GM 1.3 MILLION car recall

[sniper]

I thought I would have already found a thread on this. You know in the interest of "equal time" and all.

"General Motors said Monday night that it will recall 1.3 million of its compact cars to replace a motor in the power steering system. When the motor fails, the car is still safely steerable, the company said, but is harder to steer at lower speeds."

"GM began its investigation of steering problems in the vehicles last year and informed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the recall on Monday. NHTSA began its own probe of some 905,000 Cobalts after getting more than 1,100 complaints about a loss of power steering. The complaints included 14 crashes and one injury, GM said"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2010/03/gm_to_recall_13_million_compac.html

I recall in another thread someone saying that at least the US companies promptly address their issues. Hmm doesn't seem so in this instance.

[Young Gun]

Id beg to differ, they did a full investigation on their own, before the government and have taken responsibility. I would say that is more prompt than Toyota... but what the hell do I know

[rrunner68]

I think its funny that a loss of powersteering causes people to crash.

[Twentyover]

An investigation takes some time- especially if, as GM says, many of the cars are out of warranty. As you know, when a low speed accident occurs, the cars are usually repaired and the cars sent on their way. Parts are not usually retained by either body shops or insurance companies guessing the manufacturer may have a defect.

When a finding of defect is found, the manufacturer has 5 days to report it to NHTSA.

I made the comment that Toyota dragged it's feet, issuing a recall only after a NHTSA official sat down with Toyota at their headquarters in Japan. If my understanding of the law is correct, they violated it and remain subject to civil penalties.

If one were to speculate, and I'm not proposing one do that, Toyota's lack of hardware in the US (a single laptop) capable reading several second before and after airbag deployment might be intentional. All US manufacturers, most European, Nissan, and most other Asian manufacturer's have the capability. Honda say's it can't, Toyota (by virtue of not providing a hardware solution) says it won't. Only when it became public information they could but were choosing not to did they offer to send another 150 laptops with ability to read the recording to the US.

[Jim Nilsen]

What is really going to be interesting to see is the effect it will have on new engineering at all of the car makers. Some of this new stuff they are using is just not worth the slight gain if any over parts that are as reliable as the sun coming up and going down. All of the cost savings are getting eaten up in lawsuits at the cost of the consumer.

Who is going to trust buying a new car from any of them anymore?

[MrQuick]

US makes are required to alert the gov of any problems, unlike overseas companies. That's why Recalls are so common.

I agree Jim, The problem is people want the modern convenience. There are so many electronic components involved just to have a car park it self, drive itself in cruise control mode and it just brings the reliability down. Remember all these small but important parts are still made by the lowest bidder. Often over seas.

vince

[Kenova]

I recall in another thread someone saying that at least the US companies promptly address their issues. Hmm doesn't seem so in this instance.

GM said it can take up to 30,000 miles for the problem to develop, which is why GM has said it will fix the oldest cars first. Many of the cars developing the problem are also out of waranty, but GM has said it will fix them too. All this without NHTSA pounding on their front door.

Ken

[RatMalibu]

the cobalt platform aren't the only ones that use that steering system.....

[fordsbyjay]

Gee Sniper, are you so tired of having to constantly defend your Toyota death machines that you had to search out another companies problems???:bsjerk:

[Tony_SS]

the cobalt platform aren't the only ones that use that steering system.....

Do HHR's use them? I'll have to give my wife a heads up..

[trapin]

I like how "General Motors" was highlighted, as if we would otherwise miss that in the article. LOL!!

But you did the right thing bro, equal time is indeed equal time. :)

[formula]

just to put things in perspective: how many large-scale manufacturers have NOT had a large-scale recall of any models over the last twenty years?

Now, how many of those recalls were to fix something that "made the vehicle harder to steer at low speeds", or a reasonable equivalent, and how many were to STOP THE CARS FROM ACCELERATING UNCONTROLLABLY UNTIL THEY RAN INTO SOMETHING SOLID ENOUGH TO STOP THEM?

