GM To Recall 370,000 Silverado/Sierra Trucks For Fire Risk
The new-for-2014 Silverado charmed our very own Winston Braithwaite when he tested it earlier this year. But if you ran right out to buy one after reading the review (YES ADVERTISERS THIS HAPPENS EVERY DAY) you might be without it for a few days in the near future.
GM is reportedly aware of eight issues where 4.3-liter and 5.3-liter 2014-model trucks caught fire due to “overheated exhaust areas”. These incidents all happened during “very cold weather”, and the company is encouraging owners not to let their trucks idle. Given that half of the reason people buy these sleds is to let ’em idle in the winter, it seems unlikely this advice will be honored in the observation more than the breach, so to speak.
The fix will be available starting Monday and appears to be a software reprogramming.
Software fix. What do they do uncheck the "catch on fire while idling " checkbox?
Let's see if the new GM, under Mary Barra's stewardship, handles this well. In terms of the truck world, I'd be remiss if I didn't express my complete shock at how any rational person could drive a new GMC/Chevy pickup, and its Ford F-Series equivalent competitor, and conclude that the GMC/Chevy product doesn't drive better, have a more solid feel (especially with Z71 package), have a superior drivetrain all around, have a better interior with better and more modern materials and better fit & finish, and one't just of a much better quality all over. That Ford sells as many F Series trucks as it does is a testament to how they've mastered marketing, almost to, or at the point, that pharma companies have in peddling their wares, rather than to the quality or efficacy of their wares.
Some on this site should try to learn a little about risk management. That is the crux of the matter. You just can't state one product is better or worse just by adding up the number of recalls. Hazards are what many recalls try to remove or mitigate. The consequence from a failure can be graded from critical with a large consequence, ie, potential death to just slight damage to equipment. Then it must be organised into likelihood or probability an event/incidence will occur. In most instances even if the consequence is quite high the likelihood of it occurring is very low. Even though the likelihood of an incident is low, the consequence will dictate the urgency to mitigate/remove. It comes to money and how best to manage fallout. It's good that a manufacturer will have callouts on what appears trivial. The likelihood of one of these Chevs burning up is very, very low. But, GM is fixing the problem. Good on them and the system for allowing this to occur.
+1 I also see recalls as responsible responses from a manufacturer. Recalls, even something as simple as a re-flash, cost a lot of money and dent a reputation. They are not done lightly, many people become involved, tons of data is crunched, analysis are made... it is never a simple decision and many times the manufacturers will dither for a while before issuing a recall.