Will GM's problems ever end?

[Harry P.]

GM is obviously in major "CYA" mode now. Many of the latest recalls would probably never have been made had it not been for the deadly ignition switch recall that started this whole avalanche.

[Deano]

And I ask again... if you know you've sold cars with faulty parts, at what point do you take that seriously and issue a recall? Never?

And ... in the real world every manufacturer KNOWS that they ship product every day that has defects. 100% defect free is not possible. Do you really advocate for 100% Quality Control (hold everything until we can prove there are ABSOLUTELY NO DEFECTS)? GM is recalling cars that MIGHT, MAYBE have a certain defect or another and this, to you, seems to be almost the embodiment of evil.

Hypothetical question: What defects might Toyota or Honda or anyone else be "covering up"? How do you know?

[Guest]

Seven crashes out of 8.4 million cars put the percentage at .0000008%. That's a long way from the ballpark of even one percent.

So? One crash because of negligence is one too many. What if that one was someone you love???

[Harry P.]

Hypothetical question: What defects might Toyota or Honda or anyone else be "covering up"? How do you know?

We don't know. But in GM's case, it's been documented that the engineer who ok'd the faulty ignition switch for use knew it did not meet spec. And then he had the switch redesigned but kept the problem secret by not issuing a new part number.

There's a big difference between your run-of-the-mill recall involving parts that break or may break. Yes, that's part of reality and you can't guarantee 100% perfection. Nobody ever said that, or even implied it. The problem with GM, as I've said before but you obviously missed, is not the recalls themselves. The issue isn't whether or not we can expect 100% reliability, that's a straw man argument.

The issue is the fact that they knew they were selling cars with a potentially very dangerous part on it, yet they continued selling the cars–and tried to cover up that fact.

[Deano]

The issue is the fact that they knew they were selling cars with a potentially very dangerous part on it, yet they continued selling the cars–and tried to cover up that fact.

And, now, they are recalling exponentially more cars than required to deal with those "potentially dangerous parts" and still, they are, apparently, the epitome of evil. No, they don't know how many ignition switches are actually involved. All, they really know is what cars the engineer in question "touched" and that at some point he respeced the switch without changing the part number. I'd be curious to know if the early parts or the later parts are the "good" ones. With my experience (15 years on the GM assembly line) I'd bet on the newer parts being the substandard parts. On the line I cannot recall ever seeing a part "upgrade" that resulted in an actual upgrade. That's the only reason I can see for "forgetting" to change the part number.

An off topic, semi related story: I learned my lesson about upgrades/revisions way back when I worked as a design draftsman for a Knock-Down Kit Furniture Company (Think IKEA only LOTS cheaper.) One of our suppliers superseded a screw we were using. I went into the parts lists for all of the units we produced that used that screw and changed the part number to reflect the new screw. On one unit I neglected to note the revision (Version 1.0 to 1.0.a or some such). The chief engineer had me for lunch. I never made that mistake again.

[Harry P.]

I got a flyer in the mail today from a local Chevy dealer (Biggers Chevrolet in Elgin). It's one of those "scratch off this circle and bring it into our dealership to see if you match our prize board" type of gimmicks intended to draw people to their showroom. The funny thing is, the grand prize is a Chevy Cruze.

So... is the recall included with that prize?

[Rob Hall]

I got a flyer in the mail today from a local Chevy dealer (Biggers Chevrolet in Elgin). It's one of those "scratch off this circle and bring it into our dealership to see if you match our prize board" type of gimmicks intended to draw people to their showroom. The funny thing is, the grand prize is a Chevy Cruze.

So... is the recall included with that prize?

Hmmm...so if the car hasn't been sold yet, then is it a precall?

Haven't received any recall notices in the mail for the Cadillacs yet, but I'm sure I will sooner or later. Though if the '11 STS gets recalled, it won't be for the ignition issue since it has a push button start. The '00 DTS was in one of last week's recalls, IIRC.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Rob Hall

[Guest]

Nothing on our 2000 Saturns yet.

[Scale-Master]

So? One crash because of negligence is one too many. What if that one was someone you love???

The odds of operator error, or just plain being in the wrong place at the wrong time are far higher than .0000008% It's a red herring and 100% irrelevant to the percentages to try to throw the loss of a loved in to the equation.

[Harry P.]

The odds of operator error, or just plain being in the wrong place at the wrong time are far higher than .0000008% It's a red herring and 100% irrelevant to the percentages to try to throw the loss of a loved in to the equation.

Again, it's not about the numbers, it's about the fact that GM used an ignition switch that their engineer approved while he knew it didn't meet spec, and that GM tried to hide the problem for years. You guys keep getting sidetracked by numbers. Numbers are not the issue.

[Deano]

Again, it's not about the numbers, it's about the fact that GM used an ignition switch that their engineer approved while he knew it didn't meet spec, and that GM tried to hide the problem for years. You guys keep getting sidetracked by numbers. Numbers are not the issue.

The engineer has been fired and GM is recalling a massive number of cars because they MIGHT be defective (they can't be sure how many ARE defective; the engineer in question didn't tell anyone) What more do you want them to do? Everyone ever associated should commit seppuku? And 7 cars out of 8.4 million is not hiding anything; it is simply NOT on the statistical radar.

