL NOTIFY OWNERS OF THE AFTERMARKET REFRIGERATORS. DOMETIC WILL INSTALL A SECONDARY BURNER HOUSING FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN BETWEEN APRIL AND JUNE 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT DOMETIC AT 888-446-5157.

Notes:
CUSTOMERS MAY CONTACT THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION'S VEHICLE SAFETY HOTLINE AT 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153); OR GO TO HTTP://WWW.SAFERCAR.GOV.

The following is extracted from the notice provided by Dometic to the NHTSA dated 8/26/06:

The potential defect is associated with cooling unit at the back of the refrigeration cabinet.

A fractional percentage of the potentially affected refrigerators have experienced a fatigue crack that may develop in the boiler tube in the area of the weld between the boiler tube and the heater pocket. A fatigue crack may release a sufficient amount of pressurized coolant solution into an area where an ignition source (gas flame) is present. Dometic's investigation has shown that a simulated release of cooling solution (refrigerant) in the area of the boiler, under certain conditions, could be ignited by the presence of an open flame. A boiler fatigue crack with the loss of cooling solution without ignition would result in a non-operational refrigerator that is not a safety issue. Under certain conditions, the released coolant could ignite and result in a fire. In order to have a fire, at a minimum, all of the following conditions must exist:

    1. The refrigerator must be on and normally operating and gas burner must be lit;
    2. 'There must be an oversized heating element in the refrigerator;
    3. The boiler tube must develop a throughway fatigue crack of a
    specific size;
    4. There must be a release of the cooling solution at a rate which will
    allow the accumulation of the cooling solution at a concentration within its range of flammability; and
    5. There must be ignition source (gas flame) present.

If any of these conditions are not present, a release of the cooling solution will not result in a fire.

In April of 1997 Dometic modified the design of the affected refrigerators by increasing the wattage of the heating element from 325 watts to 354 watts. All production of the affected units from April 1997 through May of 2003 utilized the 354 watt heating element. In May of 2003, in order to improve the operating life of the refrigerators, Dometic returned to the use of the 325 watt heating element which it continues to use today. It is now believed that the use of the higher wattage heater contributed to abnormal fatigue in the boiler tube.

The products in question are all refrigerators used in the original manufacture of recreation vehicles or as replacement equipment for recreation vehicles. The total population of refrigerators potentially containing the defect is 926,877. Dometic estimates a potential maximum incident rate of 0.01% related to boiler fatigue cracks that leak and may result in a fire. There have been no incidents of injury or death related to the affected population of Dometic refrigerators.

Dometic became aware of the occurrence of fires which may have involved their products and retained an independent engineering testing laboratory to fully evaluate and investigate any potential defect in their refrigerators which might result in a fire. A number of returned units were analyzed and microscopic fatigue cracks which could release coolant into the area of the burner were identified in the boiler tube metal in the area of the weld between the heater pocket and boiler tube. Tests simulating the cracks were conducted the week of August 18, 2006 and confirmed a possible cause of fire in the refrigerators under certain conditions. These test results prompted the preparation of this notice.

Dometic continues to gather information on the potential defect and will forward additional relevant information as it becomes available.

Dometic has not yet identified a proposed remedy for the potential defect. Dometic will continue a testing program designed to identify and evaluate possible remedies. This evaluation will take place both in the United States and in Sweden. Once a remedy has been identified, Dometic will initiate or participate in a remedy campaign initiated by the original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket suppliers who have purchased, sold, and distributed these products. A list of original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket suppliers to whom Dometic has sold the potentially defective refrigerators is being prepared and will be provided to the NHTSA upon its
completion.

The following is extracted from the NHTSA response on 9/18/06:

Please provide the following additional information and be reminded of the following requirements:
    Dometic must provide an estimated dealer notification date as well as an owner notification date including the day, month, and year. You are required to submit a draft owner notification letter to this office no less than five days prior to mailing it to the customers. Also, copies of all notices, bulletins, dealer notifications, and other communications that relate to this recall, including a copy of the final owner notification letter and any subsequent owner follow-up notification letter(s), are required to be submitted to this office no later than 5 days after they are originally sent (if they are sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or purchaser/owner).

