By on March 24, 2014


General Motors has issued a new recall for 355 vehicles, while also facing a possible lawsuit by an investor over “immorality”. GM may also face a new probe involving the automaker’s bankruptcy and its relation to the original recall that thrust GM into the headlines, just as the agency responsible for investigating the problem at GM faces an audit from the Department of Transportation.

The New York Times reports the Justice Department has added an additional probe into their ongoing investigation of the 2014 recall of 1.76 million vehicles over a defective ignition switch linked to 31 crashes and 12 deaths.

The probe questions whether GM knew everything about the problem going into the 2009 bankruptcy — the automaker said they were alerted as early as 2001 — and failed to disclose the defect in full to both the federal government and the public during bankruptcy proceedings. This separate probe is being handled by the same group of FBI agents and federal prosecutors in New York who also brought forth the fraud case against Toyota that ended in a $1.2 billion settlement last week.

Meanwhile, Automotive News reports Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx has asked the Department of Transportation’s inspector general Calvin Scovel to conduct an audit of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as to whether or not the agency properly looked into the issues leading up to the February 2014 recall, in light of the aformentioned crashes and deaths. The audit, according to Foxx, is to ensure “that DOT and NHTSA have a full understanding of the facts regarding the GM recall and can take corrective actions to enhance NHTSA’s safety function to the extent necessary and appropriate.”

On the investor front, Bloomberg reports a GM investor has filed a lawsuit against both the automaker and current CEO Mary Barra over every recall issued since late February this year.

In filing his complaint with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, George Pio called the automaker’s lack of immediate action “illegal and immoral,” and that news of the recalls, investigations et al surrounding GM as of late “triggered a sharp decline in the company’s share price, wiping out billions in shareholder value.”

The suit is filed on behalf of any individual who purchased stock between November 17, 2010 and March 10, 2014; no money damages have been specified.

Adding fuel to the fire are two stories from Edmunds, with the first related to the original recall regarding free loaner vehicles to those affected while their own vehicles are serviced beginning next month.

GM has called upon Enterprise, Hertz, Avis and other rental companies to help the automaker assemble a fleet for affected owners to use until the ignition switch is replaced. Though the original policy states GM owners are placed into GM vehicles, the scope of the original recall means if no related loaners are available, owners will be placed into vehicles from Ford, Honda, Chrysler et al. Underinsured owners will see a temporary boost in coverage from the automaker, as well. One source in the rental world tells us that this has been a massive undertaking for GM – with so many owners of the affected cars being under 25 (the minimum rental age at many companies) arranging coverage for these owners has been an extraordinary task.

As for the second report, Edmunds says 355 vehicles will be recalled within the week due to a transmission shift cable adjuster defect that could lead to a handful of 2014 models rolling away from where they were parked. Affected models include the Buick Regal, LaCrosse, Verano and Enclave; Chevrolet Cruze, Malibu and Traverse; and the GMC Acadia. All affected have the issue in their automatic transmissions.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

59 Comments on “GM Rallies Rentals, Braces For Further Investigation...”

  • avatar

    More GM bashing. Slow newsday?

    • 0 avatar

      Chill, Mikey. Your pension is safe. To balance it out, Jack will bash Toyota whenever he finds the time.

    • 0 avatar

      This isn’t bashing there Mikey .. this is TTAC having the cojones unlike far too many other sites to tell it like it is . And to that I say … good for TTAC … and deal with it . Yeah the truth hurts .. in your case it sounds like maybe a a lot .. but the truth is the truth and in the end the Truth will Set You Free .

      • 0 avatar

        @gtrslingr…..Wrong mikey…

        Yea! This whole thing could have nasty ramifications for me. Unlike many of my former co workers I’m prepared. I started working on preparations when Fobert Farago started writing “Death Watches”

        My TTAC bashing pretty well stopped when the former EIC quit. I just Email Derek.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff Waingrow

      It’s a strange phenomenon indeed when a person identifies more with the criminal than the victim. I’ll leave it to the psychiatrists to explain this very troubling form of perversity.

  • avatar

    So … 1.6 million recalled round one this year . An additional 1.2 million round two . 69,000 + Cadillacs last week . And now another 355 GM vehicles that’d like to kill you given half the chance . All while GM’s lawyers are looking for any and every loophole to get out of covering those recalls . Doesn’t it just warm your heart the way GM says thanks for bailing their loser rear ends out …. us losing some $10 billion in the process ? And isn’t it such a joy running into some GM shill on another automotive site trying in vain to defend his minders ? Even better when he , his fellow shills along with his minders conspire to have you removed for having the gaul to tell it like it is .