[Harry P.]

The engineer has been fired and GM is recalling a massive number of cars because they MIGHT be defective (they can't be sure how many ARE defective; the engineer in question didn't tell anyone) What more do you want them to do? Everyone ever associated should commit seppuku? And 7 cars out of 8.4 million is not hiding anything; it is simply NOT on the statistical radar.

GM's recalls include problems all over the spectrum, not just the ignition switch. They have issued recalls for all sorts of problems! Read up on it and see for yourself how widespread the recalls are for all sorts of problems, corporate wide. The ignition switch recall is just ONE of over FORTY different recalls for various different problems.

You obviously don't understand the whole GM recall/Congressional investigation issue. Why are you jumping on me? I'm not the guy who tried to hide the ignition switch problem.

[Paul Bunyan]

i'm gonna send GM my tax $$$$$, again.

[Muncie]

Maybe drifting a little bit from the topic… but it might be interesting

Recalls

- grab a couple of cups of coffee because the government and regulations are involved. To paraphrase a bit, motor vehicle manufacturers must submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for a defect that presents an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety or for a non-compliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The remedy and notification to the vehicle owner is part of these regulations. That makes what is commonly called a recall. In real life, things are different than what we see in the media and we won‘t hear about most of them.

There are usually 500 to 600 recalls annually. There is enough fun in this for everybody - GM, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, passenger cars, trucks, everything just this week. The list below is the recalls on NHTSA’ weekly notification for 6/30/2014. It’s a bit longer than normal because the air bag inflator issue that affected several manufacturers and a couple of the GM recalls that we already know about also made the list this week. It’s important to note that these are all considered voluntary recalls by the manufacturer.

NHTSA - weekly recall notice 6/30/2014

14V248 - JERR-DAN / 2007-2014 - Underlift Boom may Drift Down

14V249 - SEAGRAVE / 2013-2014 - Seat Belt may be Difficult to Unlatch/FMVSS 209

14V250 - ELGIN / 2013 - Seat Belt may be Difficult to Unlatch/FMVSS 209

14V255 - LODAL / 2011-2013 - Ice May Form in Intake Manifold

14V257 - CHAMPION / 2013 - Wheelchair Lift Armored Pendant Cable Short circuit

14V263 - NISSAN / 2014 - Circuit Board Voltage may Result in Shutdown

14V264 - BMW / 2012-2014 - Camshaft Chain Tensioner may cause Engine Stall

14V269 - ELDORADO / 2012-2014 - Wheelchair Lift Pendant Cable Short circuit

14V316 - FORD / 2014 - Loss of Steering Control

14V320 - BMW / 2014 - Rear Shock Absorber may Break

14V335 - MCI / 1993-1995,2006,2008 - Driveshaft may Detach from Motor Coach

14V340 - NISSAN / 9999 - Passenger Frontal Air Bag Inflator may Rupture

14V343 - FORD / 2004-2007 - Frontal Air Bag Inflators may Rupture

14V344 - MAZDA / 2003-2008 - Frontal Air Bag Inflators may Rupture

14V346 - CHEVROLET / 2010-2014 - Knee Contact may Turn Ignition Switch Off

14V348 - BMW / 2001-2006 - Frontal Air Bag Inflators may Rupture

14V349 - ACURA / 2003, HONDA / 2002-2003 - Passenger Air Bag Inflator Rupture

14V350 - LEXUS/2003-2005, PONTIAC/2003-2005,TOYOTA/2003-2005 - Passenger Side Air Bag Inflator may Rupture

14V351 -ACURA/2002-2006, HONDA/2001-2011- Driver Air Bag Inflator Rupture

14V353 - ACURA/2003-2005, HONDA/2003-2005 - Passenger Air Bag Inflator Rupture

14V354 - CHRYSLER / 9999 - Frontal Air Bag Inflators may Rupture

14V355 - BUICK/2005-2011,CADILLAC/2000-2011,CHEVROLET/2006-2014

14V372 - CHEVROLET / 2013-2014 - Driver's Front Air Bag Inflator Rupture

Check your car for recalls... documents, investigations, and much more information here - www.nhtsa.dot.gov

[russosborne]

Harry,

In post #360 Dean stated that he had 15 years of experience working on the GM assembly line.

Might be why he is defending them. IMHO anyway.

Russ

[Ace-Garageguy]

... What more do you want them to do? Everyone ever associated should commit seppuku? And 7 cars out of 8.4 million is not hiding anything; it is simply NOT on the statistical radar.

So what IS appropriate? Just to say "oops, my bad", while smiling a cute little boy smile? Somehow, if someone I loved was one of the "statistically insignificant" deaths, "oops" wouldn't quite cut it.

[Scale-Master]

And 7 cars out of 8.4 million is not hiding anything; it is simply NOT on the statistical radar.

That is pretty much the point I was making.

[Deano]

Harry,

In post #360 Dean stated that he had 15 years of experience working on the GM assembly line.

Might be why he is defending them. IMHO anyway.

