By on April 1, 2014

GM

The Detroit News reports General Motors CEO Mary Barra boarded a commercial flight from Detroit to Washington, D.C. Sunday in order to prepare for two separate hearings before Congress regarding her company’s handling of the ongoing 2014 recall crisis. While in the nation’s capital, she also met with 25 family members whose relatives were killed in crashes linked to the ignition switch behind the recall.

CNN Money adds GM is about to reveal the names of the 13 people who lost their lives due to catastrophic failure linked to the defective part. The information will be made available to the public, with sensitive information — corporate secrets and personal data — redacted prior to publication. The information is part of a request by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration due April 3.

As for what Barra and NHTSA acting administrator David Friedman plan to say before the House and Senate hearings, Automotive News reports Friedman is standing firm on his agency’s effort to “properly carry out its safety mission based on the data available to it and the process it followed” in prepared remarks to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, while Barra reiterates her position on the events leading up to the recall and subsequent actions moving forward:

When we have answers, we will be fully transparent with you, with our regulators and with our customers.

Automotive News also put forth four key issues Barra and Friedman will have to explain before Congress and the general public:

  • How GM’s multiple internal investigations failed to lead to a recall sooner
  • Why NHTSA failed to launch an investigation, despite signs that a faulty switch might be causing airbags not to deploy
  • Whether and how GM’s vehicle-safety protocols have changed
  • Whether GM’s internal processes were violated or laws were broken

Tying into the fourth issue, House Democrats have found and named the engineer behind the 2006 ignition redesign as Ray DeGiorgio, who denied in a 2013 court deposition having knowledge that the part was changed. They also penned a letter to Barra stating the redesigned switch still didn’t meet spec, based on information provided by supplier Delphi confirming the switches meant for 2008 – 2011 models tested poorly alongside the switch approved in 2002 now linked to 13 fatalities and 33 crashes.

Automotive News also posits the reason behind the NHTSA not pushing forward on a recall sooner was due to a heavy focus on child deaths linked to airbags. When GM introduced a smart airbag system in their vehicles in the 2000s, the agency focused on whether or not the airbags were doing their job to protect children placed in the front seat, with the goal of assessing “real world” performance while spotting “unusual circumstances” — such as the flawed ignition switch behind the recall — that would allow for “early identification of potential problems,” according to a 2004 statement by former agency boss Chip Chidester.

In new recall news, GM recalled 1.3 million vehicles made between 2004 and 2010 whose power steering could suddenly lose electric power, with the automaker aware of “some crashes and injuries” tied to the steering. Vehicles affected include: Chevrolet Malibu, Malibu Maxx, non-turbo HHR and Cobalt; Saturn Aura and Ion; and Pontiac G6.

As for reporting issues that could lead to a recall, GM leads the way in filing early-warning reports to the NHTSA with 6,493 reports between 2005 and 2007; Chrysler and Toyota filed around 1,300 in the same period, while Honda filed 290. However, the cause behind the numbers is in how each automaker follows the 2000 TREAD Act, with GM setting an extremely low threshold for reporting in comparison to other automakers.

Finally, a number of lawsuits are being aimed directly at dismantling the liability protection GM’s 2009 bankruptcy provided to “New GM.” The tactics range from securities fraud and loss of resale value, to wrongful death.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

117 Comments on “GM Recalls 1.3 Million Additional Vehicles As Barra Heads To D.C....”


  • avatar
    jimmyy

    Is anyone surprised? The Obama administration looks the other way when the Detroit automakers ship vehicles with safety defects as a political favor to firms that support the UAW … remember, the UAW makes major contributions to the Democrats.

    At the same time, the Obama administration attacks Toyota or Honda for anything … including blaming Toyota for owners stacking multiple floor mats in a vehicle. NHTSA actually made Toyota saw inches from gas pedals for multiple floor mat clearance. At the same time, Detroit vehicles do not need to pass the multiple floor mat requirement.

    If not for a civil case that the media picked up on, the GM ignition switch safety defect would have never surfaced. Makes you wonder how many other Detroit safety defects NHTSA ignores for political reasons.

    Where does this leave you? Since NHTSA only pursues safety defects on foreign nameplates, for your personal safety, you are a fool to purchase a Detroit branded vehicle. Would put your kids or your wife in a Detroit vehicle when NHTSA refuses to enforce safety issues?

    • 0 avatar

      So you are blaming the Obama Administration and the UAW but not a word about Akerson or Wagoneer, who should have known and done something.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        yeah, they should have known the names and faces of all 200,000 employees, too.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Dr. Olds, the consummate apologist ad infinitum for all grossly negligent/reckless actions & inactions of “old’ & “new” General Motors.

          I hope you never have to deal with the serious injury or death of a loved one directly due to the type of callous indifference demonstrated by General Motors in the cases at hand, DESPITE your incredibly callous (purposefully disingenuous or hopelessly clueless) ways.

          You, sir, have no shame.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            What I have is intellect, knowledge, and experience as do the people engaged in running these multi-billion dollar companies and doing the work you blithely sit on the sidelines chattering about.

            If you would pay attention, you might actually learn something.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            So, since. You’re some kind of self-proclaimed expert regarding engineering and/or quality control and/or product safety and/or all other matters:

            1) What would have been th appropriate month/year for GM to issue a recall to check and/or replace faulty ignition switches (that also affect electric steering, braking and airbag/SRS) on what GM itself admits are affected vehicles?

            2) Why didn’t GM do precisely that sooner if your answer to #1 above was anything other than “never” or “tomorrow.”

            3) Was it appropriate for GM to not re-number what they concede was/is a defective ignition switch component after determining it to warrant a re-design, and if not, why or why not?

            Thanks, Mr. Goodwrench!

          • 0 avatar

            > What I have is intellect, knowledge, and experience as do the people engaged in running these multi-billion dollar companies and doing the work you blithely sit on the sidelines chattering about. If you would pay attention, you might actually learn something.

            See, here’s the problem: it doesn’t make for a compelling argument when someone make these proclamations and all they ever do is recite “media circus” or whatever slogan they managed to remember.

            If you have some insight into the Delphi/GM testing/validation/signoff process, then by all means share it. Repeating catchphrases is evidently manageable by any number of drooling morons.

