Will GM's problems ever end?

[Harry P.]

Aw, man! I thought you were keeping watch!

They're coming so fast and furious I can't keep up anymore!

Seriously. The last three from Friday I only heard about by reading a post here.

[Joe Handley]

It's Saturday.

Any more recalls yet?

Not that I've heard, I'm sure Monday will have a few more. Got a friend with a S10 that's waiting to see if he gets any for it, luckily our last GM product died in '04 and finally got scrapped in '08 or '09, hope it doesn't get recalled too!

[Harry P.]

Not that I've heard, I'm sure Monday will have a few more. Got a friend with a S10 that's waiting to see if he gets any for it, luckily our last GM product died in '04 and finally got scrapped in '08 or '09, hope it doesn't get recalled too!

Nothing worse that a recall... from the grave!

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

[Ace-Garageguy]

I guess, looking back, the REAL "cash for clunkers" program was the GM bailout...

[Harry P.]

I guess, looking back, the REAL "cash for clunkers" program was the GM bailout...

Wait. Why am I laughing? It's true!

[ranma]

Bad air bags from japan so it my not just be a GM issue this time it could effect many more such as FORD, Chrysler and such. GM is certainly not the first to ignore a problem Detroit has enough blame to go around. All cars can have issues, Every automaker has put lemons on the road. It is just that GM's new CEO is trying to regain the publics trust, by recalling anything that may have an issue eventhough none have been reported by consumers. As I said before the Pinto was such a car that Ford knew was unsafe, The Corvair wasn't as unsafe as the claims that were made aginst it. Air pressue is not the responceability of the auto manufacture. Ford had gas tank issues in the late sixtys, as well as frame rot issues. all three manufactures had paint issues in the late 80's up to the mid 90's And as for cars made to last longer that's not that true either! Iv'e seen many ford's dodges and even some GM rusting out. and those cars and such are from 2000- up. My brothers Ford rusted under the doors so badly the metal was almost completely gone under his doors, His cars Transmission left him on the side of the road. His car was well maintained and serviced regulary, sadly the Transmission didn't last 80,000 miles nor did the body.

He replaced that ford which he bought new in 2002, with a 1995 Buick Century . He drove my mother's Century to work before it got rearended soon after he bought the ford. His word's " I'll never buy another Ford!" he had a trunk that leaked when it rained, window leaked all since new. new starter at 15,000 miles he just put over $1000.00 in repairs to the engine(because of ware) But like I said all auto manufactures have issues. none are immune ! not Toyota , Honda no not any! Oh BTW does anyone rember a car called YUGO? NOW that was a car with issues. and If memory serves me correctly AMC had issues due to parts being from , FORD, GM, Chrysler, Dodge How Amc made all those parts work together was weird! and a Pain in the butt to fix!

[Joe Handley]

Nothing worse that a recall... from the grave!

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

I got one for the '94 ZJ Grand Cherokee I totalled back in '98 this past winter because of that whole gas tank debacle. Still find the whole furver over that funny since my '98 XJ Cherokee has it's tank in the same place and made from the same plastics, yet isn't an issue?!

[Dave Van]

If memory serves me correctly AMC had issues due to parts being from , FORD, GM, Chrysler, Dodge How Amc made all those parts work together was weird! and a Pain in the butt to fix!

Hold on!!! I kinda like my AMC's having Ford starters, regulators and alternators. I have 66 and 68 Mustangs so I only have to know one system!!!Many also used Autolite carb's so another part I didn't have to learn! And yes my Javelin and Matador have Chrysler auto trans...but it's a good unit so I don't care!! AMC did more with less than anyone in the automotive world. And during the 70's when no US maker was leading the world in quality they were at the front of the worst!

[mistermodel]

I was just reading that the aspen/volare were so bad and had soooo many recalls that Chrysler couldn't keep up and it basically caused Chryslers first bankruptcy Is another GM bailout in the future???

[Mark]

My '79 AMC Spirit GT had a Ford electronic ignition system, Ford starter, and Ford four-speed manual transmission. Never touched any of those items (except routine maintenance like tune-ups and lube changes) in 215,000 miles. The GM alternator was another matter. The GM power steering didn't give me any trouble, though. People still ask me about that car...it outlasted the company that put it together. If the "right" one came along, I'd buy another in a minute...

[russosborne]

Funny, no one has mentioned the Crown Vic fairly recent (10-12 years ago)problem with exploding gas tanks, everyone wants to focus on the Pintos.