When automotive engineers design a car, they do what's called a failure mode and effects analysis for every component of the vehicle. This basically is the process of going through and saying "alright, how could this part break? now, what would happen if it broke each of those ways?" there are different levels of priority based on the safety and level of functionality of the system after any given failure mode occurs. The worst is catastrophic failure--a failure mode that both completely eliminates the functionality of a system and puts the vehicle occupants in mortal danger.

In this case, GM's failure leaves the vast majority of the safety and functionality of the steering system intact, with minimal chance of loss of life or limb--which basically says that it's well-designed. Granted, it's pretty easy to have a steering system that still steers without power assist. But when you look at toyota's failure, it completely eliminates the basic functionality of the system (i.e. the ability to control vehicle speed) and puts the occupants into a potentially life-threatening situation. This is what is known as catastrophic failure. The fact that a potential catastrophic failure mode made it all the way through their FMEA process unchecked reeks of an overly-rushed, under-checked design process. This is equivalent to someone walking through airport security with a grenade in their hands--toyota's engineers absolutely should have realized that something like this could theoretically happen, and had some sort of failsafe in place, period.

just my 2 cents.

[Damn True]

I'm sorry, I don't see the equivalency here.

[formula]

I'm sorry, I don't see the equivalency here.

in RE: what I said?

[sniper]

I like how "General Motors" was highlighted, as if we would otherwise miss that in the article. LOL!!

But you did the right thing bro, equal time is indeed equal time. :)

FYI: I did not bolg the GM, it was that way in the article. Just for clarity.

I am no way trying to equalize the problems, but more so show that no one gives a shti when it's an american car company.

[Damn True]

FYI: I did not bolg the GM, it was that way in the article. Just for clarity.

I am no way trying to equalize the problems, but more so show that no one gives a shti when it's an american car company.

The American Car Company gives a "poop". Which is why they are fixing it of their own accord and not making excuses, obfuscating the problem, blaming it on the operators and running from the issue until forced by .gov regulators to do something about it. Which is why it is sort of a non issue. They are fixing it.

Not to mention the fact that it is a problem with a convenience feature who's failure mode leaves a redundant mechanical system allowing complete control of the vehicle as opposed to a failure mode that causes commanded acceleration the two are =/=.

[Damn True]

in RE: what I said?

No. I was commenting on the content of the OP.

[sniper]

The American Car Company gives a "poop". Which is why they are fixing it of their own accord and not making excuses, obfuscating the problem, blaming it on the operators and running from the issue until forced by .gov regulators to do something about it. Which is why it is sort of a non issue. They are fixing it.

Make no mistake they are not fixing it on their "own accord". They are fixing it to avoid intervention by the NHTSA. I am sure there are plenty of people that went to the dealership, and were mislead and not having the problem fixed, just as Toyota customers were probably getting the same treatment.

The first thing a dealer does when you take a "new" problem to them, is that they try to weasel their way out of fixing it on their dime. ALL OF THEM.
It takes hundreds if not thousands of complaints for a manufacturer to do something about a problem.

[Damn True]

Woops, wrong thread.

[dadto2jays]

:wedgie:Toyota to General Motors!!!!!:1st:

[Tony_SS]

The first thing a dealer does when you take a "new" problem to them, is that they try to weasel their way out of fixing it on their dime. ALL OF THEM.
It takes hundreds if not thousands of complaints for a manufacturer to do something about a problem.

that's the damn truth.

[DaviRotten]

I think GM is doing the "right" on this issue... Hell even cars out of warranty being fixed shows a company protecting its brand for the good which is a great step..

Unlike Chrysler and the infamous 7bolt gernade by diamond star motors or Toyota's **** frames on there trucks or there other numerous issues..