          • 0 avatar

            > So, since. You’re some kind of self-proclaimed expert regarding engineering and/or quality control and/or product safety and/or all other matters:

            It’s a poor assumption that GM lifers can read competently, so this is best I could summarize as a casual observer:

            http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/03/gm-hits-social-media-as-part-number-debacle-adds-confusion/#comment-3015529

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            I was responding to Deadweight asking if I have no shame, by replying what I do have. Poor choice, perhaps, though GM recruited me and gave me a good career for those attributes I mentioned.

        • 0 avatar
          LALoser

          Doc Olds: To shift gears…ahem…What are your thoughts on the Volt? Going to look at one tomorrow.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @LALoser- Volt is a great driving car. I was surprised at the refinement. It is too small for some. I calculated it would save us $109/month in fuel costs compared to my wife’s 26.5MPG Regal at $15,000 miles a year. I read that the owners are the most satisfied of any vehicle.

          • 0 avatar
            LALoser

            Thanks Doc. I am going to kick tires tomorrow. Maybe make a good commuter.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @deadweight- I don’t know the details, but can clearly state that GM policy and the law require a manufacturer to notify NHTSA when “an unreasonable risk to vehicle safety exits”. The fuzzy part is what that means.

            It is easy to decide if the discrepancy is that a wheel is going to fall off. In my experience in the forums making recall recommendations inside GM, obvious safety related issues were pursued aggressively and with little or no hesitation to release a recall.

            This is not an easy one to see as an unreasonable risk, and though I didn’t ever work on that area, I understand the processes of reviewing millions of vehicle crash reports to see a pattern. NHTSA didn’t see anything alarming with the same data set, as a matter of fact. The TREAD data base which was very costly for manufacturers to implement did not find it. Frankly, understanding how these things happen and develop, I didn’t expect it to add much if any value.

            I don’t mean to trivialize the deaths or injuries by pointing out how very unlikely an incident even linked to the discrepancy has proven to be.

            You know, your knee can still bump the ignition switch and turn it off on many cars, including these after recall. That won’t change appreciably with a bit higher turning effort.

            My argument simple and twofold.

            What we see reported is misleading, and we should not rush to judgment until the real facts are known.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            doctor olds – “Poor choice, perhaps, though GM recruited me and gave me a good career for those attributes I mentioned.”

            and we wonder how GMC got into this mess in the first place?

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      So what about the vehicles that were “shipped” during the Bush administration. Free pass for that I presume?

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      Really? The NHTSA has recalled plenty of “Big 3″ automaker cars over the past few years. Hardly “looking the other way.”

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Must be April Fools.

      There is no doubt UAW is a financial arm of the party in power but I’m not buying the administration has any knowledge (or even cares) of what product ships and any defects thereof said product. Get a grip man. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        The best advice in all the kingdom, that.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Thx. I’m truly surprised at the amount of people who blame the Presidential administration for the most trivial of things. I remember when Toyota won a contract from NASA to pull the Space Shuttle in Cali and people blamed the administration. There are numerous deficiencies to pin on the current administration but what NASA, NHSTA, and RenCen do on a day-to-day basis are not among them.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      Please don this conical hat and join the folks who blamed Obama for the government response to Hurricane Katrina on a stool in the corner.

      As for the story being “hard to find” on the East Coast, that’s news to me, as my office overlooks the Atlantic and the copy of the New York Times sitting on my desk has the Cobalt story on the front page. The Wall Street Journal has two pages at the front of its Markets section devoted to it (with a teaser on the A1 cover). The entire top half of the first page of the Business section in today’s Washington Post is devoted to Barra’s testimony against the backdrop of families with loved ones who died in fatal crashes. But, well, there’s nothing in the _New York Post_ for the last couple of weeks, which must mean that they’re covering it up because they love Obama so much.

      • 0 avatar
        jimmyy

        Nope.

        No mention on the front page of the Boston Globe.
        No mention on the front page of the Boston Herald.
        Not a single mention on any local TV station website in Boston or NYC.
        The NYT article is not a leading article and the title is “Chevy Cobalt seen as lemon” … not the “Don’t Drive Your Toyota”
        But, the WSJ is not influenced by Obama … so that one never counts. They even questioned the Toyota hysteria.

        • 0 avatar
          Astigmatism

          In today’s Globe:
          “New recall affects 1.5 million vehicles”, page 23
          “GM with held key data, official to tell Congress”, page 23

          In yesterday’s Globe:
          “Regulators decided against GM probe, memo says”, page 19

          In Saturday’s Globe:
          “GM adding 971,000 small cars to recall”, page 18

          This is in a local paper, mind you.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    Also, this will be a softball hearing that the Obama loving media will largely ignore. Over here on the east coast, this story is hard to find. But, the Toyota settlement over largely bogus safety story is all over our papers. In fact, I wonder if the timing of the Toyota settlement was meant to drown out the GM story.

    It is also possible that the GM CEO switch was performed just before this story hit as a cover up … for both GM and the Obama administration. Put a woman on the stand who will be handled with white gloves because of her gender … not to mention the former CEO who knows more is no where to be seen.

    • 0 avatar
      Loser

      When pulling things from your a$$, please the scrape the $hit off of it prior to posting it.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        @ Loser…Ya just made my day dude! That SO! much, needed to be said.

        • 0 avatar
          gtrslngr

          Aint it just amazing that on a site called The Truth About Cars when someone has the cojones to tell it like it is .. the peanut gallery comes forth with pithy and rather pathetic immature insults as a reply ?

          Whats a matter boys … the TRUTH hurt so much you can’t hardly bare it ?

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            the original comment is the most incongruent with reality.

          • 0 avatar
            Loser

            “Aint it just amazing that on a site called The Truth About Cars when someone has the cojones to tell it like it is .. the peanut gallery comes forth with pithy and rather pathetic immature insults as a reply ?

            Whats a matter boys … the TRUTH hurt so much you can’t hardly bare it”

            gtrslngr, Yes this is The Truth About Cars, not the Conspiracy Theories About Cars.

            Do you have any proof as to what jimmyy said is fact? Do you also buy into his belief that Obama had people infiltrate Consumer Reports in order to make Honda look bad so GM could sell more cars?