    Oh well .. at least GM’s finally getting their due I’ve been predicting for well over two years . Question being will the Government again let them off the hook .. or will they impose the level of fine’s GM has well and good earned of late like they did with Toyota .. who in no way deserved them at all ? Maybe recouping a few of those billions lost in the process ? We’ll see . But I’ll bet not !

    Good ole GM … SNAFU and SSDD to the bitter end . We really should of let them die along with Chrysler seeing as how both are still and probably always will be a major league thorn in our side . Not to mention all those jobs lost since the bailouts to foreign countries , out sourcing along with increased automation

  • avatar

    Mary Barra seems to be getting $hit done, even though all of these recall related problems were designed and sold long ago (well, except for the recently produced vehicles that are being recalled). Where was she back in the early 2000s when GM was writing their future death certificate by building horrific small cars like the Cobalt and cashing in on insane SUV sales? I’m always up for a good GM bashing but it seems like she’s actually performing her job instead of pulling a Wagoner (aka let someone else worry about it).

    • 0 avatar

      @brettc…So far I like what I see, from Mary Barra. This is the first big challenge for the new CEO. I think she is handling it quite well.

      • 0 avatar

        The sad truth gentlemen is that Mary Bara was hired as a scapegoat … plain and simple . With Akerson jumping ship before the s**t he knew full well was coming hit the fan .

        Guaranteed and just wait … everything negative you’re reading in the news about GM now … is barely the Seagull Droppings on the tip …. of the very top of the Iceberg . And Ms Bara’s there to take all the heat … with Akerson and Co nowhere to be seen

        Sad really …. nobody deserves to be made into a scapegoat …. not even Ms Bara

  • avatar

    Cue the GM apologists who will claim that it’s not only manageable to control your traveling-at-65mph-vehicle when the power steering, power brakes, ABS, stability control & airbags suddenly & unexpectedly cut out, but FUN!

    • 0 avatar

      Hey if putting the car in neutral is such common sense and knowledge, at 95mph, dodging cars on a rush hour interstate, then those same idiots should know exactly when its time to re-engage the key mechanism, right?

      • 0 avatar
        Short Bus

        I’m going to say that this is a far less obvious solution when your power steering and power brakes stop working.

        Driving 101 is that neutral disconnects the engine from the wheels. Re-engaging the key mechanism… probably not.

    • 0 avatar

      I see the cost-cutting GM has pressured suppliers such as Delphi to make is finally bearing fruit – albeit rotten to the core…

      “No one sweats the recalls like GM”

  • avatar

    My first car didn’t even have power steering.

    How hard is it to steer a Cobalt at highway speed without assist?

    Oh when you’re drunk and not wearing a seatbelt I guess it’s a bit harder.

    • 0 avatar

      if the key goes back far enough, wont the steering wheel lock?

    • 0 avatar

      I had a Cobalt and when the power steering recall came up I tried to turn the wheels in my driveway without assist (key to accessory and not on). It was the hardest steering that I have ever felt in my life. It was harder than the old and heavy 70’s era no-power steering pickup truck that we had at the summer camp that I worked at as a Boy Scout. (well, 18 year old adult leader at the time technically, I bridged High School and college with a summer working at camp, but that’s irrelevant). It shocked me how hard it was.

      Obviously, this wasn’t a test at highway speeds but it was so firm in the driveway I could imagine that a failed power steering would cause an immediate and noticeable shift in feel at the least. Hypothetically, if it failed while you were hard on the brakes I could see it causing a problem.

      • 0 avatar

        No comparison, steering gets easier under speed. Hence variable power assisted steering that became a big marketing bullet 15 or 20 years ago. High boost at a dead stop, low speed, light boost at higher speeds.

    • 0 avatar

      The problem isn’t the higher steering effort. It’s the sudden change in “feel,” along with a higher level of steering effort, while the car is moving. That is the problem.

      Drivers can still steer the car, but they aren’t prepared for having both changes happen suddenly, and while the vehicle is in motion.

  • avatar

    Newly revealed information indicates that this issue is turning into a MAJOR SCANDAL for General Motors. The implemented the ignition switch change and secretly kept the part # the same.

    “Former GM engineers say quiet ’06 redesign of faulty ignition switch was a major violation of protocol”

    “Not assigning the new part number would have been highly unusual, according to three people who worked as high-level GM engineers at the time. None of the engineers was involved in the handling of the ignition switch; all asked that their names not be used because of the sensitivity of the matter.

