Say it ain't so.... GM recalls another 2.6 million -- 15.4 million total

[blwnsmoke]

http://news.yahoo.com/gm-recalls-another-2-42-million-vehicles-doubles-154144232--sector.html

 

 

 

 

The latest actions cover possible faulty seat belts, transmissions, air bags and fire issues, and mostly affected vehicles sold in the United States.

 

 

 

The actions affect the Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook full-size crossover vehicles; older-generation Chevy Malibu and Pontiac G6 mid-sized sedans; and newer versions of the Cadillac Escalade SUV and heavy-duty Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra full-size pickup trucks.

 

 

GM also said on Tuesday that it is doubling the charge it expects to take in the second quarter to about $400 million, mostly for recall-related repairs.

[RichardJensen]

13M vehicles recalled and only $400M in charges? That doesn't smell right. Only ~$30 per vehicle per recall? Seems a bit cheap.

[jpd80]

13M vehicles recalled and only $400M in charges? That doesn't smell right. Only ~$30 per vehicle per recall? Seems a bit cheap.

Don't forget that GM also took a $1.3 Billion charge in Q1, so that means roughly $1.7 Billion down the tubes in the first six months...

 

I wonder if this is GM hurridly cleaning house before all those class action suits come calling,

nothing worse than protracted hearings that discover more problems attributed to systemic failure.

 

This way GM can show clean hands.... but then everything is laid bare for all to see....

[mustang let back]

the garbage from the Gigantic Mistake shows why it is a Generic Motor Company. :happy feet:

[akirby]

the garbage from the Gigantic Mistake shows why it is a Generic Motor Company. :happy feet:

 

And your posts show why you're nothing but a broken record. Why even post if you're not going to say anything of value?

[grbeck]

Don't forget that GM also took a $1.3 Billion charge in Q1, so that means roughly $1.7 Billion down the tubes in the first six months...

 

I wonder if this is GM hurridly cleaning house before all those class action suits come calling,

nothing worse than protracted hearings that discover more problems attributed to systemic failure.

 

This way GM can show clean hands.... but then everything is laid bare for all to see....

The question is whether this is a "GM problem," or an industry-wide problem, and GM is just the first one with a turn in the hot seat.

[Fgts]

Don't forget that GM also took a $1.3 Billion charge in Q1, so that means roughly $1.7 Billion down the tubes in the first six months...

 

I wonder if this is GM hurridly cleaning house before all those class action suits come calling,

nothing worse than protracted hearings that discover more problems attributed to systemic failure.

 

This way GM can show clean hands.... but then everything is laid bare for all to see....

 

Speaking about lawsuits ;

 

 

http://m.autoblog.com/2014/05/22/gm-facing-10-billion-ignition-switch-lawsuits-legal-department-overhaul/?post=1&icid=autoblog_river_article

 

I doubt that that much would get doled out considering Toyota didn't pay that much and many more people perished with SUA.

[mustang let back]

...

Edited May 22, 2014 by NickF1011
no personal attacks.

[RichardJensen]

The question is whether this is a "GM problem," or an industry-wide problem, and GM is just the first one with a turn in the hot seat.

 

I doubt that. Consider how many six figure and higher recalls Ford has had over the past decade. Consider also that GM has tended to lag Ford in the number of annual recalls, despite selling a higher number of vehicles.

 

I think what we're seeing here is a huge re-balancing of the books.

[rmc523]

 

And your posts show why you're nothing but a broken record. Why even post if you're not going to say anything of value?

 

use the ignore feature as I do haha.

 

 

The question is whether this is a "GM problem," or an industry-wide problem, and GM is just the first one with a turn in the hot seat.

 

Do you mean in the sense of major recalls encompassing millions upon millions of vehicles with a new recall almost daily?

 

If that's what you mean, I'd say no, but I do think you're seeing companies like Ford be more proactive with the recalls, rather than waiting for things to happen, then issuing recalls.

[mustang let back]

...

Edited May 22, 2014 by NickF1011
warned you once already.

[mustang let back]

...

Edited May 22, 2014 by NickF1011
enjoying the long weekend...

[Axle17]

The question is whether this is a "GM problem," or an industry-wide problem, and GM is just the first one with a turn in the hot seat.