            As far as insults you must be new here, jimmyy loves to insult anyone that doesn’t drive a Honda/Toyota, live on “The Coast” or doesn’t make over $100K a year. He also likes to belittle blue collar workers and blacks. So if this is also your thing go ahead and keep defending your new pal.

          • 0 avatar

            > As far as insults you must be new here, jimmyy loves to insult anyone that doesn’t drive a Honda/Toyota, live on “The Coast” or doesn’t make over $100K a year.

            Are we sure he makes six figures? Makes for a compelling argument against the virtues of capitalism to reward such delusion.

          • 0 avatar
            Loser

            @ u mad scientist,

            He claims to make six figures working on Wall Street while giving advice to folks that make seven figures. With the far out comments he makes here I have my doubts.

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      The media has “ignored” the story? I just checked my feed of the NYT business section, and there has been no less than 16 stories on this since 3/18 alone (I stopped counting at that point.) Most days have at least one, and sometimes up to three stories about it.

      And I really doubt this hearing will be a “softball”… everybody’s piling on at the moment; I have yet to see a single indication from a single member of Congress that this will be an easy hearing.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        Media is always after GM, there may have been a lull for them to see if GM would survive the bankruptcy, but they are surely not providing a fair perspective. ABC, for example, gave a national audience for one trial lawyer and his assertions with nothing from GM, as is appropriate in cases pending litigation.

        Media have spun this very negatively for GM and given a podium to the trial lawyers who provide immense contributions to democrats.

        • 0 avatar
          gtrslngr

          GM has been taking the US public for a deadly ride since its inception . Being responsible [ with Standard Oil ] for the inclusion of lead in gasoline – destroying the infrastructure of US mass transportation etc etc .

          e.g. There’s nary been a decade when GM didn’t have its foot in it . That foot more often than not costing either lives – jobs – growth in the US etc . Read the history ! Or at least the NYtimes 3/30/14 article on the history of GM’s culture of lying and deception . And you wonder why the media has … it in .. for GM ? Because they deserve it

        • 0 avatar
          Astigmatism

          How could this be “spun” any other way, doc? Sometimes a PR disaster is just a disaster.

          If Mary Barra does well before Congress today, finds some way to take responsibility for failures that were not on her watch, and is able to prove that the people responsible for this episode have been removed or are no longer around (and the culture that fostered it has been changed), she and GM will come out of this just fine. But there’s no way to make the failures of the 2000s look any less bad than they really were.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            It is certainly a PR disaster, just as were the Toyota SUA and many others through the decades going back at least to the destruction of Audi years ago.

            The reporting spins the situation as willful malfeasance, which is not at all accurate.

            Do you have any idea how many fatal accidents involve non-deployment of air bags? Frankly I don’t either, but do know that ejection from the vehicle is a leading cause of fatality and likely is often accompanied by non deployment. I would wager that every single maker has similar orders of magnitude of air bag non deployment. NHTSA has all the accident data and can see trends as well as any other.

            Lets see how the report comes out.

            As a matter of real world fact, there are likely to be as many fatalities due to accidents unrelated to any product deficiency in these millions of cars on their drive to the dealers to get the recalls performed.

            This is the simple arithmetic of big numbers. Car problems that happen “once in a million” happen hundreds of times every year in America.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            One of the problems for automakers is that they make an inherently lethal product. In the US alone, thousands of people die each year in car crashes, and even more are injured.

            So the automakers don’t all leap into action the moment that someone dies while using one of their products — death is par for the course in this line of work. In this case, many of those who died in these ignition-related accidents were at fault for the crashes, and probably would have died, anyway.

            It would seem that GM devoted more time internally to worrying about its lack of negligence in individual crashes than the broader problem of airbags failing to deploy when they should have. That was unwise, and suggests that there is a cultural problem within the company.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @PCH-what do you mean by “GM devoted more time internally”. I am truly curious as to why you think that?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You should probably listen to yourself. You’ve devoted a fair bit of energy to explaining how these drivers were at fault, without apparently recognizing that an airbag is a mechanical device whose performance isn’t determined by the driver’s recklessness or blood alcohol content.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Pch101

            I would imagine any manufacturer of a potentially lethal product has a team focused on reducing legal liability for said product. Now in the case of GM if its sewn into corporate culture as you speculate, I say this ignition debacle is the tip of the iceberg.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The Washington Post offers a theory: “With so much at stake, why didn’t GM act sooner? The answer, according to many people familiar with the automaker, is a corporate culture reluctant to pass along bad news.”

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/why-did-gm-take-so-long-to-respond-to-deadly-defect-corporate-culture-may-hold-answer/2014/03/30/5c366f6c-b691-11e3-b84e-897d3d12b816_story.html

            This is actually the norm for most companies, not just GM. There is little incentive for the underlings to identify problems and try to fix them. It’s easier to just shut up and try to shuffle things aside than to end up on the wrong end of a blame festival.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            Yes, because, in fact, in virtually every case they or a driver of another vehicle were at fault for the collisions.
            I don’t work for GM, never had any involvement with the ignition switch, but I do know the product investigations business as well as anyone in the world.

            I am commenting as an engineer using logic and facts to deal with the inherent product lethality you mention. You may recall I have defended Toyota in this arena as well.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I know that you don’t see this, Doc, but it is guys like you create these kinds of problems.

            You keep fixating on individual crash liability, as if that justifies the failure of the safety equipment to deploy.

            The point remains that the airbags should have gone off, but they didn’t. Even if the airbags wouldn’t have changed the outcome, they still should have gone off.

            Likewise, an airbag is supposed to work whether a driver is good or bad, or drunk or sober. The driver’s condition and moral decency does not change the automaker’s obligation to produce a product that works. And it’s no surprise that GM’s rah-rah, wasn’t-me culture would not be ideal for addressing these problems.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @PCH- I have not worked for GM since 2008. I express my own opinions and certainly do not speak for the company. If you are drawing that conclusion from my comments you are misguided. I can tell you, as I have for years, that your thoughts about GM culture display lack of understanding, however. The organizations responsible have been very quick to recall issues with clear safety implications in the 25 years I witnessed.

            “You keep fixating on individual crash liability, as if that justifies the failure of the safety equipment to deploy.”

