Will GM's problems ever end?

[Joe Handley]

OK, back to off-topic here...

In my days in the local auto parts store, in the 70's - 40 years ago, we sold ignition switches and lock cylinders. Not a lot, but we had them in stock. When we sold one, the guy usually brought in is old switch and lock cylinder. Then he laid his key ring on the counter next to it because the pound of keys wouldn't fit in his pocket. We pointed at the keys and told him - that's the problem...

I need to go work on a model...

This, this, this, this, THIS! Dad saw thit exact same problem a decade before you did with his own '62 Plymouth as well as customers' cars, including a '57 Chevy own by somebody with what sounded like the he used the exact same keychain!

[Art Anderson]

This, this, this, this, THIS! Dad saw thit exact same problem a decade before you did with his own '62 Plymouth as well as customers' cars, including a '57 Chevy own by somebody with what sounded like the he used the exact same keychain!

In point of fact: In the second semester of my HS Sophomore year (winter/spring 1960, I took Driver's Ed. Mr. Berberian, the instructor (also a History and Government teacher & basketball coach) pointed out emphatically a couple of sentences in the text book we were using, warning about having too many keys on the same ring with car keys. Mom and Dad were also emphatic about that to the point of NEVER having any keys other than ignition and door lock on any car key ring they ever had. Guess what? Nary a problem EVER with the ignition switch (all maner of cars, from Plymouths, to Chevrolet's, a Ford or two, and a VW Beetle).

[Ace-Garageguy]

Interesting, but I've NEVER had an ignition lock problem , on many MANY vehicles over the years, and I've ALWAYS had way too many things on my keychain. Shop and home keys, multiple toolbox keys, multiple CAR keys on the same chain, small flashlight, storage lockup keys, etc. etc.

No, it's not probably the smartest thing to do, but it IS convenient to have ALL the keys to everything on one big ring.

Like I said, never a problem with LOTS of older vehicles from Japanese, American and European manufacturers. Never. Ever.

An ignition lock that's sufficiently robustly designed just IS NOT going to wimp out because of too many keys.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People tend to carry too many things on their keychains. It's reality, and car designers are supposed to design cars for real-life conditions. It strikes me as illogical that people can bash Ford for failing to design fuel-tank protection that can withstand 60 to 100mph rear-end collisions, which ALMOST NEVER HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE, but they can let wimpy ignition locks slide, when it's common knowledge that MANY MANY keychains are "too heavy".

Edited July 3, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Modelmartin]

OK, back to off-topic here...

In my days in the local auto parts store, in the 70's - 40 years ago, we sold ignition switches and lock cylinders. Not a lot, but we had them in stock. When we sold one, the guy usually brought in is old switch and lock cylinder. Then he laid his key ring on the counter next to it because the pound of keys wouldn't fit in his pocket. We pointed at the keys and told him - that's the problem...

I loved my old SAAB 99 with the igntion switch in the console behind the shift lever. No key chain weight cantilevering off the switch. Gravity kept it in place.

[Sport Suburban]

The fact that the part was changed and the part number was not is proof that somebody was hiding something. Anytime the part is revised or a change is made in any way they have to change the part number. This is required by the industry and even happens when a vender change is made. This is done so they can track any emerging issues.

[Tom Geiger]

I hate speculating here... we don't have even a fraction of the facts

If the engineer signed off on the PPAP, he probably did it without knowing there could be some sort of problem... signing off a PPAP on a part that does not meet specs is normal - you wouldn't do it on a casting that came in in two pieces, but you might if the primer on a part wasn't the correct shade of gray. If that's what you are saying is GM knew they had a problem, it wouldn't even make the radar screenif he didn't report it back to purchasing or Engineering,.

Parts are not only controlled by the part number - a change that does not affect form, fit, or function can be done as a revision level without changing the part number - been that way for decades. Traceablity is a little more difficult because parts with different revision levels can be mixed - but they can be found. - that was probably done within GM's procedures.

Warranty information is shared with NHTSA under the TREAD Act - so they weren't hiding something they knew. However, the ignition switch probably didn't generate a lot of warranty claims.

We don't have anywhere near the information that GM has to make thier decisions - Right now, they are proceeding with an abundance of caution - partly because of the attention, but mostly because it's the correct thing to do.

Corporations are being painted in some of these posts as some sort of evil empire - the reality is that they are made of indivduals. Whether their uniform is a shirt and tie or jeans and a t-shirt in the plant, they want do a good job, build a good product and keep the customer happy with their work. Pride in workmanship.