    Dometic must file a sample of the envelope which you intend to use to mail the recall notice to owners. The words "SAFETY", "RECALL", "NOTICE" in any order must be printed on the envelope in larger font than the customers name and address.
Mel & Mary Ann; Mo'Be (More Behave...) and Bella
"If you have an RV, you don't need another hobby." Comment from a friend...

90 Champion LaSalle MH 29 ft P30 (89 Chassis)

Visit The Official Blog of the Open Road
854 REPLIES 854

J_Walker
Explorer
Explorer
I called Dometic yesterday to get more information about the possibility of the electric heater putting out too much heat and causing the weld fracture. I made some measurements of the AC current and voltage of my heater and got 360-372 watts. The tech, Roger, said that was within the acceptable range and it was not a concern. He said that the heat from the propane burner was greater than the electric heater and it would be the one to cause a weld fracture and not the electric heater for the above electric heater output. I calculated my heater resistance to be between 41.5 and 43 ohms.
Jim Walker
2014 Thor Palazzo 33.2, 6.7 Cummins, 2100 Allison
2009 Malibu

ausdoug
Explorer
Explorer
From the various pictures I've seen posted such as the one just posted of the rm2852 boiler, it appears these units have 2 sleeve for the heaters... one for the A/C and one for the D/C. My RM2852 is only gas and A/C. It appears from the pictures that the A/C heater is the front of the two sleeves when looking at the refrig from the rear. My questions is 'would it help the situation if the heater was moved to the rear sleeve.. ie. the sleeve where the D/C heater would be if you had one?'
Doug Matson
Austin, Tx
2001 2500HD LB Ext Cab
with 8.1L & Allison
HitchHiker II LS

balvert
Explorer
Explorer
A question for the RV reefer technicians. Have any of you found any failed unit where the measured resistance of the element was near that (44 ohms) specified by Dometic? In reviewing the posts it is becoming apparent (to me anyway) that the failed units had elements well to the low side of the tolerance allowed by Dometic. The lower the resistance, the higher the wattage and the greater the heat output? Certainly easy enough to check the resistance of the existing element.
Casey & Karen, Border Collies, Polly & Babe
08 Newmar Kountry Aire 5th with tandem duals, disk brakes, 7K Onan, Pullrite 25.5K Super 5th, MorRyde, RotoChoks
03 Dodge DRW Sport, Cummins, 4.10, 6 spd, MBRP SS Exhaust, Jacobs E-Brake, Tire Sentry, BrakeSmart

timsrv
Explorer
Explorer
I was out on a job today and saw my customer still had his old RM2852 sitting there by the barn. I had replaced his refer last November after he too had experienced a ruptured cooling core. He said it was going to the dump & I could have the boiler off it. Anyhow, I brought it back to the shop and cleaned it up really good. I gave it a good inspection, but couldn't find the crack. So I took the torch and heated the area. Turns out this one had cracked at the very bottom of the 120v Element pocket. See pix below. Tim



rsg33
Explorer
Explorer
Previous post has been updated with the resistance measurement.

Unfortunately, my close-up pics of the damaged cooling unit did not turn out well. After close inspection, it is impossible to determine the exact release point. The insulation soaked up most of the ammonia solution and spread it over both sides of the perc area.

WilleyB
Explorer
Explorer
Hi rsg33 Thanks for the pictures, yes I doubt you'll actually see where the refrigerant came out. Considering it comes out under pressure the hole could be seen only under high magnification most likely. It's very interesting to me you found a heater actually marked at 115 volts. Now the new one I put in mine had a package marked 115v, 325w 0173768037 looks kind of similar (except for the 7 on the end) but what was in the package was marked 120v 325w and it did measure 44 ohms , what actual part number it was I didn't pay much attention to.
Looking forward to more pictures and the resistance of that element.

Wow! how did it all go to Hell-oh
How did mfg r and/or Dometic calculate their wattage? Considering all the discrepancies I believe this is a valid question.
Maybe it can be found here Dometic Heaters at the top of the page, WATTSdivided byVOLTS=AMPS
lets see transpose the equation to be AMPS multiplied by VOLTS = WATTS and see how that works out.
at 2.7 amps and 120 Volts that gives us 324 watts, ah well close enough to 325 to be in tolerance and that way we can ignore the resistance, and every one can be happy except the owners of a failed fridge. The biggest problem by using that equation is it is used for inductive circuits such as electric motors and is useless for determining power being used used in resistive circuits such as heaters.