    “Changing the fit, form or function of a part without making a part number change is a *cardinal sin,*” said one of the engineers. “It would have been an extraordinary violation of internal processes.”

    • 0 avatar

      Isn’t this almost line for line comparable with Toyota and the sticky pedal back pedal? I’m curious how you justify the partisanship overriding your at other times logical views.

      • 0 avatar

        I wouldn’t’t know because I didn’t once read ex-Toyota engineers testify to or state similar claims about Toyota’s UA issue.

        I never once defended Toyota here or anywhere else regarding their handling of the UA issue, though, so why would you claim I’m acting inconsistently in any way whatsoever?

        • 0 avatar

          > I wouldn’t’t know because I didn’t once read ex-Toyota engineers testify to or state similar claims about Toyota’s UA issue.

          What matters are facts of the case, not whatever quote some rag can dig out of somebody who used to work somewhere on different things.

          It’s pretty disappointing that coverage over these safety issues has traditionally more about fear-monger than what’s actually safe or not.

        • 0 avatar

          Sorry DW, it turns out I conflated your attacks on Toyota drivers with a defense of TMC. No TMC testimony, I was refering to the text released with the fine. According to the DOJ, sticky pedals were initially scheduled for a redesign and changed part #, but the coverup included not changing the PN and chnging the spec on the DL.

      • 0 avatar

        And this above is the point.

        The B&B and the former EIC and staff of this site excused and dismissed this exact behavior.

        The argument from the former EIC and staff was it was a witch hunt against Toyota and their perfect products.

        The argument from the B&B was any idiot who has a driver’s license can definitely maneuver a car with a stuck wide open throttle, accelerating beyond the speed limit in traffic, hold a “start” button for three seconds continuously to turn the engine off, shift into neutral, and with their fourth arm, reach down to pull out the floor mat, which they would automatically know in a crisis was the real problem. Simple! If you can’t figure that out while rolling in a two-ton box out of control than you’re an idiot. The Toyota has no problems.

        Now we go back in time to another car company playing from the exact same playbook, at about the same time.

        Hey, we’ll just bury this engineering change – no one will ever find out. We’ll do a limited recall, convince the then Bush Administration NHTSA it isn’t that bad (just like Toyota did in 2007) and we’ll save lots of money.

        Just like Toyota wild numbers of fatalities have irresponsibly been thrown around (303 is the fantasy number – the real number, although any number over zero is completely unacceptable is 14).

        The only thing missing is a BBQ California Highway Patrol officer and his family, complete with 911 call transcripts of the out of control condition. Also missing is some debt ridden shuckster who tried to ride the hype into glory and a big payoff all caught by news helicopters in California. But, it’s about playing out the same (although the video and related 911 transcript are certainly more salacious to the media)

        The biggest things we’ve learned:

        1) We’re in a corporatism, the protections of “We the People” are less important that corporate profits. Both at the corporate level, and at the regulatory level.

        2) There is a new sheriff in town, clearly the Bush Administration wasn’t enforcing the rules as tightly as the Obama Administration is. That isn’t an anti-Bush / pro-Obama or a pro-Bush / anti-Obama point – I’m just stating a fact

        3) American drivers as a group – suck. We are mostly under-trained, under-skilled, and are becoming increasingly conditioned to have our nanny overlords (e.g. electronic safety systems) take over from our own lack of training, who cares attitude, and widening regulations. There is “truth” in the argument that the average driver should be able to figure out a stuck throttle incident. There is “truth” that the average driver should still be able to maneuver a car to safety in most conditions when experiencing a power failure. Stuck throttles happen without mis-designed gas pedals getting stuck in non-factory floor mats. Power failures to cars resulting in power assisted steering and brake failures happen in cars every single day for a laundry list of mechanical or electronic failures (if you do a search on Toyota Prius recalls you’ll find around 2005 they were recalled for unexpected stalling at speed that results in brake/steering failures around 2005 – including a number of accidents and injuries related).

        These aren’t “oh my God, save me,” incidents.

        None of this excuses the behavior or Toyota.

        None of this excuses the behavior of General Motors.

        Both behaved reprehensibly in both situations. Both pulled from the same playbook. Both did it almost certainly for the same motivation (think, in a cynical sense, Fight Club – not in the true sense, but hey, it was about saving money)

        Neither automakers deserves the free pass.

        The hypocrisy that is here on TTAC is of two types. One is out of the control of the EIC team here, the other – well – it doesn’t surprise me.