            I am not justifying any thing,just focusing on the cause of the accidents
            to address the false belief that the switches “cause” accidents.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            If your attitude is typical of GM workers (and I believe that it is), then it is easy to see why this situation has gotten as bad as it has.

            The liability of the crashes is irrelevant to the broader issue of the defective equipment. The fact that you keep banging on about liability, when it makes no difference, is illustrative of the problem that I am highlighting.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            You believe a lot of things that are not true, and are putting words in my mouth.

            I have not been talking about liability. I agree that GM may have liability in the event of a failure of the vehicle’s safety equipment to perform in reasonable use. Each case should be judged on its own facts and merits.

            My point in this context is that Recall or no, most of the deaths would have occurred anyway because the accidents caused them, not the ignitions. Those are the facts, as I understand them.

            Every carmaker has issues that contribute to deaths. This one does not stand out as a glaring defect, as it is being portrayed, either from an evaluation of the vehicle or the data generated by millions of vehicle miles of customer use.

            Seeing this as a safety defect is not intuitive or obvious. The statement that someone knew switches had low torque to turn means corporate leadership knew and concealed that it might contribute to a death or injury to save money is just not accurate. It is a complicated situation and is being presented as simple malfeasance.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s odd how you don’t see how your “rebuttals” only prove my point.

            Airbags are supposed to deploy in crashes. They didn’t here. That’s bad.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            You keep imagining I am trying to rebut that simple point. I have agreed with that point on many posts.

            GM is conducting a recall to address the exceedingly unlikely probability of an issue with the switch contributing to injury or death.

            The issue of discussion is who did or should have known what when. That is not as clear as some seem to think.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “GM is conducting a recall to address the exceedingly unlikely probability of an issue with the switch contributing to injury or death.”

            Recalls are supposed to be largely preemptive in nature.

            If an airbag doesn’t deploy in a crash involving a “bad” person, then there is a risk that it will also fail to deploy in a crash involving a “good” person. The contributory negligence of some drivers in certain past crashes doesn’t change that equation.

          • 0 avatar

            > This is actually the norm for most companies, not just GM. There is little incentive for the underlings to identify problems and try to fix them. It’s easier to just shut up and try to shuffle things aside than to end up on the wrong end of a blame festival.

            The corollary is “team players” get promoted, thus ensuring only well-socialized incompetence filters to the top. Yet these figureheads are supposed to be our heroes and compensated as if. Jokes all around.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @PCH- your imagination is getting the better of you. I never used the terms good or bad.

            It clearly takes a specific and unusual combination of events for the ignition key turning torque to relate to a death or injury. This is empirically evident with a handful of incidents in many millions of vehicle miles over years of time. The presumption that a handful of incidents in millions of vehicle miles is a red flag is the idea I continue to confront.

            Your an accountant aren’t you? You have to understand the difference between millions of dollars and a few cents.

          • 0 avatar

            > It clearly takes a specific and unusual combination of events for the ignition key turning torque to relate to a death or injury.

            While it’s true actual incident rates are lower than the hysteria makes it out to be, the reality remains that GM accepted a part testing under their own specs. An “engineer” should grasp the significance of this basic fact.

            Also, I’d bet acting the “team player” got GM lifers places; but it’s hard to find a counterparty, even among them.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Honestly, I’m typing as slowly as I can. I’m not sure if it’s possible for some of you to achieve clarity.

            “It clearly takes a specific and unusual combination of events for the ignition key turning torque to relate to a death or injury.”

            I feel the need to shout, since speaking-typing normally doesn’t help. Get ready for it:

            YOU’RE MISSING THE F**KING POINT. THE ISSUE ISN’T ABOUT GM’S LIABILITY, BUT WITH THE ****POTENTIAL RISKS OF THE EQUIPMENT FAILURE.****

            Let’s try this again: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO CAUSED THE CRASHES. WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THE AIRBAGS FAILED.

            Now my throat is sore. Don’t ever make me do that again.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            I got your simple minded point and have never argued it.

            Your inability to understand is the problem here and I am sorry it has worked you into a lather.

            Media presents this as “a bad ignition causes deaths and GM knew about it years ago”.

            This is not true. The story is complicated, the connection to safety not as clear as it is being presented with the benefit of hindsight and years of exposure.

            When GM came to realize the safety implications, they launched a recall.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “The story is complicated, the connection to safety not as clear as it is being presented with the benefit of hindsight and years of exposure.”

            Even shouting at you doesn’t help. No wonder GM was such a basket case.

            One more time: It doesn’t matter whether the airbag failures killed anyone. What matters is that they failed.

            Even if GM had zero negligence in all of the deaths to date, that does not excuse the failure of the airbags to deploy.

            And yes, I would have to question why anyone would want to buy a car that was engineered by people who fail to understand that.

            You worked in a deeply dysfunctional company that taught you bad lessons that ran so deeply that you can’t shake the propaganda even years after your retirement. Airbags are supposed to go off in these types of crashes, and it makes no difference who was driving the cars that failed to deploy their airbags.

            “When GM came to realize the safety implications, they launched a recall.”

            You’re being disingenuous. GM didn’t launch the recalls until a trial lawyer brought the story to USA TODAY — other outlets picked up on the story, which then forced NHTSA and GM to react.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            PCH, I can understand your frustration. It is difficult when you can’t comprehend something. You have my pity.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The odd thing is that had you worked in a more proactive company with fewer cheerleaders, then this ignition matter could have been handled years ago with little incident.

            But instead, it has turned into a costly PR bomb that will surely cost more to remedy now than it would have then. The apologists may think that they’re helping, but they only make things worse.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            PR disaster- sure, I’ve said that.
            Otherwise your opinion just displays your ignorance of what is.

          • 0 avatar

            > GM didn’t launch the recalls until a trial lawyer brought the story to USA TODAY — other outlets picked up on the story, which then forced NHTSA and GM to react.

            Given that the report leading to the recall was in process Dec-Jan, first recall decision late Jan, and the earliest I can find a USA Today story on this is late Feb, probably not.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Looks like someone’s starved for attention today.

      Why don’t you go buy a pet? They’ll love you no matter what. But leave the grown up talk to the grown ups.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    The conspiracy theories about Obama’s NHTSA being harder on other companies and easy on GM are bunk. NHTSA has been pressing GM as hard as ever.