I can't figure out how they get 41 ohms, 325 watts, 120 volts and 2.7 amps. Would they have a typo on 2 product sheets?

Hi John Volts X Amps = Power 120 x 2.7 =324 W as close as I can come to it. It's wrong of course but with the nominal parameters given that can be the only explanation.
The RM2663 element with 41 ohms and rated at 325 watts with a nominal current of 2.7 amps will have an actual wattage rating of 299 watts with a fixed current of 2.7 amp or a 351 watt rating with a fixed voltage of 120 volts. So neither the voltage or the current seems to be a factor in their calculations. With quality control like that they must have pretty good lawyers.
If that 41 ohms is right, 10% less is 36.9 ohms.

Yes and that would equate to a 325watt element operating at 115 volts, however what happens if the AC power raises to 125 volts which it can at times in some places. All one has to remember that doubling the voltage or doubling the current will result in four times the power dissipated. So considering that a small increase or decrease still results in a major change of the power.
My element is 43.9 ohms So I'm set there, but I do not have the high temp cut off. Will add in the future.
Right on, I guess we're both at the same stage now, wait for the fix and add the hi temp cut off. I's possible we may have to wait for spring then fire it up to find what the operating temperature is, then add an increase factor to take care of false alarms.

Cheers Willis
Vanguard VXL2000
2000 Ford V10 Triton, E350 Super Duty
Just for me,the Mrs and Gabby

lotto38
Explorer
Explorer
Just called DOMETIC, seems as when I called them back in Feb, nothing got put in the computer. This gal took all my information including vin number. She will send me a letter to take to the service place which happens to be the dealr that I purchased the TT from, and they will do the fix. I have a call in to the service place.The parts will not be available until the middle of APRIL. At least I got the ball rolling. I had a devil of a time getting thru. Sounds like more and more people are finding out about this problem.

balvert
Explorer
Explorer
rsg33 wrote:
The unit is LP/110V only. Dometic uses the same cooling unit (with two pockets) for the two-way and three-way double-door fridges. I'll get closer shots when the cooling unit is removed from the box tomorrow.

The main thing to note is the element is NOT a 354W and has never been changed, so I'm not sure about the validity of the higher wattage/over-heating issue. It appears, judging by this unit, that a defect can show up even with the standard 325W element.


If memory serves very few of the elements were actually stamped 354. A 325 watt with a lower resistance value could easily draw over 350 watts under some conditions. Has anyone actually seen an element stamped "354"? It will be interesting to see what your resistance values are for the element in the failed fridge.

Casey
Casey & Karen, Border Collies, Polly & Babe
08 Newmar Kountry Aire 5th with tandem duals, disk brakes, 7K Onan, Pullrite 25.5K Super 5th, MorRyde, RotoChoks
03 Dodge DRW Sport, Cummins, 4.10, 6 spd, MBRP SS Exhaust, Jacobs E-Brake, Tire Sentry, BrakeSmart

lotto38
Explorer
Explorer
Shangrila7 wrote:
I just received my recall notice today and was kind of concerned.
But...then I read on this forum where a chance of fire is only .01% of the 993,000 suspect units built over the last 10 years?

I've no facts but, I'd guess that the heaters, stoves, ovens, propane systems, stereos, etc., etc., in Rv's have design flaws that have not been disclosed and are of equal to or greater of a fire danger than what dometic has disclosed. Due to as lawsuit happy as this country is, Dometic is only trying to protect itself. 2 or 3 mega law suits would put them out of business. If this situation was as serious as some perceive, it would be all over TV, radio and the newspapers.
If there has been no injuries, deaths or lawsuits over the last ten years due to these suspect units, we should be more concerned about the spinach and peanut butter we consume. If the gas prices continue to climb, I won't be even using my RV that contains my dangerous dometic fridge.:)


When did you contact them? I called back in Feb and have not received anything yet.

rsg33
Explorer
Explorer
The unit is LP/110V only. Dometic uses the same cooling unit (with two pockets) for the two-way and three-way double-door fridges. I'll get closer shots when the cooling unit is removed from the box tomorrow.

