Joe771476 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 A while back Chrysler balked at NHTSA suggestion to recall cars for a defect. Now we see GM embarrassed by latest fiasco. Ford had its own trouble with the Pinto gas tanks which supposedly could have been remedied for realtive peanuts. So is it worth the bad press, the lawsuits and the resulting loss of sales whether temporary or not, to not fix a problem you know about rather than gamble and hope you'll get away with it? I don't think so, But in the future, will the bean counters at Ford? I hope so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazerdude20 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Considering how many recalls Ford has had in the last few years where the total vehicle amount to 300, 2000, 97, etc. I would say it's pretty safe to say Ford is on top of recalls as soon as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 They certainly were on top of self-igniting cruise control switches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) NHTSA Closing Investigation on Escape/Fusion Washington — The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Tuesday it is closing an investigation into nearly 1.6 million Ford cars and SUVs after reviewing more than 10,000 complaints of sudden loss of engine power without seeking a recall. But the Dearborn automaker will update the software in 1.6 million 2009-13 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles — and extend warranty coverage on the vehicles’ engine throttle body through at least January 2015 — or up to 10 years and 150,000 miles. NHTSA said Ford Motor Co. issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program — a step short of a recall — that extends the engine throttle body warranty coverage to up to 10 years and 150,000 miles. NHTSA said all vehicles are eligible through Jan. 31, 2015, regardless of mileage of the vehicle. Now that's how you handle an issue.... Edited March 13, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 They certainly were on top of self-igniting cruise control switches Wasn't that under a different management team? I don't see the current team ignoring potential safety issues. The worst part of the gm issue is that it not only causes a crash by cutting power and losing power steering but it disables the airbags. At least the Pinto problem didn't cause a crash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 They certainly were on top of self-igniting cruise control switches Cruise control issue was a big one! This is what came to mind when I was reading about GM's recent issues. I had two vehicles parked in my ATTACHED garage with the defective cruise control switches. Both were taken care of by Ford - but I was alarmed when I heard the details of the recall and potential problem with fires when the vehicle was shut off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Cruise control issue was a big one! This is what came to mind when I was reading about GM's recent issues. I had two vehicles parked in my ATTACHED garage with the defective cruise control switches. Both were taken care of by Ford - but I was alarmed when I heard the details of the recall and potential problem with fires when the vehicle was shut off. And yes - Ford was totally wrong in hiding the facts and not doing an immediate recall of the cruise switches. But again - that was a totally different company in 1990. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 And yes - Ford was totally wrong in hiding the facts and not doing an immediate recall of the cruise switches. But again - that was a totally different company in 1990. So was GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted March 13, 2014 Author Share Posted March 13, 2014 I just had a good laugh. A McDonald's made an elderly couple leave after 30 min so employees could clean the table. The place was almost empty! The manager, after apparently feeling it was rude and improper, offered the couple two free coffees! Yippee! Now I see GM is offering recalled car owners $500 toward a new car! That made me laugh even harder! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted March 13, 2014 Author Share Posted March 13, 2014 Notice anything strange behind her? Makes you wonder who REALLY owns GM! Department Of Justice May Launch Latest Investigation Of General Motors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 So was GM Actually, GM in the Cobalt era was still the delusional GM of 1990 for operations, and had not undergone a total management re-organization the way Mulally and his team have done to Ford. Whether the "new" Cruze-era GM has made the necessary changes to its management structure and processes remains to be seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 The "new" GM has had years to remedy this situation but chose not to. That's on them, not the "old" GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Ford learned a big lesson after the Pinto fiasco. It is now corporate policy to destroy most documents and emails within 1 or 2 years of their creation. Only documents/records that meet certain criteria are kept and even those have a destruction schedule. About the only thing kept long term are blueprints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 They certainly were on top of self-igniting cruise control switches Or are you thinking about the self-igniting ignition switches ? Ford paid for a few burned down garages and house because of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Several of the recalls related to the new Escape, specifically the one where leaking coolant could catch fire dripping on the catalyst, were specifically caused because FoE was the lead engineering organization and choose NOT to follow design practices that had been in place by