[ErikLS2]

US makes are required to alert the gov of any problems, unlike overseas companies. That's why Recalls are so common.

vince

Vince, I'd be curious to know where you got this information? All car companies, regardless of where they're made are required to follow the same rules. And dare I say most of the time it's the car companies that notify the gov that they are issuing a recall. There are other cicumstances where the gov. forces a recall on the car company based on their own investigation.

[1969CamaroRS]

-toyota's engineers absolutely should have realized that something like this could theoretically happen, and had some sort of failsafe in place, period.

And that is the crux of what really should be recalled. All their fly-by-wire accelerators should have a failsafe built in where if the gas pedal and brake are applied at the same time the ECU ignores the gas input and only the brakes are applied.

But that would probably cost Toyota a lot of money, so hence the spin and the "shims" and blame on the carpets. But not really fixing the crux of the problem all the while changing the new systems to have this type of failsafe.

[Jim Nilsen]

Make no mistake they are not fixing it on their "own accord". They are fixing it to avoid intervention by the NHTSA. I am sure there are plenty of people that went to the dealership, and were mislead and not having the problem fixed, just as Toyota customers were probably getting the same treatment.

The first thing a dealer does when you take a "new" problem to them, is that they try to weasel their way out of fixing it on their dime. ALL OF THEM.
It takes hundreds if not thousands of complaints for a manufacturer to do something about a problem.

You got that right.

They keep getting away with killing people from the other side of the law and yet no one goes to their side and kills them, why is that?

The consumers get dumber by the day and don't know how to even stand up for themselves anymore because we have been beaten down and have learned to expect it as much as we accept it.

Only when we fight back in numbers do they listen as if it is a threat to them personally.

Time to get personal America, upfront and live.:enguard:

[68nate]

And that is the crux of what really should be recalled. All their fly-by-wire accelerators should have a failsafe built in where if the gas pedal and brake are applied at the same time the ECU ignores the gas input and only the brakes are applied.

But that would probably cost Toyota a lot of money, so hence the spin and the "shims" and blame on the carpets. But not really fixing the crux of the problem all the while changing the new systems to have this type of failsafe.

When I was in a GM training course in the 90's for the drive by wire 6.5 turbo diesels, my first thought on the drive by wire was "This seems like a bad idea". I'm still not a fan of drive by wire. If you've ever diagnosed and repaired electronic issues in automobiles, you know all kinds of weird **** happens, failsafe or no failsafe. Same thing with push button start- a couple seconds in a panic situation/emergency can very easily be the difference between life and death.

For what its worth, My wifes previous vehicle-08 Dodge Caravan- Did the unintended acceleration trick on two occasions.

[ErikLS2]

And that is the crux of what really should be recalled. All their fly-by-wire accelerators should have a failsafe built in where if the gas pedal and brake are applied at the same time the ECU ignores the gas input and only the brakes are applied.

But that would probably cost Toyota a lot of money, so hence the spin and the "shims" and blame on the carpets. But not really fixing the crux of the problem all the while changing the new systems to have this type of failsafe.

The current fix includes not only shimming the gas pedal but also reflashing the computer to ignore gas pedal input if the brakes are applied. I have experienced it and it works seemlessly.

I don't know how much money it actually costs Toyota but anytime an engine computer is reflashed, the updated software must first be approved by at least the EPA and CARB before it can be released. May have something to do with the delay.

[Kenova]

"General Motors said Monday night that it will recall 1.3 million of its compact cars to replace a motor in the power steering system. When the motor fails, the car is still safely steerable, the company said, but is harder to steer at lower speeds."

Sounds like the same result when a power steering pump goes bad.
Doesn't sound so ominous to me.

Ken

[Jim Nilsen]

The current fix includes not only shimming the gas pedal but also reflashing the computer to ignore gas pedal input if the brakes are applied. I have experienced it and it works seemlessly.

I don't know how much money it actually costs Toyota but anytime an engine computer is reflashed, the updated software must first be approved by at least the EPA and CARB before it can be released. May have something to do with the delay.