Remember how many of them exploded on rear impact? At least here in Phoenix it was a really big deal as at that time Phoenix police used nothing but the Crown Vics and there were several police officers involved in those explosions.

Obviously at that time Ford management still hadn't learned their lessons. It turned out to be a really cheap and simple fix. The tank was getting punctured by a bolt on the 8.8 rear, and a little shield fixed it.

Just wanted to let people know it isn't just the Pinto that had gas tank problems, being a former owner of one.

Russ

[Ace-Garageguy]

Funny, no one has mentioned the Crown Vic fairly recent (10-12 years ago)problem with exploding gas tanks, everyone wants to focus on the Pintos.

Remember how many of them exploded on rear impact? At least here in Phoenix it was a really big deal as at that time Phoenix police used nothing but the Crown Vics and there were several police officers involved in those explosions.

Obviously at that time Ford management still hadn't learned their lessons. It turned out to be a really cheap and simple fix. The tank was getting punctured by a bolt on the 8.8 rear, and a little shield fixed it.

Just wanted to let people know it isn't just the Pinto that had gas tank problems, being a former owner of one.

Russ

Actually, it was the Pinto that was having its fuel tank punctured by a bolt on the diff (and I owned 5 over the years, not one of which ever exploded). The Crown Vic was vindicated of any inherent design "flaw", and no vehicle can be expected to be "safe" in a VERY high speed crash. Quoting from the Palm Beach Post of June 5, 2011:

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

"Crown Victorias are involved in more high-speed, rear-end crashes because of the math of market share, says Ford's Lampe: There are more of them on the road than other types of police cruisers, and so there are more crashes . The modern Crown Victoria passes Ford's own 75-mph rear impact test without catching fire, he pointed out. And Ford maintains that nothing can be done to prevent fire in ultra-high-speed rear-end crashes.

Take the death of Faith Mascolino. The car that struck the patrol car where Mascolino sat handcuffed was traveling at an estimated 100 mph.

Most important, says Lampe, are three independent judgments about the safety of the car. In two court cases on the gas-tank issue, juries found for Ford. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's inquiry found no safety defect, concluding that the risk of fire was comparable to similarly built vehicles. And the Florida Highway Patrol has concluded that "there is no definitive report that indicates the vehicle is inherently unsafe."

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

It's good to try to keep things in perspective. Granted, a fuel tank that's positioned behind the rear axle in a rear-drive car is more vulnerable to collision impact than one that's located ahead of the axle, but that location was industry-standard on front-engine, rear-wheel-drive cars for many decades. When a car is hit so hard the rear bumper ends up at the rear window, it's pretty much impossible to avoid fuel spillage...unless racing-style fuel-cells are employed...and they don't ALWAYS contain fuel either.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not sticking up for Ford in this case, because they were aware of the rear-mounted fuel tank vulnerability in the 1960s, and decided to go ahead with designs that located it there anyway. BUT, it all comes down to things like amount of space in the trunk, again, for marketing and perceived usefulness reasons. Mounting the tanks high over the rear axle and less vulnerable to impact would also adversely raise the cars center of gravity, with heavy fuel sloshing around, and it would decrease the amount of usable trunk space in that location.

These kinds of inter-related issues are faced by car designers constantly, and the solutions aren't always the best... but they're not exactly the same as a corporate culture that knowingly covers-up and ignores problems.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[my80malibu]

Take the death of Faith Mascolino. The car that struck the patrol car where Mascolino sat handcuffed was traveling at an estimated 100 mph.

Was It the Speed that killed factor. That killed Faith Mascolino, or having his body pushed thru a Prisoner partition?

Edited June 29, 2014 by my80malibu

[Harry P.]

Was It the Speed that killed factor. That killed Faith Mascolino, or having his body pushed thru a Prisoner partition?

He was a she.

[russosborne]

"Actually, it was the Pinto that was having its fuel tank punctured by a bolt on the diff (and I owned 5 over the years, not one of which ever exploded). The Crown Vic was vindicated of any inherent design "flaw", and no vehicle can be expected to be "safe" in a VERY high speed crash. Quoting from the Palm Beach Post of June 5, 2011:"

Maybe, but check this site out.

http://www.autosafety.org/campaigns/26, at which I found the following by clicking on a link to an NHTSA finding.