The main thing to note is the element is NOT a 354W and has never been changed, so I'm not sure about the validity of the higher wattage/over-heating issue. It appears, judging by this unit, that a defect can show up even with the standard 325W element.

JBarca
Nomad II
Nomad II
rsg33 wrote:
A couple of you wanted pictures. This is a classic recall case. The first pic is what the owner saw from the exterior. The second is of the perc area with the insulation and outer housing removed. It's hard to tell exactly where the leak originated, but I suspect at the common weld between the 12V pocket and the 110V pocket. I'll know better when the cooling unit is actually removed from the box.

This is a RM3862 out of a 2002 5th and is on the recall list. The element is marked 115V-325W. Part # 173768-03 The ohms will be checked tomorrow and I'll edit this post with the reading. Dometic has supplied a new cooling unit and will warrant this defect for the owner.


First off thanks for the pics. You mentioned 12 volt pocket and 120 volt pocket. Did this one have the dual voltage?

Any more close up's would help. Now we are getting a lot closer to at least understanding the insides. Or what it looks like that is.

Another thing that jumps out of this pic's. Corrosion. Cyclic heat thermal expansion and corrosion combined. Given the right combinations this can add up to a crack initiation point due a stress riser created from the corrosion pit. Once started the thermal cycling works on it. And the heat affected zone of a welds get's worked on first. All negative trends.

H'mm and the PN you gave out. 173768-03 That is the same today PN. See page 11, item 68. RM3862 parts list Seems maybe some substitutions may have come into play or they kept the same part numbers and upgraded the probe to 44 ohms, 325 watts.

Boy that RM3862 is one nice big fridge.

John
2005 Ford F350 Super Duty, 4x4; 6.8L V10 with 4.10 RA, 21,000 GCWR, 11,000 GVWR, upgraded 2 1/2" Towbeast Receiver. Hitched with a 1,700# Reese HP WD, HP Dual Cam to a 2004 Sunline Solaris T310R travel trailer.

JBarca
Nomad II
Nomad II
WilleyB
Snip..

Hi John, while reviewing the thread there's little doubt in my mind that the culprit is two fold. I do believe between Dometic's recall paper, only fridges with the underrated element (354w???),Tim's post about the common factors to the failures was the underrated heating element and that it failed at the first weld above the elbow, plus Chris' post on the effect of stress from heating the weld.

Willis, I agree this is a multi part problem where the right conditions have to add up. And I can see a cyclic thermal expansion problem adds up with the higher wattage element. Without a real good picture of how the element is placed in relation to the crack and the metal thickness around it, I can't add much more science to this. If we do not come up with a pic soon, I may find out on my own.

A big question in my mind "Why such a low failure rate?"
There's also no doubt in my mind that a lot of failures happened but for reasons unknown (not reported)are not included in the statistics. Yet there's much reason to believe the failure rate is still low.

Yes I agree with this too. Unless someone knows of the problem, this could be just written off for road vibrations, or a weak unit. Tim, helped make it clear that his failures where not even on the road.

Now here it gets kind of iffy, Chris most likely could explain this better.
Those who have welding experience will understand there is a quality of weld depending on the penetration (mix of new metal to the pieces being welded)when heated the stress characteristics of this welded joint are quite different to the surrounding metals. It's easy to believe that a lower number units might have a much deeper weld penetration than the rest (new or novice welder)and when overworked by an excessive expansion and contraction, the weld will break from from one of the metals that were joined leaving a very weak structure.

Yes, there is merit in this as well. Running mostly on propane would create a different situation than those running mainly on electric. And then there is weld quality

No matter which parts list you look at the parameters for a 325 watt element is 44 ohms +/- 10% if your fridge has that it's not on the recall list. There is a reason for this, an absorption refrigerator must have the correct heat to operate. The low end tolerance is 39.6 ohms, so it is safe to assume this would generate the hottest allowable temperature and the expansion and contraction factor does not overwork the weld.

Well there are different ratings.

Look at this RM 2620 it is listed as 48 ohms and 295 watts. See page 2

And here is a RM2663 with 41 ohms and 325 watts. See page 2 RM 2663

If that 41 ohms is right, 10% less is 36.9 ohms.