        As Jack wrote, the former EIC was quite “cozy” with Toyota – as many here suspected. So Toyota got a vociferous defense from the GM Death Watch team. A defense when you go and read the finalized timeline of events, was unwarranted (insert they did no wrong doing here – anyone who reads the Jack story and still insists this is blind).

        That is not the current EICs fault of the “sins” (and I use that loosely) of the past. They are doing what they do.

        The B&B is a different story. The EXACT same people who were calling driver idiots for the WOT throttle situation I outlined above are now going, “oh my God, no power brakes and no power steering, it’s the end of the WORLD!”

        Never mind that even after a full power loss you still have two to three good long hard pumps of the brakes with full assist. Never mind that at speed, the amount of power assist offered is negligible, it is as low speeds (parking lot speed) where power assist is more critical. These are pretty solid facts in the automotive space.

        Never mind that braking power is GREATLY reduced when fighting a WOT at 60, 70, 80, 90 MPH and if the brakes overheat, you don’t have brakes anymore. Never mind that you have to execute what was determined to be an overly difficult shutdown procedure with a push button ignition that was largely unique to Toyota products, and went against normal human factors (since addressed in new ignition buttons). No, no, no. If you have overheated brakes you’ve pumped too many times and lost vacuum due to the WOT throttle by golly that’s not Toyota’s fault – its the idiot drivers.

        As noted, of the 14 documented fatalities, most were unseatbelted, several were intoxicated. Nope – that’s GM’s fault. But again, even ONE death is one too many. Back to my point one, we’re in a corporatism – and the bias lies with the B&B who, when people use their same playbook, are now stomping their feet and going, “no fair!”

        The B&B cries for blood will be fulfilled – expect years of investigations and a big fat fine, and the lawsuits that will pile up on top of that. In the end this will cost GM billions. As it has cost Toyota billions. No one will go to jail. Well no one important. When really if corporations were held to individuals standards of justice, someone or more someones should go to jail. Just as someone or somoenes at Toyota should have gone to jail. And I don’t mean Bob in sector 2G of the mailroom either – because lets face it, if anyone went to jail, it would be Bob, or Willy, or Jane, or some other faceless drone fall person.

        But the real issues. That corporations call the shots in the United States, not We the People. That enforcement of federal regulations is stunningly uneven from administration to administration depending upon their higher agenda, and that US drivers as a group suck (the 99.5% of drivers who don’t read TTAC, I’m sure everyone in the B&B could win the Daytona 500, the Indy 500, and the Monaco F1 Grand Prix TOMORROW – just give them a helmet – screw the helmet – helmets are for wimps) continue to go unaddressed.

        Save me regulation! SAVE ME! Can you see the cries of lawsuits when the first self-driving cars screw up?

        Instead we’ll face off on the petty differences on the virtues of a Toyota 3.5L V6 versus a GM 3.6L V6 and the Imapla versus the Avalon and why the Tundra is truly over-rated and how the Silverado is grossly over-priced.

        Rage on B&B – rage on.

        Jack and Derek – my apologies – you can’t be held accountable for the actions of the EICs of the past. For that I’m sorry.

        • 0 avatar

          Guess I’ll just avoid both makes.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff Waingrow

            If you (indeed, we all) were privy to the truth, this kind of reprehensible behavior would be found in all industries. To instinctively leap to the corporate defense is more than simply perverse. It is, in fact, deeply misanthropic. It’s where the victim becomes the despised. From such psychology, monstrous acts are born.

          • 0 avatar

            > To instinctively leap to the corporate defense is more than simply perverse.

            > DOJ states that TMC actively hid a defective accelerator by, among other things, modifying thier original plans to not renumber a part.

            > As Jack’s story indicates, this was a lot more (for Toyota) than some floor mats. Kudos to the Toyota PR machine for convincing the world that it was no big deal.

            Those who did bother to ponder the DOJ statements might find them made from a strict prosecution angle. If you recall in our adversarial judicial system, statements from each side are not necessarily meant to be accurate.

            Similarly in this case, note that nobody bothered to wonder if the accusation has any merit given it doesn’t make much sense on the surface.


            Frankly if that’s the best stuff prosecutors can come up with it’s a pretty weak case, and the numbers & accident investigations esp for TMC certainly don’t back them up.

        • 0 avatar

          > None of this excuses the behavior or Toyota. None of this excuses the behavior of General Motors.