"Ford TSB 01-21-14:

Although the scope of Ford’s TSB includes all 1992-2001 Crown Victoria, Town

Car and Grand Marquis vehicles, the focus is on law enforcement agencies who

operate CVPI fleets. While it is true that the police and civilian versions of the

Crown Victoria share the same fuel system and rear suspension geometry, the

CVPI vehicles have a much greater exposure to high-energy rear impacts due to

the nature of their use as blocker vehicles at crash scenes or during routine traffic

stops along high-speed public roads. This is not to say that civilian vehicles cannot

benefit in some measure from having the same modifications performed, but the

vast majority of documented PRCFs in the subject vehicle population have

occurred in the segment of the Panther population dedicated to police duty.

Fuel Tank

Axle

SQ 01-014 Page 3

Prior to publishing its TSB, Ford had conducted a number of post crash inspections

of CVPI vehicles and determined that at least one fuel tank puncture was caused

by components mounted on the rear axle.

1) On 1992-1997 models, the hex-headed bolt that secures the parking brake

cable to the axle protrudes beyond the cable bracket by 18 mm. Ford

determined that this bolt could puncture the fuel tank in high-energy rear

crashes. (In 1998 the Panther rear suspension was redesigned and does

not use this parking brake attaching bracket or bolt.)

2) On 1992-2001 models, the sway bar U-brackets include a tab (4mm high by

6 mm wide) that can cut the tank. In high-energy rear crashes, the axle

tends to rotate upward, exposing the fuel tank to these tabs.

To address these two potential sources of fuel tank puncture, Ford’s TSB

recommended replacing the hex-headed parking brake cable bolt with a different

fastener having a rounded head and grinding the U-bracket tabs flush, leaving no

sharp edges.

Exhaust Pipe

Bolt

Sway Bar"

Just a little of what is there.

There were issues and Ford fixed them.

Russ

Edited June 29, 2014 by russosborne

[Ace-Garageguy]

There were issues and Ford fixed them.

Yes sir, there were "issues", but the kind of collisions we're talking about here are far from the norm that a car will be expected to have to endure. It doesn't seem fair to me to imply that the Crown Vic was an inherently unsafe or poorly designed vehicle because it failed to contain its fuel in situations like this. It is impossible to design for every eventuality, and in the second photo, the tank would most probably have ruptured whether the mods had been performed or not, and whether or not any shielding was in place.

The next photo shows the location of the Crown Vic tank, on the left. It's obvious the designers went to some considerable effort to locate the tank where it would be protected in any collision a car would normally be expected to deal with. Many other cars had the tanks extending almost all the way to the rear bumper. Ford tried to put the tank in a safer location.

Quoting from a citation on wiki-pee:

"The reports that the cars were more prone to fires during a rear collision was a simple combination of three things. First, most law enforcement agencies rely heavily on the Crown Victoria as their primary vehicle, meaning that any police-related auto accident is very likely to involve a Crown Victoria. Second, the accidents occurred as the result of the officers intentionally parking their vehicles close to active traffic to shield a stopped motorist—something most civilians would never do. Third, the impacting vehicle was often traveling at, or above, the posted legal limit (65 to 75 mph (105 to 121 km/h) in most jurisdictions).

The condition was exacerbated by police equipment installers drilling over the package tray in the luggage compartment. Due to the gas tank's orientation, drilling through the package tray may result in drilling into the gas tank. Installers also used screws set directly into the bulkhead and facing the fuel tank. In the event of a high-energy collision, these screws could be forced into the tank, both rupturing the tank and possibly acting as a spark source. Long bolts for mounting heavier equipment were also directly suspect. The manufacturer provided an aftermarket shield to help prevent these items from puncturing the tank during impact. Further, many investigations, both performed by federal/state agencies, and the police department themselves, have found that removable items in the trunk were improperly stowed. These items became tank-piercing projectiles during the rear-collision scenarios. Ford's second solution came in the form of a recall kit including patterns to mark unsafe areas (to drill) in the luggage compartment. Also included were rubberized kevlar and hard ballistic nylon shields for the differential cover lower shock bolts. They also included a kevlar-based trunk liner.^[42] Ford used similar kits on early-1980s model passenger vehicles. For 2005 and newer models, Ford offers an optional on-board fire-suppression system for the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor units. The system itself is integrated with the anti-lock braking system as part of the activation, and can be activated manually. However, Ford does cite several system limitations regarding fuel loss and impact speeds.^[43] "

[Longbox55]

Supplier issue perhaps, but where is the part of the ISO "quality management" protocol that's supposed to make sure bought-in parts and materials actually meet spec ??