    • 0 avatar
      gtrslngr

      You Dr Olds … are either completely uninformed – delusional .. or in serious need of getting back on your meds . Here’s a little insiders clue ( FYI ; I voted for ObamaClaus .. supported him financially and with my talents .. stumped for him etc .. round one ; round two .. nada ! ) Obama’s administration has been protecting all their immediate corporate interests from scrutiny and criticism to the point of exercising Censorship * on the media . Who ? Try GM up and until the final government owned shares were sold .. TESLA and SpaceX ..still to the present day etc etc etc

      Wake up ! Conspiracy theories they aint . Simple hard core facts that in fact every administration has been guilty of over the years .

      * Sometime look into a certain automotive specialists head to head test of the TESLA vs a certain German tuners EV and just try and find what the results were . Why can’t you ? Censored ! Thats why

    • 0 avatar
      gtrslngr

      You good sire are either completely uninformed – delusional – or simply have kept thy head in the sand . Simple fact is EVERY administration has been guilty of preferential treatment – exercising censorship on the media etc when it comes to preferred or in the ObamaClaus administrations case … have a financial as well as reputation at stake . In the automotive case .. GM right up to the point where all government shares were sold . With TESLA and SpaceX .. still to the present day etc

    • 0 avatar
      gtrslngr

      You good sir are completely uninformed when it comes to the realities of every administrations showing preferential treatment , exercising censorship etc when it comes to corporations they have specific interests in . With Obamas .. its been GM up and until all the government shares were sold [ doent the timing strike you just a bit funny ] TESLA and SpaceX currently etc

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        I understand the realities of the auto world very well, and am satisfied with my BS detection ability.
        With 40 years of experience inside GM, lots of connections still, I know there has been no let up in pressure from government, and generally is not through administration changes because the road to advancement in the bureaucracies is to make a name by getting as many scalps as possible.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Well, I’d say the big bad Obama folks are doing a piss poor job of censoring this particular story, wouldn’t you say?

  • avatar
    MrGreenMan

    First they shot Oldsmobile, now they reduce any GM cars to zero resale value; good thing there’s still a Ford to buy, until they shoot the big car. After that I might as well roll the dice on used German cars.

    GM should go the whole distance and admit the intermediate steering shaft on the W-body was a complete mistake so they can cover every car they built over the last 10 years, but I’m guessing they have no real solution to that other than replace it every 30,000 miles.

  • avatar
    threeer

    As much as I’ve been cheering the American makes for appearing to turn things around and offer vehicles that I’m interested in (and even had my mother buy a 2012 Buick Verano after 30 years of Toyota ownership), this story kind of pains me and makes me do a double take when it comes to GM. Sure, all of the facts aren’t in yet, but at first blush it sure doesn’t look good for them. In the end, it’s the lives lost that is ultimately the most important aspect of this story…

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    Firstly, the presumption that the 12 deaths linked to failure of the supplemental restraints due to the switch in the past 7 years would have been saved is not accurate. Not every crash is survivable, even with air bags and seat belts.

    Secondly, evidence that the ignition fault caused even a few of these is tenuous and clearly was not a causal factor in some.

    Thirdly, automobile accidents cause several million injuries and tens of thousands of fatalities in America every single year.

    This is not to diminish the personal tragedies of these cases, but to bring perspective.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @doctor olds – So how many deaths that are truly, 100% the fault of the bad switch do you figure would “bring perspective”? And it should be you that explains it to their families and friends that they were largely irrelevant lives anyways, when you look at the big picture…

      “People, people… LOOK AT HOW MANY DIDN’T GET KILLED!!!

      Good point… But how many crashes and deaths didn’t get linked to the faulty GM ignitions? If a car in question ran a red light, gets T-boned and driver killed, he was probably texting. Airbag didn’t deploy from the side impact.

      Say a Saturn Ion gets rear ended by an 18 wheeler when it slows to a stop the expressway. Driver killed. She was probably slowing down to make a U-turn. No airbag deployment from rear impact. And no further investigation.

      Cobalt driver fails to negotiate a turn…

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        With your thinking we have to ban all automobiles!

        Did you know they injure over 2 million people a year and kill 30-40 thousand!!

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Good point, but we’re only concerned here with injury and death that should have easily been prevented by a single corporate decision. But didn’t.

          And how the hell parts that were known to be defective and obsolete, if not a “danger to the public”, were still getting installed on GMs as late as 2011.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            Mike, maybe you should go see how easy the key is to turn in a Cobalt somewhere and you will personally observe this horrible defect. I drove a few of them, and never heard or knew of an issue. Even NHTSA looked at it several times and decided the chain of events which could lead to a problem and the rate of incidents did not justify further investigation.

            I was a quality guy for years and never condoned changing a part without changing the number and tracking it. I also won’t draw conclusions without facts. It is easy to imagine the discrepancy being viewed as irritating, but relatively benign. If anything sinister exists, heads should and will roll. I’d bet a dollar to a donut that high level executives were not in the loop.
            My arguments are based on understanding the processes and issues around vehicle safety defects and recalls. Unfortunately as a former NHTSA administrator pointed out, “we can’t afford to build roads a mile wide with cars armored like tanks and 25 mph speed limits to assure no one ever dies in an auto accident”. Some risk is inherent in them, and some rate of defects occur in every maker’s vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Cars are inherently dangerous. Not the point here. If no problem was found, why did GM re-engineer the ignition? If recalls were cheap, it might be a different story. Or no story… It’s trading one expense for risk of another. No different from the Pinto fiasco.

            But let’s see you drive Cobalt with the old ignition after 10,000+ cycles. I mean drive it a lot. And drive it Hard! With a decent amount of keys and what not on the key ring. Dare ya… Don’t really do it!

            Yes I’d like to do a test and see how many ounces or lbs on the key ring will shut it off. Remember it’s a combination of weight on the key ring and shock from bumps, dips, potholes and such.

      • 0 avatar

        > Good point… But how many crashes and deaths didn’t get linked to the faulty GM ignitions?

        This is a good segway into the different processes at work, namely the incompetence of the design “engineers” vs. the incompetence of the safety investigators.

        Just as we both know by now the difficulty of diagnosing the cause vs. side-effects of a rattling key, the incompetent diagnosing the incompetent at GM was always going to be a hard task.