          If these were acts of overt maniac negligence I’d be right there with you, but the simple stats tell a different tale because proportion matters. For example, even in a perfect system if some product harms 1 person out of 1mil, is the proper response compared to 1k people out of 1mil exactly the same?

          As for dumb people acting or speaking dumb, that’s just the reality of the world and not much can be done in general about it.

        • 0 avatar


          Feel better now?

          • 0 avatar

            PCH101: I wonder the same. Plant both feet if needed on the brakes and keep them there…or kick it into neutral, or both.
            *sorry, this regards the comments below*

        • 0 avatar

          The TMC and GM cases are not comparable.

          Unintended acceleration is usually a matter of driver error. Hitting the brakes doesn’t cause cars to accelerate, and functioning brakes will overpower and stop a moving car.

          In contrast, the failure of airbags to deploy in high-speed crashes is clearly an engineering, design and/or assembly problem, as airbags are supposed to deploy under those circumstances.

          These are not equivalent circumstances, no matter how badly that you’d like them to be.

          The mitigating circumstance for GM is that a lot of these drivers who died were negligent and would have probably died, anyway, even with deployed airbags. But that doesn’t justify having airbags that didn’t go off at all.

          • 0 avatar

            PCH, did you read the excerpt from the DOJ statement Jack posted? DOJ states that TMC actively hid a defective accelerator by, among other things, modifying thier original plans to not renumber a part. That’s pretty comparable to me.

          • 0 avatar



            A) Did not read or

            B) Does not care about the actual record of what happened

            You are correct, it’s the exact same dance music and the exact same dance.

            As Jack’s story indicates, this was a lot more (for Toyota) than some floor mats. Kudos to the Toyota PR machine for convincing the world that it was no big deal.

          • 0 avatar

            I am aware of the pedal defect. But anyone who is familiar with cars should know that brakes can stop a car, even with wide open throttle.

            “Unintended acceleration” is generally a bogus claim. Every major vehicle brand has been accused of it at one time or another.

            Anyone who would base a lawsuit on an unintended acceleration claim is worthy of scrutiny. Brakes trump accelerators, that’s just how cars work.

            In any case, Toyota is being punished for the cover-up aspect. That is similar to the GM case and that seems reasonable.

            But the defect itself is not similar — airbags should not be failing to deploy in high-speed crashes, even when the driver is otherwise to blame for the crash itself.

          • 0 avatar

            > In any case, Toyota is being punished for the cover-up aspect. That is similar to the GM case and that seems reasonable.

            Categorizing it as “reasonable” depends on whether changing the standards after the fact stands to reason.


          • 0 avatar

            ^ An apropos example would be strictly enforcing the speed limit, and sending out tickets for 5 over with old footage before from the policy change.

    • 0 avatar

      > “Changing the fit, form or function of a part without making a part number change is a *cardinal sin,*” said one of the engineers. “It would have been an extraordinary violation of internal processes.”

      I thought the original part was simply defective rather than core/intended design issue, and thus a fixed version would have the same fit/form/function except w/o the defect.

      • 0 avatar

        You would change the part # to make it easier to order the correct item and to explain in tech bulletins you need to replace part #xyz w/part # abc.
        In a worst case a dealer could be trying to replace a busted ignition from a would-be theft and replaces the broken new,safer piece w/an identical part number that is the old,unsafe piece.

        • 0 avatar

          > In a worst case a dealer could be trying to replace a busted ignition from a would-be theft and replaces the broken new,safer piece w/an identical part number that is the old,unsafe piece.

          That would be the case if they thought far enough ahead or wide.

          Otherwise this seems like the expected mediocrity of fixing a problem and not thinking twice about it..

  • avatar

    Just to provide a data point for how the major news media is covering this, I was listening to an interview on NPR the other day, and the interviewer brought up the fact that the last couple of cars he had bought had keyless ignition systems. He didn’t realize some cars still had old-fashioned keys. The interviewee (some safety advocate) pointed out that “these are older cars,” some as old as 2004.

  • avatar

    I think the Toyota fine was earned. I really hope the investigation into any fraud during the GM bailout/bankruptcy is thorough. Lying and hiding safety defects is not acceptable in this or any other industry, regardless of which nation the board sits down in. Steering going stiff is bad enough, having all the brake assist drop out along with the ABS when you’re reduced to pulling on the steering wheel to jam the brake pedal hard enough to get a response is not something I’d wish on an experienced racer, much less the average driver. Sorry, but my loyalty is always to the consumer.

