1988 FLEETWOOD SOUTHWIND

2 recalls — 2 complaints

STEERING: STEERING WHEEL/HANDLE BAR

Defect Description

THE STEERING COLUMN SHAFT NUT RETAINING CLIP MAY BE MISSING. UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THE LACK OF A RETAINING CLIP WILL ALLOW THE NUT TO WORK LOOSE AND THE STEERING WHEEL TO SEPARATE FROM THE STEERING COLUMN.

Consequence

STEERING WHEEL SEPARATION FROM THE STEERING COLUMN CANRESULT IN COMPLETE LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL AND A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.

Remedy

INSPECT STEERING ASSEMBLY FOR A STEERING WHEEL NUT RETAINING CLIP. IF CLIP IS MISSING, INSTALL A STEERING WHEEL NUT RETAINING CLIP, OR HAVE A DEALER INSPECT AND INSTALL A CLIP. FLEETWOOD ADVISES OWNERS NOT TO OPERATE THE MOTORHOMES UNTIL A STEERING WHEEL NUT INSPECTION AND CLIP INSTALLATION IS COMPL... Read more

20,413 vehicles affected

Manufacturer: FLEETWOOD ENT., INC.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:12V/24V/48V BATTERY:CABLES

Defect Description

MISROUTED BATTERY CABLES COULD COME IN CONTACT WITH HOT OIL COOLER LINES OR SHARP OBJECTS AND DAMAGE THE INSULATION.

Consequence

THIS COULD RESULT IN AN ELECTRICAL SHORT AND POSSIBLY AFIRE.

Remedy

REROUTE AND REPLACE BATTERY CABLES AS NECESSARY.

16,000 vehicles affected

Manufacturer: FLEETWOOD ENT., INC.

Complaint Statistics

2 total complaints 1 crashes 2 injuries

Top Reported Components

Component	Complaints
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS	1
STRUCTURE:BODY	1

GLUE IS SEPARATING OUTER WALLS OF BODY. QCAW

Incident date: Sep 9, 1994

THE MOTORHOME WAS INVOLVED IN A COLLISION WHERE IT HIT ANOTHER CAR AND THE RV DISINTEGRATED AND ONLY THE CHASSIS REMAINED, THE DRIVER WAS SEVERELY INJURED. *AK

Crash 2 injured

NHTSA Safety Investigations — FLEETWOOD SOUTHWIND

Investigations opened by NHTSA into potential safety defects. These are separate from recalls and may or may not result in a recall.