Russ

Nope, sorry. I left GM 15 years ago. Nice try, tho. I'd be defending Toyota if you all were saying they needed to go out of business over 7 accidents out of 8.4 million cars (sorry, the ignition switch only accounts for 8.2 million cars) or crowing from the housetops over another batch of recalls (one for a grand total of 117 cars). Heck, I'd defend India's finest if the pillories were out over half-a-dozen cars.

Just curious, what, precisely, about my former employment invalidates anything I've written? I'm more than willing to accept any correction so long as it's relevant.

[Harry P.]

Harry,

In post #360 Dean stated that he had 15 years of experience working on the GM assembly line.

Might be why he is defending them. IMHO anyway.

Russ

Yes, that would explain a lot.

[Harry P.]

Nope, sorry. I left GM 15 years ago. Nice try, tho. I'd be defending Toyota if you all were saying they needed to go out of business over 7 accidents out of 8.4 million cars..

Can you direct me to the post where anyone said GM needs to get out of business?

Of course you can't, because nobody ever said that.

Seriously man... we can debate the real issue, but please don't just make up stuff. I love a good debate, based on facts... but don't start throwing stuff into the debate that doesn't exist. If you want to debate the issue on the facts, great. But debating the issue based on things you're just making up is pointless.

And for the last time... and please read this and understand it... it's not about how many cars were involved in fatal incidents. It's not about how many cars GM has recalled. It's not about how many recalls there have been. It's not about the percentage of cars or the percentage of incidents.

It's about GM knowing they were selling cars with faulty components, not doing anything about it, and actively trying to cover it up.

Jeez, man... how can I say it any plainer than that?

[Deano]

So what IS appropriate? Just to say "oops, my bad", while smiling a cute little boy smile? Somehow, if someone I loved was one of the "statistically insignificant" deaths, "oops" wouldn't quite cut it.

You're right, Bill and I acknowledged that the families would feel that the death or injury to a loved one would be significant TO THEM. To me, not so much. Three fatalities out of 8.2 million cars that MIGHT have a defective switch? Not gonna get worked up. We've lost a significantly higher percentage of soldiers 'over there' and I don't see a whole lot of 'getting worked up.'

[Ace-Garageguy]

We've lost a significantly higher percentage of soldiers 'over there' and I don't see a whole lot of 'getting worked up.'

Hmmm...in combat, you kinda expect to die if you're any kind of realist, or you shouldn't be there. Not so much an expectation of death when you get in your car, because of sloppy engineering, compounded by sloppy record keeping and blatant cover-ups...at least in my experience.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Mark]

I got a flyer in the mail today from a local Chevy dealer (Biggers Chevrolet in Elgin). It's one of those "scratch off this circle and bring it into our dealership to see if you match our prize board" type of gimmicks intended to draw people to their showroom. The funny thing is, the grand prize is a Chevy Cruze.

So... is the recall included with that prize?

First prize is a Chevy Cruze...second prize is TWO Chevy Cruzes! I'm here all week folks...try the veal, and don't forget to tip your waitress! I don't get the excitement over that car...checked it out at the local new car show that virtually coincided with its debut. Typical GM "this is the one that's going to drive the imports back to the shores" that we've heard so many times before...and the car was thoroughly underwhelming...

[Deano]

Can you direct me to the post where anyone said GM needs to get out of business?

Of course you can't, because nobody ever said that.

Actually, several posts implied that but, you are correct nobody actually SAID it. Here's one post that strongly implied that GM should not be in business:

It's enough to make me think we would have been better off not bailing them out. I was never in favor of the bailout, not due to political beliefs but the idea that companies should succeed or fail in an open market capitalistic economy based on their own merits.

Recognize it. Post 172, I think ... someone named Harry Pristovnik.

Seriously man... we can debate the real issue, but please don't just make up stuff. I love a good debate, based on facts... but don't start throwing stuff into the debate that doesn't exist. If you want to debate the issue on the facts, great. But debating the issue based on things you're just making up is pointless.

And for the last time... and please read this and understand it... it's not about how many cars were involved in fatal incidents. It's not about how many cars GM has recalled. It's not about how many recalls there have been. It's not about the percentage of cars or the percentage of incidents.

It's about GM knowing they were selling cars with faulty components, not doing anything about it, and actively trying to cover it up.

Jeez, man... how can I say it any plainer than that?

Up until around June 13 you were crowing to the heavens about how many cars were recalled on a given day, but, of course it's not about the numbers; at least not any more.

[Deano]

Hmmm...in combat, you kinda expect to die if you're any kind of realist, or you shouldn't be there. Not so much an expectation of death when you get in your car, because of sloppy engineering, compounded by sloppy record keeping and blatant cover-ups...at least in my experience.

Yeah ... I get really cautious on the highway. According to icasualties.org, we lost a total of a little over 2200 soldiers in the mideast between 2001 and 2011. In 2011 we lost more than 32000 in traffic accidents. I didn't add up the preceding 10 years worth of traffic fatalities. I'm imagining that the majority of those traffic deaths were caused by impaired drivers and 'distracted drivers'