    • 0 avatar

      Thanks to GM’s infamous decontenting, a lot of those cars didn’t even have ABS. I think the Cavalier had it standard from 1995-2002 or so, then it was made an extra cost option. It remained an extra cost option on the Cobalt.

      • 0 avatar

        Correct. Higher trim levels and the SS models had it, base models did not.

        According to Wikipedia ABS is still not “mandated” in American cars. However, with stability controlled mandated now I’m not sure how you can have one without the other.

        Someone with more engineering knowledge may know a way that is possible.

        Also, it is Wikipedia. ABS was mandated in the EU in 2007.

        Regardless, even without ABS, under a full power loss you have two to three good long hard pumps of the brakes under full assist before you bleed off the pressure in the system.

    • 0 avatar

      > Lying and hiding safety defects is not acceptable in this or any other industry, regardless of which nation the board sits down in.

      There’s no denying that losing power is worse than slamming on the gas when you meant the brake. OTOH, empirical measure of instance of this doesn’t seem much higher than mats jammed against the pedal.

      Even with a perfect regulatory system, there’s going to be some line in the sand so it’s pointless to talk about these issues without quantification of where things lie.

  • avatar

    Exactly how much effort does it take to steer an EPAS equipped vehicle with no assist at highway speed? Is it comparable to losing assist in a hydraulic PAS vehicle? If so, consider that the symptoms experienced by these drivers should be no different than running out of gas at highway speed in an AT equipped car with hydraulic PAS…no power assist for the steering and power brakes which will only give you assist until the vacuum reserve is depleted. Would you consider running out of gas an acceptable excuse for a loss of control crash? (Caveats- this excludes being rear ended due to slowing down suddenly, which was not the issue in the high profile fatalities due to the ignition switch defect. I also understand that running out of gas won’t disable the airbags, but that’s only an issue if you’ve already lost control for some reason.)

    • 0 avatar

      > Exactly how much effort does it take to steer an EPAS equipped vehicle with no assist at highway speed? Is it comparable to losing assist in a hydraulic PAS vehicle?

      That really depends on the EPAS system specifics since there’s more than one type and geometries vary, but it’s certainly not going to be easy enough to assume everyone can do so anyway.

      Speed actually helps here to some degree because the kind of roads you drive fast one don’t require quick steering. Generally when things go wrong, gradually slowing and pulling off is likely to be quite safe. People rarely drive fast enough that it’s necessarily dangerous, but they’re also poor enough drivers that they will create their own danger in spite of this.

  • avatar

    Can old GM be scapegoated for the 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe that incinerated itself today on a test drive in Anaheim? Who was it that was trying to reason with a spouse that wanted a new Tahoe? I think he just received his Get Out of Jail Free card.

    • 0 avatar

      TTAC B&B Playbook

      Lets see page 62, 62, 62…here it is.

      “How many cars burn every day in America due to mechanical issue? One fire doesn’t make a trend.”

      • 0 avatar

        Which edition do you have? Its on page 64 in mine.

        • 0 avatar

          My edition was written after the fist Tesla fire. It might have changed after the third.

          There was also the Chevy SS pace car that burned which might not be in my version. I believe the excuse for that one was, “it wasn’t factory equipment.”

          Oh, and I can go to page 17 of the rule book – always be pedantic.

          It was a 2015 GMC Yukon that burned, not a Tahoe – get it right.


  • avatar

    I’ still waiting for TTAc to do a full expose on the ignition key torque of recalled and post recalled cars of the same model like they did with the zcztzs pedal disecting the innards of the accelerator pedal….not going to happen as all cars can turn off easily like the GF’s Forester-just tug on the pepper spray and the engine turned off.

    • 0 avatar
      Phillip Thomas

      Nearly did it before it became less of an issue of finding fault with the ignition cylinders. During the initial reporting, naysayers mostly pointed at the consumers. With GM owning right up to the problem, it didn’t seem necessary. The test would was going to be conducted with a gun trigger pull scale.

      That said, with my roommate having an ’05 Cobalt, it’s scary-easy to bounce ‘off’. And no other car in our fleet can be turned off by bouncing the keychain against the key.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: @kcflyer – if one is looking strictly at personal protection then you will need to go with an N95....
  • Russycle: Only one of these I’ve driven is the Honda. My lord was it gutless, and I was coming from a ’93...
  • wolfwagen: BUY: Honda DRIVE: SCION BURN: Nissan
  • theflyersfan: Very true. Wasn’t 70mph causing the Honda engine to scream around 3000rpm? Given Honda’s...
  • 28-Cars-Later: You have chosen… wisely.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber