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

[MELM]

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.

[CrossCountryNom]

timsrv wrote:

All this aside, the recall ended early in 2003, so it seems just a little odd you would have a recalled refer in a 2005 trailer. What are your model and serial numbers? Tim

I think you are missing something here. This recall started last November 2006. That's why his 2005 RV could be affected. That last affected units where being produced through early to mid 2003.

He's not the only one with an RV build after mid 2003 that been caught up in this recall.

BTW - you can skip pages. Just enter the page you want to go to where it displays the current page and press enter. That will let you skip as many pages you want to.

The reference to page 40 might be a little misleading. In your preferences you can choose how many responses you like to see on a page. Even as long as this thread is my max page for this thread is 37.

[timsrv]

I know this thread is hopelessly long, and you can't skip pages while navigating, but this has been talked about somewhere around page 40. There are a few guys that did this, but my question is: If the correct element is available for around $40, why would you waste the time and money to do this? Another reason to stay away from this or any other mod is you may be excluding yourself from Dometic's product liability in the event of a fire.

All this aside, the recall ended early in 2003, so it seems just a little odd you would have a recalled refer in a 2005 trailer. What are your model and serial numbers? Tim

[69800]

Ok
Here is my question. My 2005 Nomad has a recall refer. The heating element fits the specks of the newer 325 watt units. so far so good. But if a guy wanted to be conservative and put in a transformer to drop the volts from 120 to 112 or so,,, How many watts of heat does it take to make the refer work. I do not care if it takes longer to get cold, I can plan for that, but will say 300 watts do the job? 280? 260? What is the lowest limit. I find plug ins in some places like my house at 124 volt but you may find a park a 115 volts. Any body Know???
Mark

[Old___Slow]

MELM wrote:
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.

See post dated 8-17-07 for a response.

OLD and SLOW

[Old___Slow]

timsrv wrote:

twigger wrote:
Dometic has clearly tried to guide blame in the direction of wattage of the electric heating element, when the ACTUAL CAUSE OF FAILURE LIES IN DOMETIC'S WELDING METALLURGY AND WELDING PROCESS CONTROL.

Only problem is that the rebuilt cooling unit is another Dometic, so some other weld will probably fail in a year or two.

Bottom Line: DOMETIC HAS A MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP AND PROCESS QUALITY CONTROL PROBLEM, BUT SHAMEFULLY WON'T FESS UP TO IT AND DO THE RIGHT THING.

I have suspected this same thing, but have no proof. I personally think it's caused by a combination of cheap grade metal and not enough of it in the important places. The thing that has always bugged me about Dometic's statement to the NHTSA is: how can 29 watts make that much difference? Even 354 watts is admittedly within Dometic's own acceptable range of +/- 10% variance. I am now constantly seeing boiler failures on Dometic refers. 10 years ago this was a rare occurrence. I just replaced one last week that was not part of the recall (it was made a year before the recalled refers). Last month I saw the same thing on an RM2510. There are many more examples I see of this on a regular basis. It's becoming common place. Up until 2 years ago, when I sold a refer, chances were I'd not have to warranty it. Out of the last 10 refers I've sold, 3 have come back with failed cooling cores & 1 was bad out of the crate! At least Dometic gave that guy a new refer. As for my trouble to install, Dometic was generous enough to pay me a total of $60 (driving up to his remote location to install, repacking, shipping, and completing the paperwork was on me). Okay I'll stop, sorry for the rant :(.

My thoughts on rebuilt cooling cores: I quit using those about 3 years ago. I had used them for years and never had a problem. Then around 2004, about half of them I had recently installed started failing.

10 years ago installing a rebuilt core made sense because the end cost to the customer was about $500. At that time replacing the refer cost around $1,000. Failure rates on rebuilt cores were low, so this was fine. Now with inflation, higher shipping costs, and higher cost of doing business, end cost to customer is roughly $850 for rebuilding vs about $1,300 for a new refer. I guess a $450 savings is hard to pass up, but I trust rebuilt cores less than new refers, so over the long run, I think going with rebuilt will likely cost you more (except maybe for guys like twigger that have the skills and motivation to do their own).