PE — Closed — Model Year: 1990

FRONT BRAKES FAIL

There is no summary currently available

PE — Closed — Model Year: 1985

CO INTRUSION

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM THE MANUFACTURER:THE MANUFACTURER ADVISEDTHAT THE AUXILIARY POWER UNITS (APU'S) AND THEIR EXHAUST SYSTEMS ARE ALLFACTORY INSTALLED.IN ADDITION, THE MANUFACTURER PROVIDED TWO INSTANCESOF CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) ASPHYXIATION WITH THREE FATALITIES.HOWEVER,THESE WERE NOT IN THE ... SUBJECT 1985 MODEL VEHICLES BUT IN EARLIER MODELS.IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT ONE HAD BEEN AN AFTERMARKET TAILPIPE REPLACEMENTPROBLEM AND THE OTHER RELATED TO PARKING IN A SNOWBANK.ANALYSIS:A MODEL 33 UNIT IN RICHLAND, WA, WAS EXAMINED.THE INVESTI-GATOR CONFIRMED THAT THE UNIT HAD NOT BEEN MODIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITHINSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S SAFETY RECALL CAMPAIGN(85V-138).PICTURES TAKEN SHOWED THAT THE APU EXHAUST OUTLETS FOR BOTHTHE PRODUCTION AND MODIFIED VERSIONS SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS EXPRESSED INTHE ANSI STANDARD FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 4.3.TESTS FOR CO INTRUSION WITH THE APU IN OPERATION SHOWED OFF-SCALE (ABOVE500 PARTS PER MILLION) READINGS IN THE REAR CENTER TO LEFT REAR CORNERWHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ABOVE A TRANSVERSELY LOCATED BED.THE VEHICLECUSTODIAN WOULD PERMIT NO DISTURBANCE OF THE BED.PICTURES AND VISUALEXAMINATION OF THE UNDERBODY REVEALED THE APU TAIL PIPE TO BE CRUSHED ANDMISLOCATED INSIDE THE CORNER OF THE SKIRTING SURROUNDING THE BODY.THEVEHICLE WAS IDENTIFIED AS ONE TO WHICH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECALL APPLIED;THE ANGLED TAILPIPE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY ONE WHICH EXITS AT NINETYDEGREES FROM THE SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND FORWARD OF THE APU.A SECOND ISSUE CONCERNING THIS VEHICLE WAS RAISED BY THE ATTORNEY REPRE-SENTING THE DECEASED'S ESTATE.HE CLAIMED THAT IMPACT WITH A FIXEDOBJECT CAUSED THE REAR WALL TO BE SEPARATED SO THAT THE LOWER SILL OF THEREAR WINDOW COULD BE OBSERVED FROM UNDER THE VEHICLE.INFORMATION FROMTHE MANUFACTURER REVEALED THAT AN OUTER COSMETIC SKIN HAD BEEN ADDEDTO THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AS A BEAUTY TREATMENT.THE OBSERVED LOWERSILL WAS IN FACT PART OF THE METAL REINFORCEMENT FOR THE REAR WALL.THEMULTIPLICITY OF WITNESS MARKS ON THE UNDER SIDE OF THE BODY SKIRT INDICATESTHAT THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN GROUNDED MORE THAN ONCE.EXAMINATION OF THE CURBIN FRONT OF THE DECEASED'S RESIDENCE REVEALED A NUMBER OF SCRAPE MARKSRESULTING FROM CONTACT BY THE REAR OF THE MOTOR HOME.ANOTHER ISSUE CONCERNING A SOUTHWIND J MODEL WAS RAISED BY A FLORIDAATTORNEY.HE CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE DESIGNATION, J, HAD BEENOMITTED FROM THE MANUFACTURER'S SAFETY DEFECT NOTIFICATION.INQUIRY TO THEMANUFACTURER REVEALED THAT THE DESIGNATION HAD BEEN INADVERTENTLY OMITTEDFROM THE RECALL NOTICE BUT THAT ALL THE J MODELS HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THERECALL BECAUSE THE J MODEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS WERE INCLUDED IN THELISTING USED FOR CONSUMER MAILINGS.RECOMMENDATION:CLOSE THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION.===Read more

FLEETWOOD SOUTHWIND — All Years Overview

Complete safety history for the FLEETWOOD SOUTHWIND across all model years (1979–2023).

119 Total Recalls

238 Total Complaints

2 Investigations

4 Reported Crashes

11 Reported Fires

2 Reported Deaths

FLEETWOOD SOUTHWIND — Year by Year

Compare recalls and complaints across model years. Click any year to see full details.

Year	Recalls	Complaints
2023	6	2	View
2022	5	1	View
2021	6	1	View
2020	5	3	View
2019	2	0	View
2018	4	0	View
2017	1	1	View
2016	3	2	View
2015	2	0	View
2014	3	1	View
2012	1	7	View
2011	4	0	View
2010	3	0	View
2009	1	0	View
2008	2	0	View
2007	3	3	View
2006	6	5	View
2005	4	12	View
2004	8	14	View
2003	8	24	View
2002	5	5	View
2001	4	6	View
2000	4	22	View
1999	2	17	View
1998	1	14	View
1997	2	11	View
1996	1	14	View
1995	0	20	View
1994	0	13	View
1993	2	6	View
1992	1	2	View
1991	1	7	View
1990	1	8	View
1989	2	3	View
1988 (current)	2	2
1987	2	5	View
1986	1	2	View
1985	3	1	View
1984	2	3	View
1983	2	1	View
1982	1	0	View
1981	1	0	View
1980	1	0	View
1979	1	0	View

Other FLEETWOOD Models

Model	Recalls	Complaints
5TD	0	0	View
ADVANTAGE	0	0	View
ALL MODELS	0	0	View
ALTITUDE	0	0	View
AMERICAN ALLEGIANCE	0	0	View
AMERICAN COACH	0	0	View
AMERICAN DREAM	0	0	View
AMERICAN EAGLE	0	0	View

Vehicle Safety

Consumer Safety

Infrastructure

Public Health