And I'm certain GM has at least a few hundred people working specifically on ISO compliance and reams and reams of useless paperwork and documentation.

If It WASN'T useless, they wouldn't be having the problems they're having.

It's time to take stock of business practices, and to realize that too much busy-work management actually gets in the way of making a good product, by developing a false sense of security..."we're ISO 9001 (or whatever) compliant, so we MUST be doing a good job, right?"

Valid points. I'm just being Equal Opportunity. I'm sure that all the manufactures let things like that slide, or in this case, the supplier got away with it with one company, and went ahead an passed it on to everyone they supply.

I don't buy in to the whole ISO compliancy bit either.

[Tom Geiger]

"Crown Victorias are involved in more high-speed, rear-end crashes because of the math of market share, says Ford's Lampe: There are more of them on the road than other types of police cruisers, and so there are more crashes .

Agreed. And this can be part of the GM story as well. GM sells a boat load of vehicles, so their recall number of units looks very large. We have no idea of the percentage of cars sold that the recalls represent. A Chrysler recall can appear to be small because it's a small number of units, but it very well may represent a large percentage of their overall vehicles sold.

It's like those car history articles that say things like "Mustang was more popular than Barracuda outselling them 3:1 in their first year". Well, Ford had a much greater production capacity, thus more units. The author has looked purely at numbers with no further understanding of the companies, their target market share or the sales situation. Same could be said with Plymouth Dusters, that they sold less than certain other models from other manufacturers. But my uncle waited 6 months to get one. So a car can sell in what appears to be small numbers, but have had a demand that exceeded that manufacturers production capabililties.

Same with the pontification in the press over the Tracy Morgan accident and the smearing of Walmart. The NJ stations were reporting "Bad Walmart" saying that their fleet had 381 accidents resulting in 9 deaths the past year. OMG! Then out of curiousity I Googled for info about their fleet and found that Walmart has 6500 tractors and 7000 drivers. Reading further they have very high safety standards and run one of the most efficient fleets in the industry. But the news just was looking for sensationalism, which is part of the news reporting of recalls.

And off topic but, I'll say that no news report even mentioned that the section of the NJ Turnpike where the accident happened is absolutely unsafe and I'd say a primary cause of that accident. Three lanes going north and any time day or night it will come to a sudden screaching halt. Traffic was stopped dead there.. at 1am on a Saturday morning. No excuse for this road to exist that way! The Turnpike has doubled in width there (to two roads of 3 lanes each) but the new lanes aren't open yet. That should fix the issue.

And the way the press works. That became a big story because of the celebrity connection. There was a much worse similar accident on the PA Turnpike where a truck hit a truck stopped in the shoulder resulting in three deaths. Barely a mention on the news.

[Harry P.]

Agreed. And this can be part of the GM story as well. GM sells a boat load of vehicles, so their recall number of units looks very large. We have no idea of the percentage of cars sold that the recalls represent. A Chrysler recall can appear to be small because it's a small number of units, but it very well may represent a large percentage of their overall vehicles sold.

GM is a huge outfit, so a recall could involve a large number of cars simply because they sell a large number of cars. But the number of cars recalled, while astronomical, isn't the real issue. The real issue is..

A: How widespread and pervasive the problems are throughout the entire corporation, from air bags to transmissions to windshied wipers to ignition switches to faulty shocks...and a whole lot more, spread throughout several GM divisions and dozens of different models, not just one car or one division. The faulty parts and problems are everywhere.

B: The even larger problem is that GM knew of some of these defects, yet did nothing about it for years. They just kept cranking out faulty cars, and they knew it. And they tried to silence any whistleblowers who brought up the problems.

[Pete J.]

With autos as with real estate there are three basic rules. Instead of "location, location, location" it is "history, history, history". By most accounts longevity/repair history goes to Honda and Toyota. Since both are built here in the US that negates any "country" bias.

I have a high performance Toyota sports car that is 21 years old and it is still running strong. Nothing but required maintenance.

I have owned 6 Toyotas, 5 Hondas,2 Fords a Chevy and a Porsche. The Fords and the Chevy both died premature deaths with major engine failures in less that 6 years. The Honda's had 3 transmission failures, all replaced by the factory under a recall, at no charge to me well beyond the warrantee period. The rest of the cars have just had required maintenance. My daughter had a Civic that she ran for 250,000 miles of in town driving in 8 years. The only non-maintenance item she had was a cracked exhaust header in the last year she owned it.

