By on August 7, 2020

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is considering a recall on roughly 1 million vehicles equipped with its 2.4-liter Tigershark four-cylinder engine. That incorporates most of FCA’s smaller models, including a few defunct models like the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart.

Reporting from the Detroit Free Press suggests the 2.4-liter unit exceeded allowable emissions limits during testing. While the Tigershark MultiAir II is also featured in a class-action suit over claims that it burns too much oil, FCA said that matter is unrelated to the proposed recall.

“In connection with internal testing, we determined that approximately 1 million vehicles equipped with the 2.4-liter Tigershark engine may have excess tailpipe emissions,” the automaker said in a recent regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

While the matter isn’t seen as a safety issue, the overlap with the oil consumption matter could be. Class-action lawsuits filed in Michigan and California bemoaning the Tigershark’s alleged oil burning incorporates models like the 2015–2016 Chrysler 200, 2013—2016 Dodge Dart, 2016—2020 Fiat 500X, 2017—2020 Jeep Compass, 2015—2020 Jeep Renegade and 2014—2020 Jeep Cherokee.

Other than the obvious oil issue, complaints include lackluster performance and the occasional stalling incident. Based upon shared powertrains, these models could very well be included in the recall hinted at in the SEC document.

From the Detroit Free Press:

“FCA has been working closely with EPA and CARB, and we continue to do so, on a group of vehicles equipped with Tigershark engines. As this population ages, some vehicles exceed in-use emission requirements, depending on drive cycle and mileage. We are conducting test programs to define a remedy, which also requires approval by the agencies. Affected customers will be advised when service becomes available, and will be provided free of charge. This is not a safety issue and there are no enforcement actions,” according to a company statement provided by spokesman Eric Mayne.

The EPA, through spokesperson Enesta Jones, responded to an email from the Free Press by saying that FCA is doing a voluntary recall based on in-use testing done by EPA. The agency released a report last year highlighting its increasing efforts to monitor vehicle emissions, noting that 86 recalls, affecting more than 4.9 million light-duty vehicles, were conducted in 2017.

Interested parties worried about their ride should check the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recalls website or hit up the Mopar owner’s website to see if their automobile makes the cut. That said, practically everyone expects FCA to make an announcement in the coming weeks.

[Image: Fiat Chrysler]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

15 Comments on “FCA Reportedly Gearing Up for Giant Tigershark Recall...”

  • avatar

    With this and the “Hemi Tick” with subsequent valve train failure, makes CaddyDaddy stay very clear of FCA products.

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    Lackluster describes my impression of the 2.4l “nurse shark” engine. I test drove a 2014 Dart and a 200 with that engine. While the spec were close to the Toyota and Honda equivalent engines, this engine felt much slower to accelerate in test drives. On the other hand the 3.6L Pentastar in the 200 was impressive although the 200 on the whole was not.

    • 0 avatar

      Well the Dart was the heaviest thing in its class so yeah with similar HP it should be slower.

    • 0 avatar

      The only knock on the 3.6L has been disappointing fuel economy. With two bores and two stroke lengths, FCA has built a 3.2L Version, and a 3.0L version, both of which produce somewhat better economy.

      The 3.0L would be a good replacement for the 2.4L if it could fit into the engine bay of the listed models, but it appears it could only fit into the discontinued 200 and Dart models. It appears the 2.4L will be replaced by the 1.0T and 1.3T Firefly engines that are already in some Jeep models.

  • avatar

    What’s the oil issue, low tension rings or PCV system fault?

  • avatar

    I have a 2018 Compass (leased) that has the oil consumption problem. It burns about 1 litre every 2K-3K kms or so. The problem is very common but FCA doesn’t really appear to want to do anything about it. The class action lawsuit that relates to this problem states it as the piston rings do not seal properly, allowing more oil than necessary to travel into the combustion chamber. I believe it may relate to them going to a very low viscosity oil spec. Worst thing is if one is unaware that there’s a problem that the vehicle can suddenly and without warning shut completely down, even in the middle of a busy highway. It’s potentially extremely dangerous but luckily no one has been injured or killed. Yet.

    • 0 avatar

      Vehicle suddenly shuts off due to excessive oil consumption?

      Wouldn’t that involve ignoring the low oil light and likely a lot of mechanical noises for quite a while?

      • 0 avatar

        The oil light is useless. It doesn’t come on before internal engine damage due to low oil lubricating has already occurred. My nephew turned off the 2.0 in his Jeep as soon as it came on – he saw it suddenly come on – and there was still internal engine damage.

        He’d had an oil change a week before and the drain plug wasn’t tightened. He never noticed the leak on his gravel driveway, and hadn’t looked at the undercarriage after the oil change, but he had put over 300 miles on it.

        It was a 2020 Wrangler, still under warranty, and the dealer paid for a new engine, since they didn’t have the mechanics to do a short block rebuild, they said (they may have feared more trouble since he had lots of warranty left).

  • avatar

    If this was a ford, there would be comments from a certain commenter about their incompetence and calling for the head of stelara to be jailed. I suppose if it was a tesla I’d be arguing that no one notices the smoke and it ensures that the oil is always fresh. I guess all the auto companies suck in some way or another. Maybe some more than others and you have to pick the particular flaw you’re going to live with. Although, flaws that might leave me stranded are ones I avoid.

  • avatar

    I don’t understand why the Tigershark hasn’t been completely replaced by the 2.0 Hurricane. I have driven both the Tucson and the Sportage equipped with the same 2.4, was distinctly not impressed by its performance. Frankly, it’s a slug.

    The Hurricane has much more impressive specs.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “…the Tucson and the Sportage equipped with the same 2.4”

      The Hyundai version of the 2.4 has very little in common with the Tigershark. Crankshaft, intake, heads, and engine controls are all different. This is why the Hyundai 2.4 crankshaft recall didn’t affect FCA.

  • avatar

    With these emissions problem, would Tiger Shart be an appropriate nickname?

  • avatar

    More like Tigershart.

  • avatar

    FCA’s motto: Dodge testing. RAM into production.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • jmo2: A lot of GMs issues can be traced back to an excessive focus on market share.
  • la834: This is basically Elon realizing that Tesla may need to advertise as increasingly numerous, increasingly...
  • Ol Shel: Bah! Kids these days! They don’t even like being jerked around by sleazy car dealers! What is this...
  • dal20402: I think he would rather be making deliveries to his buddy Vladimir Vladimirovich in Moscow.
  • mor2bz: I wish I could agree with you but I do not. Musk claims that incessant badmouthing of his company would be...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber