GM recall, Unsafe at Any Speed all over again?

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
31 crashes, 13 dead so far.

According to a chronology of events that GM filed Monday with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the company knew of the problem as early as 2004, and was told of at least one fatal crash in March of 2007. GM issued service bulletins in 2005 and 2006 telling dealers how to fix the problem with a key insert, and advising them to tell customers not to dangle too many items from their key chains. But the company's records showed that only 474 vehicle owners got the key inserts.
GM thought the service bulletin was sufficient because the car's steering and brakes were operable even after the engines lost power, according to the chronology.


By the end of 2007, GM knew of 10 cases in which Cobalts were in front-end crashes where the air bags didn't inflate, the chronology said.
In 2005, GM initially approved an engineer's plan to redesign the ignition switch, but the change was "later canceled," according to the chronology.

"They knew by 2007 they had 10 incidents where the air bag didn't deploy in this type of crash," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the consumer advocacy group Center for Auto Safety. "This is a case where both GM and NHTSA should be held accountable for doing a recall no later than the spring of 2007."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gm-adds-588000-vehicles-to-recall/

On May 18, 1956, almost a year before the Corvair project was launched, the former head of research and development for the Chevrolet Division, Maurice Olley filed a patent application (issued as #2,911,052 on November 3, 1959) where he said what he thought of the Corvair-type suspension: "The ordinary swing axle, under severe lateral forces produced by cornering, tends to lift the rear-end of the vehicle so that both wheels assume severe positive camber positions to such an extent that the vehicle not only 'oversteers' but actually tends to roll over. In addition, the effect is non-linear and increases suddenly in a severe turn, thus presenting potentially dangerous vehicle handling characteristics."

http://www.naderlibrary.com/nader.unsafeanyspeed.1.htm

Despite the accidents and deaths, they knew both times. In the early sixties, Chevrolet avoided a recall and a lawsuit by proving the Corvair wouldn't roll over if the tires were perfectly inflated, even though they promptly redesigned the suspension.

It looks like they were trying to hide from this one too, initially.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
They sold a million of those cars
Doesn't seem like that big a problem for a vehicle that's been on the road almost a decade
I didn't have a problem with the Toyota unintended acceleration or the Ford/Firestone issue either FWIW
Nothing absolutely nothing is ever entirely safe, you could always choose to sit in your house but then the radon gas and urea insulation and asbestos . . . . . . . . .
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
They sold a million of those cars
Doesn't seem like that big a problem for a vehicle that's been on the road almost a decade
I didn't have a problem with the Toyota unintended acceleration or the Ford/Firestone issue either FWIW
Nothing absolutely nothing is ever entirely safe, you could always choose to sit in your house but then the radon gas and urea insulation and asbestos . . . . . . . . .

Yes but in both cases GM knew they could fix the issue earlier and avoid more accidents/death, yet they chose not to.

In hindsight do you think they would've fixed the problems earlier?
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106
And the rest of the story is most of those that died were not wearing seatbelts and/or had alcohol involved.

This is not a single issue that caused these deaths unlike what the OP is trying to frame.


http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-gm-recall-chevrolet-cobalt-20140213,0,7820619.story

"GM said each of those crashes occurred under unusual circumstances in which the cars were being driven across dirt and rough terrain. Neither model was designed to be an off-road vehicle.

“All of these crashes occurred off-road and at high speeds, where the probability of serious or fatal injuries was high regardless of airbag deployment. In addition, failure to wear seat belts and alcohol use were factors in some of these cases,” GM said in a statement."
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Yes but in both cases GM knew they could fix the issue earlier and avoid more accidents/death, yet they chose not to.

In hindsight do you think they would've fixed the problems earlier?
What did you expect GM to do? According to your quotes, they became aware of the problem in 2004. They then issued service bulletins only a year later, beginning in 2005. This doesn't seem analogous to the Corvair scandal at all. I'll admit up-front I haven't read the whole articles, so perhaps I missed something.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I'd say this is real, whereas the Corvair scandal was made up. The '61-'64 Corvair had exactly the same rear suspension as the VW Beetle (which Nader loved) and the '65 - '69 Corvair rear suspension (in design at least since '63) was as good as any era production car's rear suspension with the possible exception of the Corvette. Don't forget that the Congressional investigation (which unfortunately came too late to save the Corvair) found its accident rate to be better than other cars of equivalent size and cost.

By contrast, this is an issue where one's federally required safety equipment and very mobility can be removed at an instant if one's key ring is too heavy.

EDIT:
And the rest of the story is most of those that died were not wearing seatbelts and/or had alcohol involved.

This is not a single issue that caused these deaths unlike what the OP is trying to frame.


http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-gm-recall-chevrolet-cobalt-20140213,0,7820619.story

"GM said each of those crashes occurred under unusual circumstances in which the cars were being driven across dirt and rough terrain. Neither model was designed to be an off-road vehicle.

“All of these crashes occurred off-road and at high speeds, where the probability of serious or fatal injuries was high regardless of airbag deployment. In addition, failure to wear seat belts and alcohol use were factors in some of these cases,” GM said in a statement."