        OTOH, punishing the incompetent for wanton incompetence is not really fair either. It’s only good for a laugh in the vein of black humor.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      “I was a quality guy for years”. That says so much to so many.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    Baptism by fire, for Mrs. Barra.

    These type of trials and tribulations show when a person is a real leader or not.
    I sincerely hope that she does take the opportunity to really shake up the GM organization and trim the remaining dead branches still working for that company.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Berra was quoted as saying “Ninety percent of this game is half mental.”

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    Clearly, the GM fanclub is in consternation and disarray!

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      I didn’t realize you were such a fan of the nanny state.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        I’m not.

        I think the cradle-to-grave mentality is something that the majority wanted and voted for and THEY got exactly what THEY deserve. I’m cool with that, as long as I don’t have to pay for it.

        I also actively avoid having my hard-won meager personal wealth spread around by the clowns in government.

        You already know my position on handouts, bailouts and nationalization. I thought it was a bad idea back then, and I still do now.

        But it is the reality we live in today. I’ve learned to suck it up and deal with it. My answer is to never buy a GM product again; started that in 2008.

        The more things change, the more they stay the same.

        NEW! IMPROVED!! BETTER THAN EVER!!!

        Tell me this isn’t devastating news for the GM fanclub.

        • 0 avatar

          > I also actively avoid having my hard-won meager personal wealth spread around by the clowns in government.

          Funny when those paychecks were signed by the employer of last resort funded by everyone else.

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          I would choose the word, “enraging” rather than devastating. I don’t mind the issue surfacing so much as the hype and disinformation around the reporting.

          As a matter of fact, I doubt it will have a huge impact on the company, though with the circus planned in DC, anything may happen.

          I do understand reality here, as I did and expressed clearly with Toyota’s debacle.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Either way, there are people in the industry who have publicly stated that this is just the tip of the iceberg — the current GM debacle.

            And as far as the hype and disinformation around the reporting are concerned, there are (independent) industry observers who also have stated publicly that GM was guilty of misinformation and of withholding information, for decades.

            So from my pov, it all balances out. And I agree, this will have little if any impact on the company and the actual number of vehicles still in service affected by these recalls is minimal when push comes to shove.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    The committee should open the questioning by asking GM CEO Barra if GM is hiding other potentially lethal safety issues.

  • avatar
    olddavid

    Regardless of what my wildly mis-labelled “B&B” cohorts may believe, I feel very sorry for Mary Barra. Her legacy is being written as we speak, having been dictated by her predecessors. Now she is in damage control mode, working defensively to prevent catastrophic loss, and possible collapse – again. I watch in disbelief at the new lows of GM management incompetence being exposed daily. In my lifetime, I have had a ringside seat to an unprecedented decline of a corporate monolith, from a pseudo-governmental agency (what’s good for GM is..) to a cautionary example of American hubris – from over 50% of the market to the current soon to plummet lows. The same way you feel the quality when just sitting in an Audi or S-class today, GM products were (in my opinion) head and shoulders above every one in 1960, from the cheapest Tempest to the Eldorado Seville, their product was more substantial across the board. I am willing to predict many PhD theses will be written by budding economists in the future about this debacle. I hope they do not include the obituary.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Me, too. She was never in a position to change any of it from the onset when it started but she is left holding someone else’s bag.

      Unlike her male predecessors, she was lifted from obscurity to lead this failed company because it was the politically correct thing to do at this time. I believe she should have been promoted to this position long ago but it wasn’t done back then.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @highdesertcat
        GM has deeper issue than most realise.

        When you delve into quality management and the ability of the company to self audit itself I can see deficiencies.

        GM is still riddled with the ‘Old Detroit’ culture. The cultural changes required at GM will not occur overnight.

        A legacy of the ‘Detroit Culture’ will still be at GM in a decade. You can implement changes at the top of any institution or organization, but how effective will the new management be at successfully implement the desired and required changes? GM really needs to axe managers at all levels when they don’t perform.

        The problem is, the work within the GM institution, the problem people are the only people who understand the company to keep the wheels turning. People like DocOlds, it’s not they are necessarily bad people, but their very understanding and ability to act positively on how to move forward is flawed.

        The GM model might have worked in the 60s, but we are now very far removed from the 60s.

        Maybe, not just GM, but Detroit and the UAW should look at what are their pitfalls and why they are not as competitive globally as they should be.

        It’s sad, but GM is in decline and it’s self inflicted.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          BAFO, I agree with you on most of your assessment of GM, but not on Doc Olds.

          Doc Olds is relating to us his experience with GM from a far different perspective than we.

          As such, he is able to distinguish between the nuances that reflected GM thinking during Doc Olds’ affiliation with GM.

          You and I, and most other readers, have the tendency to whitewash all the various aspects of GM with one brush: bad is bad.

          In my case that is because my eyes were opened to GM after I bought my first Japan-built Highlander.

          Before that, I drove GM products for decades, never knowing that there were more reliable, better-engineered vehicles out there.

          I loved my Olds Custom Cruiser and Toronado, both bought new, but they were far from trouble-free, mate. I tooled and wrenched on them.

          But as to your summary that “GM is in decline”, I say “Nay, Lad, GM died!” In 2009, to be precise and it was in decline up to that point in time, for decades.

          The fact that the US taxpayers brought GM back from the dead, put GM on indefinite lifesupport and wasted billions of dollars on a lost cause in the process does not alter the fact that GM was no longer a viable ongoing concern after GM declared bankruptcy.

          I still say, leave GM to the GM fanclub, just not at taxpayers’ expense. If people choose to buy a GM product, THEY DESERVE WHATEVER IT IS THEY GET!

          Good, bad or indifferent.

    • 0 avatar
      SayMyName

      “I feel very sorry for Mary Barra.”

      Good Lord, why?!?! She’s a GM lifer, who has associated with this nefarious company for all of her working life. I highly doubt she tried to turn down Coke Can Dan when he offered her the higher profile and bigger paycheck. She’s hardly a doe-eyed symbol of innocence, though she may attempt to adopt that persona if she thinks it will provide her some needed cover.