When purchasing a new refer, at least you get a 3 year warranty. Most rebuilt cores only come with a very limited 1 year warranty. To get labor and shipping covered, the failure must occur within the 1st 30 days, and most remanufacturers only offer a maximum $50 labor allowance (actual labor is about 5 times that). At least Norcold and Dometic have motivation to make your refer last 3 years ;). Tim

To all:

The first RV for me was a no brand TT---1960 since that time I have owned countless RV's New and used. Problems yes. The biggest one of all, the pain in the biffy, the crazy refer. Not dependable. Short life. Gotta be level. Frosts quickly. Cost to bloomin' much. Well I'm OLD now. I recently bought a oldie MH. Don't have alota use for a RV, can't travel from home more that 2/3 hours. Bought it on the cheap. It sat in storage for years. Only been driven 14,500. Onan 261 hrs on the meter.DOA> Now the REF.........this is a good one. Some one replaced the old beast with a 6cf two door ELECTRIC model. I thought hmm. This is interesting. I began thinking, ok, so be it. I plug the shore power cord in at home, ( MH located close) to shore power. So no problem, just leave the ref. to remain cold, unplug, hit the road, bingo, plug into Inks Lake Park 30a power two hours later. Vary Good. Now here is the good part. I'm old, don't have to get out and level up..........nice.

Old and Slow

[timsrv]

twigger wrote:
Dometic has clearly tried to guide blame in the direction of wattage of the electric heating element, when the ACTUAL CAUSE OF FAILURE LIES IN DOMETIC'S WELDING METALLURGY AND WELDING PROCESS CONTROL.

Only problem is that the rebuilt cooling unit is another Dometic, so some other weld will probably fail in a year or two.

Bottom Line: DOMETIC HAS A MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP AND PROCESS QUALITY CONTROL PROBLEM, BUT SHAMEFULLY WON'T FESS UP TO IT AND DO THE RIGHT THING.

I have suspected this same thing, but have no proof. I personally think it's caused by a combination of cheap grade metal and not enough of it in the important places. The thing that has always bugged me about Dometic's statement to the NHTSA is: how can 29 watts make that much difference? Even 354 watts is admittedly within Dometic's own acceptable range of +/- 10% variance. I am now constantly seeing boiler failures on Dometic refers. 10 years ago this was a rare occurrence. I just replaced one last week that was not part of the recall (it was made a year before the recalled refers). Last month I saw the same thing on an RM2510. There are many more examples I see of this on a regular basis. It's becoming common place. Up until 2 years ago, when I sold a refer, chances were I'd not have to warranty it. Out of the last 10 refers I've sold, 3 have come back with failed cooling cores & 1 was bad out of the crate! At least Dometic gave that guy a new refer. As for my trouble to install, Dometic was generous enough to pay me a total of $60 (driving up to his remote location to install, repacking, shipping, and completing the paperwork was on me). Okay I'll stop, sorry for the rant :(.

My thoughts on rebuilt cooling cores: I quit using those about 3 years ago. I had used them for years and never had a problem. Then around 2004, about half of them I had recently installed started failing.

10 years ago installing a rebuilt core made sense because the end cost to the customer was about $500. At that time replacing the refer cost around $1,000. Failure rates on rebuilt cores were low, so this was fine. Now with inflation, higher shipping costs, and higher cost of doing business, end cost to customer is roughly $850 for rebuilding vs about $1,300 for a new refer. I guess a $450 savings is hard to pass up, but I trust rebuilt cores less than new refers, so over the long run, I think going with rebuilt will likely cost you more (except maybe for guys like twigger that have the skills and motivation to do their own).

When purchasing a new refer, at least you get a 3 year warranty. Most rebuilt cores only come with a very limited 1 year warranty. To get labor and shipping covered, the failure must occur within the 1st 30 days, and most remanufacturers only offer a maximum $50 labor allowance (actual labor is about 5 times that). At least Norcold and Dometic have motivation to make your refer last 3 years ;). Tim

[Chris_Bryant]

twigger wrote:

Recall hadn't occurred yet, but I was just barely under the 3 year warranty, so thought it would be covered. Wrong! Catch 22 in the warranty requires proof of annual inspection/service by a qualified technician. Which I didn't have.

That part is *kind of* up to the service center. I've never refused a warranty of this type due to lack of documented maintenance- but I have refused electronic and cleaning issues. Dometic has never asked me if the maintenance was performed, either, but it's kind of a no brainer- if lack of maintenance caused a failure, I don't warranty it, if it did, I don't.

[twigger]

Since my Dometic Fridge failed in April 2005 in my 2002 Sunnybrook 5W, long before any of this recall stuff came to light, I have been checking this discussion thread from time to time. Most of the comments are about heating element watts, thermal fuses, etc., etc. Dometic has clearly tried to guide blame in the direction of wattage of the electric heating element, when the ACTUAL CAUSE OF FAILURE LIES IN DOMETIC'S WELDING METALLURGY AND WELDING PROCESS CONTROL.