Ford had it's turn in the barrel back with the Explorer tires. We even had a training class about the issue. Admittedly ours wasn't as bad as this but I recall having to attend a class reaffirming our commitment to quality and getting some talking points about it.

[akirby]

Ford had it's turn in the barrel back with the Explorer tires. We even had a training class about the issue. Admittedly ours wasn't as bad as this but I recall having to attend a class reaffirming our commitment to quality and getting some talking points about it.

 

That's not even remotely the same thing. It was a Firestone tire problem caused by the owner running the tire pressure below factory recommendations AND failing to control the vehicle when the tire did blow out by overreacting.

 

I realize Ford had to respond to it just from a PR standpoint but that's different than hiding or ignoring a known safety defect. Maybe the cruise control fires would be a better example although I don't know the history of events on that one.

[RichardJensen]

There wasn't a smoking gun at Ford that showed them being negligent with the cruise control fiasco.

 

What they did was a number of piecemeal recalls covering batches of defective material from DuPont, before ultimately recalling all of the vehicles with that switch and installing a fusible link and a new pressure switch.

 

Ford's failure there was a sub optimal design (think Toyota sudden acceleration) that was especially susceptible to defects in material. What distinguished Ford from Toyota was that Ford did act on repeated occasions to address the defects in material--they did not deny that there was a basis for a defect. Their failure was to address the underlying weakness in the overall design.

 

IMO, it's a meaningful difference, as Ford didn't deny that there were issues.

[jpd80]

And that's the difference here, an underlying culture at GM that seems to look past vehicle defects until a law suit springs up.

The current huge spate of Gm recalls is simply them trying to clear the books before the class action law suits begin.

 

I find it comical that Sergio Marchione is now suggesting that manufacturers should start charging customers for the cost

of continual recalls......Hello? did he really just say that out loud?

 

'Our cars are more expensive because we can't get them right at the factory first time.....so we're charging you for our mistakes."

[RichardJensen]

That shows that Sergio has a limited grasp of business: The customer *always* pays for the recalls.

[Anthony]

And that's the difference here, an underlying culture at GM that seems to look past vehicle defects until a law suit springs up.

The current huge spate of Gm recalls is simply them trying to clear the books before the class action law suits begin.

 

I find it comical that Sergio Marchione is now suggesting that manufacturers should start charging customers for the cost

of continual recalls......Hello? did he really just say that out loud?

 

'Our cars are more expensive because we can't get them right at the factory first time.....so we're charging you for our mistakes."

 

 

It's illegal for a company to have to make you, the consumer, pay for the repair that a recall entails.

 

What Marchionne is saying is that the costs of all the screw ups from the auto companies will likely end up being factored into the purchase price of your next new car, resulting in an increase upon purchase, not that you'll have to pay for the dealer to fix your car as it already exists.

 

...and he wasn't speaking about Chrysler either. He was referring to all automakers.

 

According to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne, the issues at GM made all automakers, including his group, pay excessive attention to safety issues, adding that if the frequency of recalls made by GM so far becomes the industry norm, costs would be transferred to the customers, buying more expensive cars.

 

 

http://www.inautonews.com/marchionne-says-gms-recall-has-fallout-for-all-automakers#.U356PYm9LCQ

 

He was saying this as a cautionary statement to the manufacturers, not as a "well, sucks to be you customer, we ain't paying for it".

 

 

As for his hand in making recall decisions….he won't have one:

 

However, Marchionne also stressed he would not be involved in recall decision at Fiat Chrysler because of a potential conflict of interest, an issue faced by every automaker.

“The chances of my involvement are zero to none,” he said. “There is no way an executive with P&L responsibility should involved. That assessment needs to be made by technical people.”

 

 

Edited May 23, 2014 by Intrepidatious

[PREMiERdrum]

 

However, Marchionne also stressed he would not be involved in recall decision at Fiat Chrysler because of a potential conflict of interest, an issue faced by every automaker.

“The chances of my involvement are zero to none,” he said. “There is no way an executive with P&L responsibility should involved. That assessment needs to be made by technical people.”

 

 

Mmhhmm... Right.

 

To quote the source, Sergio Marchionne, Chairman and CEO of Chrysler Group LLC, “The company does not agree with NHTSA’s conclusions and does not intend to recall the vehicles…safe and not defective…NHTSA’s initial conclusions are based on an incomplete analysis of the underlying data …The safety of drivers and passengers has long been the first priority for Chrysler brands and that commitment remains steadfast.”

