86 Non Chevy Volts Burn After Improper Recall Service, Prompting Second Recall of 296,920 Non Chevy Volts

Ronnie Schreiber
by Ronnie Schreiber
When Jack Baruth wrote a post about Chevy Sonics being recalled for missing brake pads, some readers thought that TTAC might be cherry picking the recall reports, perhaps because of some institutional prejudices around here. Jack pointed out that recalls are a fairly frequent thing whereas cars shipped without functioning brakes are hopefully a much rarer, and thus newsworthy occurrence. In another newsworthy event, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform called on NHTSA, the federal agency that handles things like car and truck recalls, to explain its actions in regard to how it investigated and reported the events surrounding the reported fire in a Chevy Volt that NHTSA had crash tested and flipped over.Congressional hearings are newsworthy even though they usually are dog and pony shows. This was no exception. I’m as skeptical of government agencies as anyone but the Chevy Volt fire story is one huge nothingburger. No real world fire hazard probably existed and whatever minor changes GM is making on the Volt are painting the lily. If I was going to grill NHTSA about car fire safety, I’d ask them about how they managed to administer a fire safety related recall so well that they’ve now had to recall the same vehicles a second time because 86 improperly serviced vehicles on the first recall go-round subsequently caught fire.Now it’s not NHTSA’s fault that the recall wasn’t performed properly. It’s not even the fault of the manufacturer, Ford, because it was the manufacturer’s own investigations that revealed the problem: dealer technicians weren’t doing their jobs properly. In some cases they didn’t do their jobs at all – on a fire safety related recall! Still if the House committee wants oversight, perhaps it should be asking NHTSA and the automakers what procedures are in place to make sure that safety related recall repairs are actually done.The present recall involves about 297,000 Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute compact SUVs from the 2001 and 2002 model years. The actual defect is a leaking cap on the master brake cylinder fluid reservoir. Leaking brake fluid could drip onto an ABS module connector, causing corrosion and a possible short circuit. In the initial recall, technicians were supposed to replace the cap, visually inspect the wiring harness, and apply electrical grease to the connector. After 86 vehicles that already had been recalled experienced what NHTSA calls underhood fires and Ford calls thermal events confined to the involved components, Ford investigated. They found that in many cases the visual inspection had not been done or not done properly. To do the inspection properly, a factory tie-wrap had to have been removed and the wraps were still intact. In some cases, insufficient grease was used. In other cases the wrong grease was used. Electrical grease is used because of its insulating qualities. Some automotive greases are packed with metallic compounds and can conduct, not insulate, electricity. Finally, in some cases nothing was done. The tie was still in place and no grease had been applied, but the tech checked off on the repair.Not everything needs to be criminalized. Still, there should be come kind of system in place, by NHTSA and the manufacturers, to make sure that safety related recall repairs actually get done and that if repair fraud is involved, perhaps criminal penalties might not be such a bad idea. At the least a dealer that fraudulently claims to have performed safety related recall repairs should risk losing their franchise and their business license.In the meantime, NHTSA is warning owners of 2001 and 2002 Tributes and Escapes to park them out of doors so as not to risk a garage or house fire.Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can dig deeper at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks – RJS
Ronnie Schreiber
Ronnie Schreiber

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, the original 3D car site.

More by Ronnie Schreiber

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 34 comments
  • "scarey" "scarey" on Jan 30, 2012

    So now any call for a Federal govt that doesn't borrow $58,000 per second (and spend even more) is a "howl" ? If so, we should all be howling 24/7.

  • MattMan MattMan on Jan 31, 2012

    @Ronnie: Doood. Seriously. Your cleverness is getting in the way of effective communication. Your article didn't actually talk about what was going on until the 4th paragraph. So for 3 paragraphs I was going, "What am I reading. What is he talking about? WTF is a 'non-Chevy Volt'". And after reading the whole thing I *still* don't understand how a Ford Escape = "non-Chevy Volt". I automatically read any article written by Jack Baruth. Your name is perilously close to going on the *other* list.

    • KalapanaBlack KalapanaBlack on Jan 31, 2012

      My superior intellect tells me that anything that is not a Chevy Volt = a "non-Chevy Volt." Hence, a Ford Escape = "non-Chevy Volt." Also, my house key = "non-Chevy Volt," the Eiffel Tower = "non-Chevy Volt," etc. Now, you try!

  • Thomas Same here....but keep in mind that EVs are already much more efficient than ICE vehicles. They need to catch up in all the other areas you mentioned.
  • Analoggrotto It's great to see TTAC kicking up the best for their #1 corporate sponsor. Keep up the good work guys.
  • John66ny Title about self driving cars, linked podcast about headlight restoration. Some relationship?
  • Jeff JMII--If I did not get my Maverick my next choice was a Santa Cruz. They are different but then they are both compact pickups the only real compact pickups on the market. I am glad to hear that the Santa Cruz will have knobs and buttons on it for 2025 it would be good if they offered a hybrid as well. When I looked at both trucks it was less about brand loyalty and more about price, size, and features. I have owned 2 gm made trucks in the past and liked both but gm does not make a true compact truck and neither does Ram, Toyota, or Nissan. The Maverick was the only Ford product that I wanted. If I wanted a larger truck I would have kept either my 99 S-10 extended cab with a 2.2 I-4 5 speed or my 08 Isuzu I-370 4 x 4 with the 3.7 I-5, tow package, heated leather seats, and other niceties and it road like a luxury vehicle. I believe the demand is there for other manufacturers to make compact pickups. The proposed hybrid Toyota Stout would be a great truck. Subaru has experience making small trucks and they could make a very competitive compact truck and Subaru has a great all wheel drive system. Chevy has a great compact pickup offered in South America called the Montana which gm could make in North America and offered in the US and Canada. Ram has a great little compact truck offered in South America as well. Compact trucks are a great vehicle for those who want an open bed for hauling but what a smaller more affordable efficient practical vehicle.
  • Groza George I don’t care about GM’s anything. They have not had anything of interest or of reasonable quality in a generation and now solely stay on business to provide UAW retirement while they slowly move production to Mexico.
Next