JasonM Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Can the Fed's impartially investigate a company they owned, ran, championed, and regulated? How did NHTSA's own TREAD Act early warning tracking system miss this over so many years? Did the Fed's ever have discussions with GM about this issue? Will the Fed's be as tough on a company they owned, ran, championed and regulated as they were on Toyota's unintended acceleration issue? Should the Fed's also investigate the Fed's handling of this issue? http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140226/AUTO0103/302260102/Feds-investigating-GM-s-handling-ignition-switch-recall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxcomet Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Time for another bail out. Or perhaps just someone to post bail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang let back Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Time for another bail out. Or perhaps just someone to post bail. very well said :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 So I just got THIS http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/business/gm-air-bag-failures-linked-to-303-deaths.html?emc=edit_na_20140313&nlid=63243131&_r=0 in my inbox. If this is reasonably accurate, this is pretty shocking, IMO. I mean, in a way, it doesn't mean what it "says" because we don't know how many people would've died in the crashes with working air bags. But good Lord, this is awful. And the NHTSA doesn't look great here, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I'm pretty sure that the seatbelt locking system is purely mechanical, or at the very least, that there is a mechanical backup if there's an electronic component. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 It's always been mechanical as far as I can remember. It's inertia based. Just pull hard on the seatbelt while the vehicle is off - still works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 The pretensioners, I'm sure, are electronic, but if those are disabled, the mechanical brakes should still work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat501 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Well it seems as if this thing is building momentum like a snowball rolling downhill. If the current headline stories involving Putin and the disappearing plane fade in the media then I've got to think GM will be even more in a world of hurt media wise. Especially as Barra's testimony day approaches. Could easily cost GM a billion $$ in the next couple of years and could go multi-billion over the next 5 years depending on the Federal fine & lawsuit settlements Automotive News now has a whole section on its website devoted to this GM mess - Rough Road Ahead for GM as Congress plots Safety Probe - Investor Sues GM over "immoral" delay in fixing Ignitions - Feds Target Saturn Ion power-steering problems - GM;s Barra to testify before US House committee on April 1 on recall - The GM Recall - DOTs Foxx seeks probe into NHTSA's handling of GM defect - GM prepares dealers for onslaught of recall work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonM Posted March 23, 2014 Author Share Posted March 23, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 GM would gladly pay a $1.2 billion fine to make this all go away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang let back Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 thats a good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat501 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 So GM at some point in time quietly redesigned the flawed ignition switch and to keep the cloak of secrecy intact, GM did not assign the improved part a new part number. Thus any flawed parts still sitting in parts inventory can not be identified. Talk about going "all in" on the cover up. Thus, the stage was set for what GM had to do today. They literally had no other choice once the public had knowledge of the above fact. You could have started with a car with a good ignition switch but then got a replacement using the flawed design. What a cluster. And to top it off, news leaked of this GM directive to its dealers CHEVY ISSUES STOP SALE ORDER FOR TURBO CHARGED CRUZE Could be a small issue but its more bad PR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Okay. Wow. They didn't assign a new part number? This is not going to end well. I'm normally a Hanlon's Razor guy, but this reeks of coverup, which in turn, reeks of criminal negligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Okay. Wow. They didn't assign a new part number? This is not going to end well. I'm normally a Hanlon's Razor guy, but this reeks of coverup, which in turn, reeks of criminal negligence. There is no defense for this, it is what it is. GM took this part in house and changed it without changing the part number - a gross violation of procedure and something that prevented its own investigation team form detecting the problem much earlier. The investigators and lawyers are going to love this....the buzzards will be munching on GM's carcass for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 If keeping the same part number for revised parts was common procedure then I'll cut them some slack there. If not then I agree it smells of an intentional coverup. I thought I had heard of this being done by other mfrs in the past. I don't believe GM thought this was a dangerous condition that could lead to deaths so from that standpoint I'm leaning towards gross negligence - they should have known the potential impact. If they knew the death risk and covered it up with the same part numbers then they're in deep shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat501 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Well here is a general rundown of what happened and when http://money.cnn.com/infographic/pf/autos/gm-recall-timeline/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 If not then I agree it smells of an intentional coverup. Apparently they not only kept the part numbers the same, they withheld important information from the NHTSA. It looks pretty bad for them at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 If keeping the same part number for revised parts was common procedure then I'll cut them some slack there. That's not how Ford does it. Most part numbers have two letters after it. -AA is the original. -AB is first revision, -AC is second, etc. Not saying all parts are like that, but the ones I have dealt with on a daily basis were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 That's not how Ford does it. Most part numbers have two letters after it. -AA is the original. -AB is first revision, -AC is second, etc. Not saying all parts are like that, but the ones I have dealt with on a daily basis were. That's what I thought. Shame on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 This has the potential to be among the most troubling for "new" GM... The committee members also asserted today in a letter to GM CEO Mary Barra that the redesigned switch still didn’t meet GM’s minimum specifications, citing testing done at the time by the supplier, Delphi Automotive. That would mean the switches originally installed in 2008-11 model year vehicles are defective, contradicting GM’s statements that only switches produced before the 2006 redesign were faulty and potentially linking the defect to as many as 14 more fatalities, the letter said.GM recalled the 2008-11 cars on Friday, but said that was done only to ensure that defective ignition switches were not installed as replacement parts during repair work. GM said then that about 5,000 defective switches had been used for repairs in those vehicles but that it would replace the switches in all 824,000 of them “out of an abundance of caution” because determining which ones contained a defective switch “isn’t practical.” http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f12/delphi-tells-investigators-gm-knew-ignition-switches-didnt-meet-specifications-159161/index2.html This is going to get a whole lot uglier before it gets any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Ouch, could this get any worse for GM? Front page of Foxnews.com Then of course, the linked story has this as the lead-in image. Ouch. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/01/victims-relatives-demand-answers-from-gm-over-death-trap-cars/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 …side note. I wonder if GM currently has the symptoms in that horrible advertisement in the right column of Foxnews. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) …side note. I wonder if GM currently has the symptoms in that horrible advertisement in the right column of Foxnews. GM would gladly undergo those symptoms in place of its current predicament/nightmare. Edited April 1, 2014 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Ugh. I am so sick of that ad. And I am irritated, generally, with what Google is allowing people to run.... You have all these "Download Now" links that install tons of spyware/adware/scareware on computers, and you have these fraudulent 'you may have a parasite!!!!!' ads---"Don't Be Evil----but take money from people that are" seems to be the Google mantra. I don't even know how many people I've seen Google "Adobe Reader" and then click the first link that turns up, only to call me up some time later....."my computer is running really slow, and it says I've got like 152 registry errors." I'd like to start a campaign to have people repeatedly click those ads in order to kill their marketing budgets, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.