 

[jpd80]

1. It's illegal for a company to have to make you, the consumer, pay for the repair that a recall entails.

2. What Marchionne is saying is that the costs of all the screw ups from the auto companies will likely end up being factored into the purchase price of your next new car, resulting in an increase upon purchase, not that you'll have to pay for the dealer to fix your car as it already exists.

 

3....and he wasn't speaking about Chrysler either. He was referring to all automakers.

Basically, I agree with you on most point but my take is the way this is being spun...

 

1.The customer still "pays", they just do it in advance at point of sale.based on recent recall patterns and costs.

 

2. Those recall reserve funds and contingencies are already added to vehicles, it's just the amounts that are wrong/low.

so basically, Marchionne is saying that manufacturers want to charge more for deficient safety diligence rather than eliminate before release.

 

3. I never mentioned Chrysler, I said manufacturers.

 

This sucks because manufacturers are now focusing on added recall contingencies, not on increasing quality audits to find and cure

potential problems before they occur, most recalls are now "what ifs" why aren't enough of those being asked before release.

Edited May 23, 2014 by jpd80

[Anthony]

 

 

Mmhhmm... Right.

 

C'mon P, The quote says "The Company does not agree" not "I do not agree". Because he made a statement on behalf of the company does not mean he made the decision that vehicles needed to be recalled or not. Anything more from that quote would be conjecture. ("but it's Marchionne, so you know blah blah")

 

2. Those recall reserve funds and contingencies are already added to vehicles, it's just the amounts that are wrong/low.

so basically, Marchionne is saying that manufacturers want to charge more for deficient safety diligence rather than eliminate before release.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I think you are reading into it a bit too much. Where does he state they would charge more for deficient safety diligence rather then eliminate it before hand? Do you really believe the auto manufacturers would relax their QC initiatives rather then beef them up (especially in response to all of the latest recalls)?

 

He is making a statement in response to the absurd number of recalls from GM as of late. If this ridiculous number of recalls keeps up, cars are going to cost more, it's that simple...and he is correct. If you take that as "let's build crappy cars, forget about QC and pass it off to the customer", that is quite a reach.

 

He never mentions anything about diverting resources or funds away from other CC's or reducing the amount of QC. Only that customers would bear the brunt of it in price hikes if this abnormal amount of recalls keep up. You make it seem like he is stating manufacturers would rather have more recalls instead of improving QC, which I do not believe to be the truth.

 

Don't take my fondness for "Chrysler the company" as a fondness for Marchionne. I don't agree with much of his tactics (or even like him), but I'm not ready to burn him in effigy every time he speaks either. I think the public is so used to hidden meanings behind every word an auto exec says they have no clue what to extrapolate from a guy with no filter (for better or for <usually> worse).

 

The stuff that comes out of his mouth sometimes is ridiculous but I don't think this is one of those times

Edited May 23, 2014 by Intrepidatious

[RichardJensen]

Marchionne is an idiot, and you shouldn't be wasting your time defending his tone-deaf comments on GM's decision to empty their closet...........

 

 

 

...........unless....................................

 

 

 

Chrysler has been similarly lax about recalling vehicles in the past.

[grbeck]

Do you mean in the sense of major recalls encompassing millions upon millions of vehicles with a new recall almost daily?

 

If that's what you mean, I'd say no, but I do think you're seeing companies like Ford be more proactive with the recalls, rather than waiting for things to happen, then issuing recalls.

I'm wondering whether other companies have skeletons hidden in their closet, just waiting to tumble out...a defect or issue doesn't have to encompass millions upon millions of vehicles to be potentially embarrassing, or damaging.

[Anthony]

I'm wondering whether other companies have skeletons hidden in their closet, just waiting to tumble out...a defect or issue doesn't have to encompass millions upon millions of vehicles to be potentially embarrassing, or damaging.

 

I'd say the chances of that are somewhere between yes and most definitely.

[NickF1011]

I'm wondering whether other companies have skeletons hidden in their closet, just waiting to tumble out...a defect or issue doesn't have to encompass millions upon millions of vehicles to be potentially embarrassing, or damaging.

 

If there are, there'd be no better time to get it out in the open than now.