Somewhere along the way, I lost my layman status with this stuff so I know GM has way more information than we or the media will ever see. I don't think they are hiding it, they just want to get the cars fixed. My (somewhat experienced) gut feel is that they are doing the right thing - beyond what is required. The media wants to deliver news - and stay in business, too.

Back to the topic, - yeah, GM will do OK

Thank you Steve. This is my very point. We indeed don't have enough information to know what happened at all. The very fact that the engineer bought his son a car with that switch in it, tells you that he had no idea it would be a major problem. And it comes down to your illustration of your work in the auto parts store. In the old days, you'd tell the guy "don't do that!" and he'd have to pay for a new switch. In today's environment, an auto maker is supposed to cover any possible situation, no matter how stupid a human would need to be to cause the occurance. We know the number of accidents / injuries / deaths from that combination of a huge heavy key ring, followed by an inexperienced or drunk driver who couldn't handle a car without power brakes or steering. We've all been in that situation when a car stalls out, or otherwise stopped running. And we all worked it out. But how many million cars and billions of miles are we talking here. Again, we don't have the knowledge to pass judgement. Just enough to spout off through our ignorance.

This all reminds me of a radio station, NJ101 Talk Radio that I listen to on my daily commute. They have the best traffic reports every 15 minutes. Their format is somewhat like this board. A topic is presented and then callers comment and rant about it. The hosts are usually clueless and the callers are worse. One recent topic was teachers salaries. One caller commented that $50,000 was too much money, that teachers had mansions and yachts! I don't know how little this guy had, but the hosts egged him on. For the record $50,000 isn't a lot of money to support a family on in high cost New Jersey! That's about where we are here.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Tom Geiger

[Muncie]

------------ Anytime the part is revised or a change is made in any way they have to change the part number. This is required by the industry and even happens when a vender change is made. This is done so they can track any emerging issues.

True in some companies - too many out there to say it's not. However, the proliferation and maintenence of new drawing numbers is a huge expense.

A new drawing requires someplace to keep it - Affected bills of material will need to be revised or created, procurement needs ot be handled to build inventory, production changeover has to be set-up and completed, purchasing asgreements may be affected - even replacement parts systems need to deal with new inventory and part numbers. Lots of things that I haven't thought of - It lasts for years. So there is some business advantage to revising a drawing without changing the number.

There will be guidelines (form, fit, fuction criteria) and method to revise a drawing without a number change. It may take a chapter in the company's Engineering manual to cover the procedure. The change will be referenced on the drawing and (unless the company is skipping this detail - unlikely at GM) documented with an Enginering job with the change and the reason. It's something that somebody unfamilar with the the process may question but it's not going to hide anything.

It's not a new thing either - I've been going through a 1956 GM Chevrolet assembly manual for a local project - looking at it quickly today, about 40% of the pages have at least one change thorugh the production year.,

[Quick GMC]

this isn't relevant to the ongoing recalls, but since this is a GM bashing thread...

I have a 2006 GMC Sierra, which I like very much. Had it 8 years, was on jack stands on and off because of tranny issues (my fault). Other than that I have never done ANYTHING to this truck, except change the brake pads once, it's been pristine.

Over the last 6 months I have been noticing a really mild thunk in the front end while turning through intersections. I thought it was time for shocks (75k miles), or maybe time to look at the ball joints. No big deal, I can wait until I have the money. It started getting annoying, but last week I was turning through and intersection and something popped in the column right behind the steering wheel. The steering wheel went sloppy. I could wiggle it forward and backward, like it I pushed the top of the wheel towards the windshield. After a few minutes, it went stiff and was hard to turn.

took it in the next day and they took the airbag out and found the bearing that holds the top of the column had fallen apart. The bearing had a plastic race that cracked and eventually led to the failure. I notice a few times while driving the rest of that day that a bump or intersection would push the front wheels and give me improper feedback at the steering wheel, it kind of scared the BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH out of me.

Anyway, they replaced the tilt housing assembly that had the two new bearings in it and the truck feels like brand new. The guy at the shop said he had never seen that before.

How nice of GM to use plastic bearing parts in something like a freaking steering column. Not like that's critical part of the truck or anything.

[ranma]

HONDA ANNOUCES 1 MILLON CAR RECALL, DUE TO AIR BAGS. THE same air bags that GM recalled! The report also stated many more recall's are likely from other automakers that had gotten the same air bags.

[Harry P.]