The EPa and Carb only care if the air we breath polluted by the vehicles we drive kills us but the the cars themselves killing us is some other departments problem so rules are rules and they don't care if more die waiting for a fix.

And people think these government agencies really care about them.

[Taman]

Yes but GM didn't blame the drivers like Toyota did.

[DaviRotten]

How r **** toyota truck frames the drivers fault?

[MonzaRacer]

The current fix includes not only shimming the gas pedal but also reflashing the computer to ignore gas pedal input if the brakes are applied. I have experienced it and it works seemlessly.

I don't know how much money it actually costs Toyota but anytime an engine computer is reflashed, the updated software must first be approved by at least the EPA and CARB before it can be released. May have something to do with the delay.


This is incorrect, upon observation of this quote the proper answer is that IF said reflash CHANGES anything that may force the vehicle to exceed EPA emissions is it required to have any EPA inspection, This was written into emission certifications rules in OBD2 so as to not allow a manufacturer to slip in a way for a "emission control defeat specific" cutoff , ie so you dont have a way to put a toggle switch in to switch programs, lock out EGR, air pumps etc.
Ford had 3 reflash that were developed on the ground just last winter and due to the fact that they had to do with transfer case engagement on the fly it was released as wrote by the engineer and went uplink to Ford for dissemination to techs.
How do I know, the engineer was there doing tests on a vehicle at a dealer I worked for, he tried the fix, it repaired the car and we chatted about how he could add it to the flash database.
Only if it messes with emissions, then the test bed vehicle has to be reevaluated in house under EPA cert scrutiny.

[79-TA]

I am no way trying to equalize the problems, but more so show that no one gives a shti when it's an american car company.

Petty. Well, maybe if people were ignoring a GM recall about cars accelerating out of control, you'd have something. This is just your standard "meh" recall without the sensational potential for danger . . . kind of how the blind Toyota sheep tried to paint their recall.

I'll leave you with some rusty Tundra frames to dwell on. Toyota never was anything special. They don't even make interesting cars to try to atone for their otherwise mediocre quality.

http://jalopnik.com/search/tundra%20frame%20rust/

[rrunner68]

My 2005 Magnum, 2007 Mitsu Raider and 2009 Ram all won't let the engine rev past 2k with the breaks applied.

[ErikLS2]

This is incorrect, upon observation of this quote the proper answer is that IF said reflash CHANGES anything that may force the vehicle to exceed EPA emissions is it required to have any EPA inspection, This was written into emission certifications rules in OBD2 so as to not allow a manufacturer to slip in a way for a "emission control defeat specific" cutoff , ie so you dont have a way to put a toggle switch in to switch programs, lock out EGR, air pumps etc.
Ford had 3 reflash that were developed on the ground just last winter and due to the fact that they had to do with transfer case engagement on the fly it was released as wrote by the engineer and went uplink to Ford for dissemination to techs.
How do I know, the engineer was there doing tests on a vehicle at a dealer I worked for, he tried the fix, it repaired the car and we chatted about how he could add it to the flash database.
Only if it messes with emissions, then the test bed vehicle has to be reevaluated in house under EPA cert scrutiny.

I don't want to get into a big debate over this topic but I do know that the Toyota reflash in this case had to be re-certified. I will say that a reflash that deals with throttle angle will affect the fuel map and thereby change the emissions of the vehicle and require recertification. It isn't based on if the reflash "exceeds" the EPA emissions really. It would be more accurate to say that if it in anyway affects air/fuel management that a recertification would be required. It could be argued that transfer case engagement has no affect on fuel injection (even though it really does due to the increased load that needs to be accounted for).

Besides, some people have commented on the time delay in getting a fix out there and I am merely suggesting a POSSIBLE reason based on the fact that the reflash had to be recertified. Wasn't trying to start a debate on what does and what does not require recertification.