Awesome! Thank you so much for that. I'll just write out the most important part of that publication so its easier for a search engine to pull it up:
How about one more time, for the people in the back:
"The sound is a normal design characteristic which should not affect durability."
well 2 things; first to use "which" in that context, there needs to be a comma before it, as it is a new clause. So besides this letter being penned by a college dropout, there are two separate parts to that sentence. the first part: "This sound is a normal design characteristic". OK, so basically no amount of repairs are going to eliminate the sound. FCA TL;DR: Turn up your radio.
Second, the second clause in that sentence "which should not affect durability" indicates probability, not known information. There is a HUGE difference between FCA coming out and saying that the sound WILL not affect durability, and SHOULD not affect durability. You can even use should in a case when damage is being caused, to state prior doubt. Take for instance a dam that bursts under a heavy rainstorm, and when asked the engineers reply "We designed the dam to specification, which should not fail under that type of stress!".
I have little confidence that this sound is not causing damage to the vehicle. I will bet 10 years down the road there will be a recall due to the damage caused. Anytime a sound is being made from rotation it means that something is rubbing on something, and I'll bet wear is being done to parts.