2004 Infiniti Q45 Recalls & Complaints

Incident: August 1, 2016 · Filed: January 31, 2019

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.

Incident: April 8, 2017 · Filed: May 8, 2017

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.

Incident: September 2, 2014 · Filed: September 23, 2014

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. *TR

Incident: November 2, 2009 · Filed: January 11, 2012

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. *TR

Incident: September 21, 2010 · Filed: October 4, 2010

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).*TR

Incident: May 1, 2005 · Filed: August 12, 2005

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 *JB

Incident: December 1, 2004 · Filed: December 21, 2004

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. *NM