      We’re all judged by the company we keep. Barra absolutely deserves whatever comes to her, and GM.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    Funny but not one word anywhere about Honda replacing Civic engines for coolant leaks or a prior ignition problem similar to this one.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @ponchoman49- not a word about the huge Nissan airbag recall and any number of others, either.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      The Civic engine problems, which are caused by defective block castings, are a quality issue, not a safety issue. To the best of my knowledge, this defect has not caused any deaths or injuries. The federal government therefore would not require Honda to recall these cars for a quality-control problem that has not resulted in any deaths or injuries.

      The ignition problem with various Honda models did not result in any deaths or serious injuries. Honda did what GM should have done – recalled the vehicles in question BEFORE someone died as a result of the defect.

      The real problem here isn’t that a GM car has a defect. All car makers make mistakes. The problem is that GM didn’t take appropriate action when it began receiving information that this defect was causing serious injuries and death. It also increasingly looks as though GM tried to cover its tracks by changing the part without changing the part number.

  • avatar
    ZoomZoom

    I swore off GM cars a few years before the bailout, PURELY due to quality problems, a couple of which put me at risk for being injured or killed. Fiinally, I knew I had to stop buying General Motors cars because I was doing it out of my own sense of American loyalty. I had to stop. Now I’m glad I did.

    And then the bailout happened. The bailout was morally wrong to me, and still is. It doesn’t matter who’s pensions were saved, it was morally wrong to take from people who wanted nothing to do with this company or its inferior products just to give to said company.

    I understand you GMers’ need to defend your company. But I still think it’s wrong, and I want my money back. My tax money, that is.

    I am surprised that the mainstream media has finally come out on this, but I suspect it’s only temporary. Soon, we’ll see more articles about how we should remain loyal and keep buying GM cars.

    And then the next bailout. Yes, I believe it will happen again. And we will do this all over again, because “GM is too big to (be allowed to) fail”. Sigh.

    • 0 avatar
      Halftruth

      Agreed.. Especially on your last point. Not if, but when the next bailout will be. Instead of teaching GM to fish, the gubmint will simply provide more fish (via you and me) when GM f**ks up again. It will not matter who is in office and whether they are dem/repub/independent/deceased. They are all the same at that level.

    • 0 avatar
      Nick

      ‘And then the next bailout.’

      That’s easy to believe.

  • avatar
    Johnny Canada

    If your pension is tied GM, I get the fact that you’re passionate about defending the company. However, it’s starting to look like there was a cover-up to deflect NHTSA recalls, and allow the bodies to pile up. If true, GM should be absolutely pancaked.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      I don’t know if you mean me, but FWIW, I don’t get a pension or any other compensation from GM.

      My goal is to share the real world knowledge of a 40 year career which included dealing directly with these kinds of issues and a rich knowledge of the processes GM used. There is a lot more smoke than fire here, but the Politicians and media have grabbed it and are running.

      • 0 avatar
        Johnny Canada

        Doctor Olds, do you know Ray DeGiorgio?

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          I do not know him, never met him as far as I know. I would have if he were a powertrain engineer with any connection to a recall at least from 1998 to 2008! From 88 for Lansing products.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “There is a lot more smoke than fire here, but the Politicians and media have grabbed it and are running.”

        I have flashbacks of a Toyota unsubstantiated SUA debacle and I hear someone at the podium with a booming voice say, “We’re not done with Toyota, yet!!!!!”

        Never fear GM lovers, this, too, shall pass. And GM shall carry on as before, unfazed, knowing full well that the US taxpayers stand ready to bail GM out, whenever GM needs it.

  • avatar
    oboylepr

    Clearly, if you want to purchase a well made, reliable and safe car for yourself, you would be well advised to stay well clear of a GM dealership. If however, you are seduced by the hype, the money on the hood or you have a vague notion that you ought to support the “domestic” auto industry and pull the trigger on a new GM vehicle, do not keep it one second past its warranty. You will be the proud owner of a vehicle made by a company that cares nothing for it’s customers, employees, suppliers, dealers and the safety of the public at large.

  • avatar

    The more interesting question here is why people who seemingly accept if not themselves propose GM incompetence wildly exasperate at it.

    Missing plunger specs out of a car with a gazillion parts is mundane par for course, and though bit less likely at their peers isn’t cause for surprise.

    It’s hard to take pretenders to “the truth” seriously when they act as if born yesterday.

  • avatar

    The interesting part of this particular case will the be blame game between GM and Delphi. GM apparently had the right specs, but signed off on a part from Delphi which didn’t meet them. That it took so many efforts in just as many years to figure this out speaks to the culture of not just GM but the wider industry around it in general.

    But since this is interesting and worthwhile, the smart money is that the news orgs nevermind re-blogs will miss it entirely to pander to the lowest common denominator.

    • 0 avatar

      Far too little attention is being paid to the out-of-spec parts at the heart of this matter and how they got installed in the first place. After Demming and statistical quality control have been in place for decades, how did Delphi not know the parts were bad?

      • 0 avatar

        The best article I can find on the specifics:
        http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/30/us-gm-recall-congress-idUSBREA2T0HO20140330

        Notes:
        1. GM or more likely Delphi tests these parts against specs, and torque is among ~60 parameters. Delphi testimony implies torque out of bounds was known to GM engineer who initially signed off in 01/02.

        2. 2005 is around when they first discovered the issue on safety side. I’m guessing the safety guys consulted with design “engineer” who the article says claimed the ignition was too hard to fix. ie “not my problem”. This is prolly what resulted in the key fix recall.

        3. What’s curious to me is *why* the subsequent investigations by the safety “engineers” as more crash info came in either didn’t look into or find the 2001/2005 tests, and effectively ran in circles repeated running tests of their. Were they different folks every time?

        Unfortunately reuters fails to specify the “chronology” or whatever source so those curious have to dig on their own. The best I could find is:

        http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7Htr0QlGYksJ:docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20140401/102033/HHRG-113-IF02-20140401-SD002.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

        This link is to google’s cache to a doc that’s been taken off the House site for some reason (dun dun dun conspiracy), which is abundantly sourced. TTAC would do well to write an article based off this instead of idiot secondary sources. Or I’ll summarize it whenever and be the definitive “story” on the issue, lol.

        Outside of this, Delphi was filling for BK themselves ~2005, and it’s quite possible things were a mess internally round then.

        Odd there are so many of these GM “engineering insiders” Automotive News et al keep referencing and not a single one sheds much light on this.

