By on October 12, 2009

(courtesy . Seriously)

One of TTAC’s tipsters reports that GM has erroneously recalled 8k vehicles. D’oh!

Date: 10/08/2009  Ref. number: XXXXXX Subject: 09041A / 09077A – Noncompliance Recalls – Retraction Letter

Date: October 9, 2009

Subject: 09041A / 09077A – Noncompliance Recalls

Shift Lever Indicator May Not Display Correct Gear

Retraction Letter Mailed to Certain Customers

2009 Buick Enclave
2009 Chevrolet Cobalt, HHR, Malibu, Traverse
2009 GMC Acadia
2009 Pontiac G5, G6
2009 Saturn AURA, OUTLOOK

To: All Buick, Chevrolet, GMC, Pontiac Dealers and Saturn Retailers

Attention: Service Manager and Warranty Administrator

General Motors released Noncompliance Recalls 09041 and 09077 in March 2009 and July 2009 respectively.  They were both subsequently amended to expand the involved vehicle population and update other important information.  These changes were comprehended in Bulletin 09041A and Bulletin 09077A which remain active and available in eSI.  The purpose of this message is to advise of another adjustment to these field actions.

Upon further investigation, we have determined that certain vehicles originally included in these recalls were not built with the shift cable assembly that is being recalled. Consequently, recall notification letters were erroneously sent to those customers. Approximately 8,000 customers are affected.

To correct this situation, we are mailing a retraction letter to each customer on October 8, 2009.  The letter explains our mistake and that the shift cable assembly in their vehicle is no longer suspect.  It also apologizes for any inconvenience or concern our error may have caused.  A generic copy of the letter is attached to this message for your immediate reference.
Additionally, the corresponding recall information displayed in GMVIS has also been modified to show a “closed” status (with no associated paid claim) for each vehicle affected by this error unless, of course, the recall repair was completed prior to this manual correction.


Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!


15 Comments on “GM Recalls Recall...”

  • avatar

    The person in charge of sacking the person in charge of the credits, has himself been sacked.

  • avatar

    What in the world is significant in this communication? GM notifying dealership personnel of exactly what transpired in a recall situation and how it is being handled? And why do you keep going to the well publishing company to dealership communication?

  • avatar

    This is the first time I’ve ever heard of a recall recall in my thirty-five years on the automotive scene. Does anyone else know of such a thing happening before (not to go all Jewish on you)?

  • avatar

    Sorry Robert, I can not recall such a recall recall.


  • avatar
    Via Nocturna

    GM sure is taking this build quality thing seriously.

  • avatar

    Being a former GM car owner, there have been times where I received a letter of recall from GM and when I call the dealer to book the service appointment, they refused to perform said service because they had not been informed of the recall from GM. Only months later do the dealers bother.

    Recalling a recall that may have already been performed (or not) is an interesting twist to GM’s recall process. Must be the “new” GM.

  • avatar
    Daniel J. Stern

    I’m not sure why TTAC is talking up a non-event like this. It’s pretty damned yellow, if you ask me, and smacks of the cooked and exaggerated “news” of Chrysler having driven new cars with the odometers disconnected (very few cars, in fact, over very short distances, but that didn’t stand in the way of a big manufactured scandal).

    Srsly: How and why is this news? What would you have had GM do differently, and how? Okeh, sure, it’d’ve been best if the error hadn’t been made in the first place, but we’re all human and occasionally we’re less than perfect. GM caught and corrected the error quickly and efficiently, as it seems, so…where’s the beef? If it’d come out they’d baselessly recalled 8 kilocars and spent money on unnecessary repairs, that might’ve been news; it would’ve been an example of the kind of sloppy behaviour we’ve come to expect of GM. But it really looks to me as though they handled this as well as possible, so I don’t agree with the tone (or presence) of this post.

  • avatar
    1600 MKII

    Daniel J Stern:
    An event is a nonevent only if it has a precedent. I suspect Robert was simply pointing out an unprecedented occurrence on the part of the ex General (corporal?).

    Maybe it has to do with the fact that it probably is the “old” GM (us) footing the bill for the mailing and the “new” GM having to actually cough up for the repairs??

  • avatar

    Kind of off topic, but I’m in the mood to give some ‘credit where credit is due’ to GM….

    That G5 GT sedan (Canada sales only?) is a good looking economy/compact to my eyes…I know it’s a Cobalt clone with mediocre quality, but the 18″ rims, clean lines, and lack of “intentional uglyfying” in the name of being cutting-edge (um, Mazda 3, Honda Civic sedan among others) give this car some honest, simple style.

    Better looking than the new ‘savior’ Cruze, to me at least…they should have sold the G5 sedan in the states and left the God-awful G3 at the Canadian border.

  • avatar

    So they have a clerical problem. Better to shrink a recall than to expand one.

  • avatar

    I’m sure a dealer would rather get a recalled recall than a letter terminating their dealership.

    I have a copy of a memo sent to dealers telling them not to seek warranty claims on vehicles that didn’t have floor mats unless a certain code is printed on the Monroney label. Is that newsworthy?

  • avatar
    Bubba Gump

    I thought TTAC didn’t do recalls?

  • avatar

    Violation of of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is a serious legal matter.

    FMVSS #102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect specifies the transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock and braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 km/h (25 mph).

    Recall campaigns are very expensive, and an error in reporting can bring an outfit in fragile financial circumstances to its knees. One of the biggest projects of my career was to set up an anti-recall procedure to monitor a product from concept through commissioning – specs, design, testing, tooling, equipment, and inspection – any change has the potential to tip the balance unfavorably. And, despite the best research into past cause known causes, and the best efforts those involved, events can still occur which were not forseen.

    The bottom line is the recall must be accurate including only those vehicles involved – no more – no less – exactly. To do otherwise introduces the risk of a surprise. Big bosses generally don’t like surprises. Although, at GM – who knows?

  • avatar

    Sending out a retraction letter looks bad, if another recall occurs it looks like crying wolf. For 8000 cars, they would have been better off just replacing the shift cables. 8000 cars is not a lot.

  • avatar

    Our tax dollars hard at work…

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ttacgreg: The IIHS morbidly fascinates me. Here is an NGO that literally wields governmental power over automakers. I...
  • brn: Yes, yes, and yes.
  • brn: The Magnum made station wagons cool.
  • JimZ: “My criticism stands.” as bullsh!t.
  • brn: The LS never got the credit from the automotive press that it deserved.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote


  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States