Another day... another GM recall. From today's autonews.com:

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140710/COPY01/307109936/gm-recalls-nearly-30000-saab-9-3-convertibles

[Harry P.]

I guess GM is getting a little tired of the endless recalls. This is one recall they are refusing to do.

From bloomberg.com, July 7, 2014:

GM, which has set a record for recalls this year as it tries to clear up lingering safety issues, is making an exception for rusting brake lines in almost 1.8 million pickups and sport-utility vehicles. Much like it did initially with flawed ignition switches in small cars linked to at least 13 deaths, GM says the corroded lines aren’t a safety hazard that requires a recall. Even with at least 26 crashes, three injuries and a four-year-old probe by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, GM is characterizing potential brake failure as normal wear-and-tear.

NHTSA has been investigating the reports since January 2011. It opened a probe into 10 Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC models spanning the 1999 to 2003 model years, including the Escalade, Avalanche, Silverado, Suburban, Tahoe and Yukon.The investigation is still active, an agency spokesman said. The agency doesn’t comment on pending investigations, he said.

The largest U.S. automaker says it’s up to owners to make sure rust won’t lead to a catastrophic failure. “They seem to be doing a lot of recalls, but on closer investigation, you find they’re more hesitant to do the recalls that cost more money,” said Mark Modica, an associate fellow with the National Legal and Policy Center, who was a onetime GM bondholder and a former manager at a Saturn dealership in Pennsylvania. “GM’s response has been quite callous.”

GM’s pickups from the early 2000s include steel brake lines that owners claim are so rust-prone they fail without notice, spilling fluid. The lost fluid means a sudden, sometimes catastrophic loss of braking power, the owners say. GM puts the onus on inspecting brake lines on vehicle owners and their mechanics and denies there’s a defect. The pickups in question are long out of factory warranty, and owner’s manuals urge customers to have their brake lines inspected, said GM spokesman Alan Adler. More than 20 states require brake-line inspections at one- or two-year intervals or when stopped for a violation, he said. GM developed a repair kit that should cost about $500 to install, Adler said. Since no recall has been declared, dealers and third-party mechanics set their own prices to cover the parts and labor, he said. “Customers should negotiate the labor time and cost with the shop, and if unsatisfied with the price quoted, keep shopping,” Adler said.

An analysis of NHTSA’s public complaints database by the Falls Church, Virginia-based National Legal and Policy Center, a research group focused on government and corporate corruption, shows 1,372 brake-line complaints in Chevrolet models from 1999 through 2008, compared with 153 in Ford-brand models, 58 for Toyota and 15 for Honda.

A vehicle's brake lines is not one of the parts a person should expect to have to replace in the normal lifetime of a vehicle, said Bill Visnic, senior editor at Edmunds.com. “In a typical duty cycle, it should effectively last the life of the vehicle,” he said. “It’s down there with the chassis and it should be designed for that environment (to resist corrosion).”

[Guest]

Good call on the brake lines GM. Glad to know you care.

[Harry P.]

The endless parade of GM recalls is so ongoing and common by now, it doesn't even make the news anymore! The only reason I found out about today's Saab recall is that I hadn't heard anything on the news lately regarding GM... so I was curious and googled "GM recalls"... and wouldn't you know it, another one today!

[ranma]

small steel tube's rusting, that's a fact for anyone who has a car in area's of the country that has snow, salt, and such. My brothers ford's body was rusted badly and it was a 2005! most people who live in the north know's to expect rust and should keep tabs of any chassie components. Really brake line is not all that exspensive to buy and replace. you can buy Green coated bendable brake line and fittings for less than $100.00. I replaced the rusted brake lines on my 88 Chevy for around $50.00 and had the lines changed in under 2 hrs. It's not hard to do. Should GM be held liable for brake lines? why Ford wasn't held liable for their frames rusting out! Again small steel tubes that are in close contact with the ground and weather. Did the report say where the vast majority of pickup's and suv are located?

[johnbuzzed]

Rick- you really don't like FORD, do you?

This string is not a hate rant against any particular manufacturer; it seems every one of them has been tagged here for some kind of problems. Domestic and foreign. I am a 100% Mopar guy and I pointed out in a previous post that Chrysler issued a recall for ignition switch problems. The problem has nothing to do with Ford v. Chevy v. Dodge v. Toyota v. whoever... that stuff is for NASCAR, the NHRA, etc. We are discussing the problems with today's corporate America, how and why things got to be that way and how the situation affects all of us in our daily lives. When it comes to important stuff like that, brand loyalty sits in the waaaaaaayyyyyyy back seat.