I can't figure out how they get 41 ohms, 325 watts, 120 volts and 2.7 amps. Would they have a typo on 2 product sheets?




The Dometic modification to the best of my knowledge, from what is posted on this thread, consists of a fix so that the unit does not catch fire when the cooling unit fails while operation on LP gas.

So What to do. I don't know about anyone else but here's my reaction.

1 Replace the heating element with a new one of correct specifications (preventative, why push one's luck)
2 When the Dometic fix is ready, have that done (Safety, it's free why take a chance)
3 When we have enough information I will install the thermal cutoff. (more safety, it's easy to do so why not)

Because of the thread I believe we have a better understanding of the problem and remedial actions we might take. At least now when we go out for a run I'll feel a lot better about it all than when the thread first started.

Cheers Willis


I agree within your correction list. If you where lucky enough to not stress the welds, by changing the element will slow down what ever might happen.

My element is 43.9 ohms So I'm set there, but I do not have the high temp cut off. Will add in the future.

John
2005 Ford F350 Super Duty, 4x4; 6.8L V10 with 4.10 RA, 21,000 GCWR, 11,000 GVWR, upgraded 2 1/2" Towbeast Receiver. Hitched with a 1,700# Reese HP WD, HP Dual Cam to a 2004 Sunline Solaris T310R travel trailer.

rsg33
Explorer
Explorer
A couple of you wanted pictures. This is a classic recall case. The first pic is what the owner saw from the exterior. The second is of the perc area with the insulation and outer housing removed. It's hard to tell exactly where the leak originated, but I suspect at the common weld between the 12V pocket and the 110V pocket. I'll know better when the cooling unit is actually removed from the box.

This is a RM3862 out of a 2002 5th and is on the recall list. The element is marked 115V-325W. Part # 173768-03 The ohms will be checked tomorrow and I'll edit this post with the reading. Dometic has supplied a new cooling unit and will warrant this defect for the owner.

Edit...the resistance of the element turned out to be 36.5 ohms and will be replaced. Now all you number crunchers can go crazy. ๐Ÿ™‚ Of course the element in the recall is in a grey area. Whether Dometic will replace it at no cost is unknown at this point, since the unit is over it's warranty period. But, we'll see. Either way, it has to be replaced.

For those of you keeping score, the new element was checked and it shows 40.4 ohms. Just barely within the specs of +/-10%


As a side note, the new cooling unit came with a thermofuse attached. The original fridge didn't have one, so it needed a small rewire to include it in the circuitry.



Shangrila7
Explorer
Explorer
I just received my recall notice today and was kind of concerned.
But...then I read on this forum where a chance of fire is only .01% of the 993,000 suspect units built over the last 10 years?

I've no facts but, I'd guess that the heaters, stoves, ovens, propane systems, stereos, etc., etc., in Rv's have design flaws that have not been disclosed and are of equal to or greater of a fire danger than what dometic has disclosed. Due to as lawsuit happy as this country is, Dometic is only trying to protect itself. 2 or 3 mega law suits would put them out of business. If this situation was as serious as some perceive, it would be all over TV, radio and the newspapers.
If there has been no injuries, deaths or lawsuits over the last ten years due to these suspect units, we should be more concerned about the spinach and peanut butter we consume. If the gas prices continue to climb, I won't be even using my RV that contains my dangerous dometic fridge.:)

J_Walker
Explorer
Explorer
Chris Bryant wrote:

This is the "gotcha" in this whole fiasco- I have never seen a published heating element resistance figure other than the 44 ohms- which is supposed to be measured every year in the required maintenance.

The only 38 ohms units I have run across were in units which the maintenance had not been done, but were still in the 3 year window.
I went ahead and warrantied them but charged for a new element, but I don't know what Dometic would have said if I had done the maintenance and turned in a 38 ohm heater.


Chris
I made some measurements on my seven year old Dometic RM3862 by taking the AC current and volts to get the resistance. I get between 41 and 43 ohms on the original heater. What would you say would be the threshold to get a new heater? Also, do you think that a high temperature cut off will be part of the recall kit? Thanks.
Jim Walker
2014 Thor Palazzo 33.2, 6.7 Cummins, 2100 Allison
2009 Malibu