Ford US Powertrain Engineering for several years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) I'm not entirely trying to defend GM here, but.... Pattern detection is incredibly difficult when you're looking for patterns that are only partially discernible based on the data you collect and the way you query it. This is what the log function looks like when it's graphed on a standard x-y axis: This is what it looks like when you graph it on polar coordinates: My point: The data needed to identify the pattern of failures may not have been as clear as it would seem to be in hindsight. If you're not collecting the 'right' data, and organizing it the 'right' way, a pattern might look like noise, or like something totally different. This doesn't let GM off the hook---any more than it would let Ford off the hook, or any other company. Rather, this is an illustration of Hanlon's Razor---one should not jump to the conclusion that GM execs knew the issues with this system and ignored them. Edited March 14, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Ford learned a big lesson after the Pinto fiasco. It is now corporate policy to destroy most documents and emails within 1 or 2 years of their creation. Only documents/records that meet certain criteria are kept and even those have a destruction schedule. About the only thing kept long term are blueprints. The interesting part is that the so-called "smoking gun" memo in the Pinto case actually had nothing to do with the Pinto, and its infamous "cost-benefit" calculation regarding new regulations had been requested by the federal government! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Richard - they didn't need to find a "pattern" - their own testers identified the problem internally before the first vehicle ever went on sale. They even tested various fixes but decided not to enact it back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) The last Pinto rolled off the line 34 years ago, 1980, and some talk about the car as if it is still a common sight on freeways. Edited March 14, 2014 by 630land 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) Richard - they didn't need to find a "pattern" - their own testers identified the problem internally before the first vehicle ever went on sale. They even tested various fixes but decided not to enact it back then. There are edge cases in my code that I haven't bothered to fix because they're edge cases. It's easier to deal with the very rare occasions when I get a call/email about a 500 error. GM may not have had the analytical tools required to discern that this was not an 'edge case'. To be sure, management's preference is that all defects discovered after a part has been engineered be trivial, but I have a hard time believing that GM saw this as a potentially life-threatening defect. In hindsight, they should have had better tools, but that's different from concluding that they had proper tools and either did not see a pattern or saw one and ignored it. Edited March 14, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 There are edge cases in my code that I haven't bothered to fix because they're edge cases. It's easier to deal with the very rare occasions when I get a call/email about a 500 error. GM may not have had the analytical tools required to discern that this was not an 'edge case'. To be sure, management's preference is that all defects discovered after a part has been engineered be trivial, but I have a hard time believing that GM saw this as a potentially life-threatening defect. In hindsight, they should have had better tools, but that's different from concluding that they had proper tools and either did not see a pattern or saw one and ignored it. Edge cases in code and edge cases in cars shutting off and eliminating power brakes and steering are two completely different things. Code on a web page normally doesn't cause people to die... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 True. But it does not follow that every 'edge case' that could cause a fatality should be removed from a car. Say that the fuel pickup in a vehicle will starve out if there is only two gallons of gas in the tank and the vehicle is ascending a 36% grade. At present, there are two paved roads with steeper grades than that on the planet. Should the fuel pickup be relocated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I agree that GM did not believe this was necessarily a life threatening defect, so I don't think they ignored it on purpose. I also agree there was no obvious pattern based on NHTSA reports. They should have realized the potentially serious consequences of that problem when the tester found the problem, regardless of the likelihood of it being repeated. Back to your code example - if you have a serious defect that is very likely to occur you address it immediately. If you have a defect that might only happen once in a blue moon but when it does happen it causes a week long outage - you fix it now. It's not just the loss of power - it's the loss of power combined with the deactivation of the airbags. Without the airbag deactivation I might agree with you, but that changes a bad situation to catastrophic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 BTW: Why don't airbags work 24/7? Do their sensors draw that much more current than the clock and the sensors that monitor the remote start, the brake lights, and keyless entry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 BTW: Why don't airbags work 24/7? Do their sensors draw that much more current than the clock and the sensors that monitor the remote start, the brake lights, and keyless entry? Perhaps to prevent unnecessary deployments, for example when an unoccupied car is struck in a parking lot? 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.