My boiler tube weld failed at a weld that had nothing to do with the electric heating element housing weld. It was another weld close to the bottom, near the gas flame area.

Recall hadn't occurred yet, but I was just barely under the 3 year warranty, so thought it would be covered. Wrong! Catch 22 in the warranty requires proof of annual inspection/service by a qualified technician. Which I didn't have. But I still fail to understand how a yearly inspection could have prevented a weld from cracking?? This is really a DEFECT in materials and workmanship.

I called RV repair places, etc. and got the usual "it can't be repaired but we'll sell you a new fridge". Then I went online and did some looking around and found a couple of places where you could buy a rebuilt cooling unit for $400-$500. One was in Tucson, AZ, and I was in Phoenix. I also found on the Internet complete instructions on how to replace the cooling unit yourself. I pulled my fridge out, removed the defective cooling unit and went down to Tucson and exchanged it for a rebuilt/recharged one, guaranteed to cool. It was $457 plus fuel to Tucson and back. Intalled it in a few hours and was back up and running. Has been working great ever since, over 2 years now, and we're fulltimers, so its full time use. I even run it on solar power a few hours a day off the inverter. And we switch back and forth from gas to electric practically daily. It's not rocket science. The average do it yourselfer can do it.

Only problem is that the rebuilt cooling unit is another Dometic, so some other weld will probably fail in a year or two.

Bottom Line: DOMETIC HAS A MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP AND PROCESS QUALITY CONTROL PROBLEM, BUT SHAMEFULLY WON'T FESS UP TO IT AND DO THE RIGHT THING. They just want to laugh all the way to the bank with the RVer's money.

[timsrv]

You'll need to double check with Dometic, but I'm sure you're okay. Because Dometic's serial numbers only include the last digit of the year, all the serial numbers are repeated every 10 years. The 1st refers to be affected by the recall were manufactured almost exactly 10 years ago. Unless they change the way they do serial numbers, this sort of thing is going to happen more and more in the next few years. Tim

[charlan]

JustUs2 wrote:
We just picked up our NEW 5th wheel from the dealer...2008 model.

After I read this recall thread, I checked the Dometic site, typed in the Model # and the Serial #.

It said that my unit is affected!!!! It is NEW. What gives.

I will phone them and check it out.

Dealer probably switched with a used unit, they tend to do things like that.:E

[JustUs2]

We just picked up our NEW 5th wheel from the dealer...2008 model.

After I read this recall thread, I checked the Dometic site, typed in the Model # and the Serial #.

It said that my unit is affected!!!! It is NEW. What gives.

I will phone them and check it out.

[bobandcat]

I had my recall kit installed yesterday. It took about 20 minutes and I was on my way. I watched and talked to the tech as he was installing it.
The mounting bracket for the thermal fuse was bent 90 degrees so that it was not touching a hot surface. I also kept the original red power wire so that if the thermal fuse does fail, I can just re-install the original wiring thereby bypassing the thermal fuse wiring until I can get a replacement fuse.

[timsrv]

timsrv wrote:
I have a customer that had to have 3 cooling units replaced and finally a new refer before the recall. His total cost for repairs was almost $4k. Due to severe limitations imposed by Dometic for reimbursement, it doesn't look like he'll be able to get anything. The fact they offer it sounds good on the surface, but when you read through all the limitations it's almost an empty promise. The most severe limitation is: "Time Limitation:
To be covered, the pre-recall repair must have occurred no earlier than August 28, 2005."

Here's the complete statement:

Instructions and forms for reimbursement for repairs before the recall

Regarding the above statement, I have some surprisingly good news. It took Dometic a little over 2 months to process and pay his claim, but Dometic reimbursed this customer for the total amount of ALL his cooling core failures. Yes, Dometic reimbursed him for all 3 cooling units that failed before the Aug 28, 2005 time limitation AND for the full cost of his new refer I installed in 2006. He called me today after receiving the check in his mail. Needless to say, he was very happy. Tim

[jma]

Man!! I just stumbled onto this thread and sure enought I have a bad one. To make thing worse, we are going camping tomorrow. I have not had a chance to review all the pages but it looks like I will be busy when we get back. Really did not need this. Obviously this will be on my mind the whole camping trip.

[kerryedwards]

Red wires provide power to the board so removing them will shut it down. Jumping the fuse will work. A fuse from Radio Shack should be an adequate substitute.