The class action lawsuit alleges that defective Tigershark engines have been installed in some Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep and Ram vehicles from 2013 to present.
And it’s shocking what is happening to car owners with these Tigershark engines.
Amber Wood, one of the plaintiffs, alleges that she experienced the vehicle defect within a few weeks of getting her 2018 Jeep Compass. She says that she had been making a left turn when her Compass stopped moving, and she felt so unsafe driving it to the dealership that she had it towed. After a few days at the FCA dealership, the engine was replaced. The Oil Change Indicator came on after only 2,000 miles.
Ashley Schubert, another plaintiff, alleges that her 2017 Jeep Cherokee has experienced several shut downs while on busy roads. Schubert says she had to take her Cherokee in for several oil changes, and after a point, the dealership recommended that her Cherokee had frequent oil consumption tests.
Once, when her Cherokee shut off, a car coming from behind almost hit her. In a separate case, her engine failed while she was driving on an expressway, and her Cherokee shook violently before dying at a traffic light. She says she had to get her engine replaced.
Karen Burke, driver of a 2018 Jeep Renegade, alleges that her vehicle shut off while she was merging onto a highway and she was nearly hit by a truck. The oil change indicator did not flash, and yet, when she brought her Renegade to a dealership, she was told to check her oil levels every few days.
Danielle Coates, driver of a 2016 Jeep Cherokee, alleges that her vehicle stalled while she was veering left into a mall parking lot. In order to get into the parking lot, she would have to cross over lanes of traffic that went in the opposite direction, which would increase her risk of a collision. She says she coasted into the parking lot, after which she and a restaurant worker pushed the Cherokee into a safe location. Later, she realized her Cherokee’s oil levels were “bone dry.”
What vehicles have allegedly defective Tigershark engines?
The vehicles listed in the class action lawsuit include the following:
• 2015–2017 Chrysler 200
• 2013–2016 Dodge Dart
• 2016–2020 Fiat 500X
• 2017–2020 Fiat Toro
• 2017–2020 Dodge Journey
• 2014–2020 Jeep Cherokee
• 2017–2020 Jeep Compass
• 2015–2020 Jeep Renegade
• 2015–2020 Ram ProMaster City
A class action lawsuit alleges that the Tigershark engine consumes excessive oil, and that the recommended oil maintenance schedule does not reflect the engine’s true oil consumption rate.
When there is not enough oil in the Tigershark engine, the engine does not have enough lubrication. As a result, moving parts wear down early, the engine risks overheating, the vehicle’s performance goes downhill and the engine may outright fail.
A 2015 technical service bulletin (TSB) says that pistons, piston rings, cylinder walls and other internal parts suffer internal wear without enough engine oil. The lawsuit says that, according to dealership documents, problems with the pistons and/or piston rings might be causing the alleged defect.
FCA employs a so-called “safety” measure to avoid engine failure. The “safety” measure in question is a shutdown of the engine. Consumers say that this feature is anything but safe, as engines can shut down while the vehicles are on freeways or in heavy traffic.
In many cases, the vehicles do not indicate when oil levels become dangerously low.
In 2013, Fiat Chrysler (FCA) introduced the 2.4-L Tigershark MultiAir II engine in response to consumer complaints about underpowered vehicles. The Tigershark engine was installed in some Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep and RAM vehicles. New technology in the engine was supposed to increase engine power and torque and reduce fuel consumption and emissions.
Though this was supposed to improve engine power and reduce fuel consumptions and emissions, the Tigershark engine requires more oil to lubricate its internal parts. A class action lawsuit alleges that Tigershark engines consume excessive oil, cause stalling and shutdowns, and put drivers in dangerous driving situations.
Yet, FCA characterizes this excessive oil consumption rate as “normal” in TSBs, enabling them to avoid the economic fallout that comes with issuing a recall. As a result, consumers have to pay out-of-pocket for more frequent maintenance repairs and, in some cases, engine replacements. Sometimes, engines will shut down while the vehicles are in busy traffic situations, and the drivers face increased risks of collision.
What can I do if I have a vehicle with a Tigershark engine?
Knight Law Group has helped thousands of California consumers opt out of class action lawsuits and file individual cases under the California Lemon Law. Under the state lemon law, your vehicle is a lemon if it has a recurring defect that won’t go away despite a reasonable number of repair attempts. There is no set number of attempts considered reasonable under the California Lemon Law. Rather, that number is determined on a case-by-case basis.
If you suspect that you have a defective Tigershark engine in your FCA vehicle, and you have opted out of a class action suit, you may be eligible for cash compensation, a vehicle replacement or a full refund of your vehicle.