  • avatar
    Johnny Canada

    Too many people here focused on parts and engineering issues. Nothing is perfect or totally safe…we get that.

    It will be the attempted internal GM cover-up that will sink them.

    I hope it’s not true – we already burned 9.7 billion to save them.

    • 0 avatar
      ZoomZoom

      Oh sure the cover up…

      But what I referenced above was the culmination of a never-ending parade of incompetently manufactured/ assembled/serviced vehicles, not just a “one off” anecdotal experience.

      I don’t care if it was GM, Pontiac, Chevrolet, Olds, the Corvette brand/model, or Delphi. Or the janitor. To me, it’s all GM. And it was Corvette that made me realize that my trust was not being placed with a trustworthy company.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Well gents I see GMhate.com is back up and running at TTAC.

    Drudge linked to a story where a US Senator is calling for Americans to stop driving GM so it seems the gov’t signed in today too:

    CBS Connecticut: “Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal is among those calling for GM to make a stronger statement and tell owners to stop driving their cars immediately. Blumenthal believes GM made a decision to hide the defect of ignition switches.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/374755/democratic-senator-tells-gm-car-owners-stop-driving-immediately-jim-geraghty

    Evidently the Deltas were basically junk, I’m not surprised. GM never understood small cars and never made any money on them which is why they went to Opel for the next generation after J-body, the second of which (Delta II) thus far has fared better. My recommendations for GM:

    1. You suck at small cars, you always have. Let Cruze and Verano be your “small car(s)” and get out of the other segments. Spark? Please. Read some of the things people post about it online. Sonic? Why is this a thing again? Yes I know small cars are important growth etc, but I say to you, where does the profit really lay? Building a small car you might have $1,000 to $2,000 margin in, still not dominating the segment, and then possibly losing this profit on recalls, incentives and the like? Most of your business is in Asia and the numbers reflect it. North America should be a profit center, not a battleground. If you can’t be a serious contender in a segment, get out of it altogether like you did minivans.

    2. You succeed in big honkin’ stuff, so play to your strengths. When I think GM I don’t think Cobalt, Cavalier, Prism etc. I think Tahoe, Silverado, Avalanche, followed by Park Avenue, Deville, then 3800s in general etc. Aside from trucks you obviously can build, you seem to lost the big car mojo. Here’s a hint, some people may love your global designed cars. I don’t and I don’t really care what the other OEMs are doing. Toyota and Honda understand what Americans want from Camcords which is why every generation gets bigger. You (and Ford) had some big cars that were eliminated, and introduced some medium size cars whose interiors are shrunken inside. This is not progress. If you are going to sell cars alongside trucks, you must realize your successful competitors sell big cars which don’t have the appearance or reputation of being “big”. Younger people especially have a negative opinion of most GM cars, you say Buick or Olds to them and they flinch with a “grandpa car” comment. MY14 Camry has a 109.3in wheelbase and a length of 189.2 inches. MY05 Lesabre (G-body FWD) has a 112.5 wheelbase and a length of 200.0 inches. H-body Lesabre had an 110.8 wheelbase and a length of 200.8 inches. Between the two GM platforms, you’re very close to Camry and with some bumper changes could pull the length to probably a six inch difference. So whats my point? In the minds of the buying public, Lesabre = big old man car while Camry = yay grounded to the ground awesome when they are very similar in size and what they offer. So the lesson is people by and large are rubes lacking critical thinking and investigatory skills, and the hypocrites buy 400K Camrys a year while mocking your product. Convince them your “big cars” are not “big” and while you’re at it add an even larger car to the lineup, thus Impala/Lacrosse do not appear as “big”. Then take those cars and Xerox them into tall ugly cars not called cars for buyers to rejoice over, because for many rubes cars suck right. Has to be C-U-V with giant wheels and blinding headlights. Ford can go off into A and B segment madness, I don’t think your serious buyers want this from you. Oh, but what about the future? Your future is Asia, RenCen not North America. Build X number of big cars and trucks Americans actually want from you, not half-assed attempts to get into segments you don’t belong in. Delta may have been a placeholder for the later successful Delta II, but it clearly was not executed well and has come home to haunt you.

    http://autos.aol.com/cars-Toyota-Camry-2014/specs/

    http://autos.aol.com/cars-Buick-LeSabre-2005/specs/

    http://autos.aol.com/cars-Buick-LeSabre-1999/specs/

    • 0 avatar
      ZoomZoom

      TLDR.

      I take exception with your first sentence regarding “GM Hate”. Was your intent to embarrass people and shut down discussion? I won’t fall for that. For years GM put out terrible mistake-filled products and did nothing to fix the corporate problems. Then we bailed them out.

      Sorry, there is no evidence of “GM Hate.” You got what you wanted, a bailout for GM. Which means you’re winning. So please stop throwing the “h” word around so carelessly.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    “NHTSA, despite receiving hundreds of complaints and considering a possible pattern of air bag non-deployment in 2007, failed to act. Friedman said the cars were not “overrepresented” among other models in terms of air bag problems and that the data “did not indicate a safety defect or defect trend that would warrant .. a formal investigation.”
    At least NHTSA agrees with me.

  • avatar
    Johnny Canada

    “At least NHTSA agrees with me”.

    Even a drowning man will reach for a sword.

    Just kidding….enjoy your input.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      Thanks Johnny. good one! I just tell the truth. That’s what this place is supposed to be about. This just happens to be the kind of topic I know very well. I have been the suit across the table from the regulators, created the press releases from detailed understanding and seen them spun from little to nothing into a maelstrom. I Am damn glad I didn’t work on this one!!

      I have had a recruiter snooping around and understand GM may need some contractors. I am not looking for work, but if the price is too high to turn down, may have to take a vacation from retirement!

      Nahh! Probably not.

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    “In new recall news, GM recalled 1.3 million vehicles made between 2004 and 2010 whose power steering could suddenly lose electric power, with the automaker aware of “some crashes and injuries” tied to the steering.”

    If you do an Internet search for “ford electric power steering failure” or “Ford eps failure” you’ll find Ford also has this problem, and has not yet issued a recall. The worst years seem to be 2008 and 2009. The expensive solution is to replace the steering column. Which Ford will do for you at full cost.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India