GM use to build cars like that. They could now if they wanted to. Same with any other company.

German cars are well built but the maintenance on them is just nuts! My son just got rid of an 7 year old 328i because it was coming due for routine maintenance, timing belt, brakes and tires and it was going to cost over $9,000. The car just wasn't worth it! Ultimate driving machine yes, but you had better have deep pockets going in. I understand the Mercedes is the same. My Porsche was the same story. It needed new heat exchangers back it 1978 after 4 years. The parts alone were $1,000. That is some serious change in 1977 considering I got a new Toyota pickup for $4,500(became married with a house to maintain so the Porsche had to go).

For now I will stick with Toyota or Honda(Acura)until I find a better built and easier to afford car.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Pete J.

[Rob Hall]

The key in my experience with BMW and Mercedes is to do only leases..don't keep them until they get old and pricey to maintain. Because they can and do become money pits w/ high mileage.

[Ace-Garageguy]

The key in my experience with BMW and Mercedes is to do only leases..don't keep them until they get old and pricey to maintain. Because they can and do become money pits w/ high mileage.

Yup, and primarily because they're insanely complicated, for NO apparent reason...and difficult to service. I've worked on this stuff for most of my life, and the pointless complication that used to be a Mercedes trademark is becoming industry-wide.

[Harry P.]

Yup, and primarily because they're insanely complicated, for NO apparent reason..

Oh, there's a reason, all right. Gadgets and gizmos sell. A lot of consumers these days expect a car to have all sorts of technical wizardy installed in it.

I guess it's a classic chicken-and-egg situation... Which came first? Did the manufacturers start loading on the gadgetry in an attempt to lure consumers with the latest shiny things, or did consumers demand more gadgetry on their cars and automakers responded to market demand? Or is it more a case of "monkey see, monkey do?" The Germans had started with all this "I Drive" krap... typical Teutonic over-engineering and tech for tech's sake... the luxo Japanese makes followed suit, and so did the American makers. Now they're all hell-bent on outdoing the other guy, and we get ridiculous TV ads like the totally clueless male-model type lost in a daze, while his trusty car does the "driving" (and thinking) for him!

[sjordan2]

GM's main response has been to appoint Mary Barra as CEO, the first woman to be named to such a position by a major global company. Though she has been a GM employee since she was 18, she hasn't been in the inner circle for more than a few years. She can represent the company now as someone who wasn't part of the decision-making ("Nossink, I know nossink" -- Sgt. Schultz). From a recent Today show interview with Matt Lauer (for which he took a lot of heat about sexism):

LAUER: I want to tread lightly here. You’ve heard this, you heard it in Congress. You got this job because you’re hugely qualified, 30 years in this company a variety of different jobs. But some people are speculating that you also got this job because as a woman and as a mom because people within General Motors knew this company was in for a very tough time and as a woman and a mom you could present a softer image and softer face for this company as it goes through this horrible episode. Does it make sense or does it make you bristle?

BARRA: Well it’s absolutely not true. I believe I was selected for this job based on my qualifications. We dealt with this issue — when the senior leadership of this company knew about this issue, we dealt with this issue.

It doesn't hurt that she's photogenic.

[Harry P.]

GM's main response has been to appoint Mary Barra as CEO, the first woman to be named to such a position by a major global company. Though she has been a GM employee since she was 18, she hasn't been in the inner circle for more than a few years. She can represent the company now as someone who wasn't part of the decision-making ("Nossink, I know nossink" -- Sgt. Schultz). From a recent Today show interview with Matt Lauer (for which he took a lot of heat about sexism):

LAUER: I want to tread lightly here. You’ve heard this, you heard it in Congress. You got this job because you’re hugely qualified, 30 years in this company a variety of different jobs. But some people are speculating that you also got this job because as a woman and as a mom because people within General Motors knew this company was in for a very tough time and as a woman and a mom you could present a softer image and softer face for this company as it goes through this horrible episode. Does it make sense or does it make you bristle?

BARRA: Well it’s absolutely not true. I believe I was selected for this job based on my qualifications. We dealt with this issue — when the senior leadership of this company knew about this issue, we dealt with this issue.

It doesn't hurt that she's photogenic.

I heard about that interview. A perfectly appropriate question. And a completely expected answer. Of course she's going to say it's all about her qualifications. But I think it's obvious that her gender played a big part in the decision to name her the new head honcho (honchette?). To deny that is pretty naive, IMO.