LOL I stand corrected. This too is manufactured, apparently.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
If it's fake, then why are they doing a recall? Why did Chevy fix the Corvair's suspension for the years left on that model?
They're doing a recall because even idiots racing across dirt can cost you a pot of money. As for the Corvair, the original was a POS. Everything about the '65 was worlds better, and the suspension was (with the styling) the worst of the original. My point however was that the original was no less safe than the Beetle - or for that matter, the Falcon or Dart, although one must get used to any rear-engined vehicle. The redesign took it from a very basic POS econo-box suitable for driving around town and capable of competing only on price to a very nice sporty sedan better than 90% of the market - a car on which GM could make a little money. THAT is the car Nader killed, as the original was long gone.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
And the rest of the story is most of those that died were not wearing seatbelts and/or had alcohol involved.

This is not a single issue that caused these deaths unlike what the OP is trying to frame.


http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-gm-recall-chevrolet-cobalt-20140213,0,7820619.story

"GM said each of those crashes occurred under unusual circumstances in which the cars were being driven across dirt and rough terrain. Neither model was designed to be an off-road vehicle.

“All of these crashes occurred off-road and at high speeds, where the probability of serious or fatal injuries was high regardless of airbag deployment. In addition, failure to wear seat belts and alcohol use were factors in some of these cases,” GM said in a statement."

That's a little misleading. Here's the whole quote:

“We are aware of five frontal impact crashes and six front-seat fatalities in crashes where the front air bags did not deploy. All of these crashes occurred off road and at high speeds, where the probability of serious or fatal injuries was high regardless of airbag deployment. In addition, failure to wear seat belts and alcohol use were factors in some of these cases. GM is also aware of 17 other crashes involving some type of frontal impact and non-fatal injuries where air bags did not deploy.”

That's eleven out of thirty one. What about the other twenty? I Googled all over and couldn't find it.

What about a lot of potholes? They are advising against heavy key rings not rough driving. They know they can't tell people to avoid rough roads, they're everywhere, and it would open up other liabilities.

USA Today reports that according to civil lawsuit depositions made last June, the automaker was aware of the Cobalt ignition issue back in 2004. “At least one GM engineer had the problem while testing the new car, which went on sale in 2004 as a 2005 model, say documents obtained by USA TODAY from the lawsuit over a crash that killed pediatric nurse Brooke Melton.”

I'm sure that nurse and the engineer were driving too rough and/or were drunk.

Fake story?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Corvair Powerglide - same principle as the Powerglide which was Chevy's mainstay until the late 60s. My mother-in-law had an early model with the Powerglide. Used to know two guys who owned '69 Spiders, one of the sweetest handling American cars I'd ever driven in the late 70s. Compared very favorably to the Porshe 914, except in getting its driver laid.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
They sold a million of those cars
Doesn't seem like that big a problem for a vehicle that's been on the road almost a decade
I didn't have a problem with the Toyota unintended acceleration or the Ford/Firestone issue either FWIW
Nothing absolutely nothing is ever entirely safe, you could always choose to sit in your house but then the radon gas and urea insulation and asbestos . . . . . . . . .

My point was that in both cases they went ahead with a known bad design that could be catastrophic. Why would a car company do this? Acceptable losses? I'll bet they thought the redesign would kill their profits.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
One should be clear actually what happened and it makes it clear these drivers must have some blame.

1. In all cases the vehicle brakes function at all times.
2. In all cases the vehicle decelerates until it comes to a stop.
3. In all cases steering never is lost, only power steering doesn't work.

So if the steering still works, the brakes still work, and the car is slowing to a stop, then why are they crashing.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
"GM issued service bulletins in 2005 and 2006 telling dealers how to fix the problem with a key insert. But the company's records showed that only 474 vehicle owners got the key inserts. "

So, GM addressed the issue and the dealerships failed to deliver, not GM

"GM North American President Alan Batey said in a statement that the process to examine the problem "was not as robust" as it should have been and said the GM of today would behave differently. "We will take an unflinching look at what happened and apply lessons learned here to improve going forward," he said.
GM spokesman Alan Adler said that initially the rate of problems per 1,000 vehicles was low, so the company did not recall the cars."

So, yes could have been handled better however at such a low incident rate and even at that it was extenuating circumstances that contributed to the crashes


13 out of 800,000 is a .0017% chance! Around here it was reported that your chance of getting in an accident that would result in injury over the length of your driving career is 50%, So which do you think I'm actually concerned about, a super tiny % of mechanical failure or the other drivers around me and conditions? Bottom line, not interested
 
Last edited:

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,460
3
76
I'd say this is real, whereas the Corvair scandal was made up. The '61-'64 Corvair had exactly the same rear suspension as the VW Beetle (which Nader loved) and the '65 - '69 Corvair rear suspension (in design at least since '63) was as good as any era production car's rear suspension with the possible exception of the Corvette.

True. >90% of the issues related to poor handling with the Corvair were directly related to stupid owners over inflating their front tires. The manual said 18lbs, but people normally filled them up to 35+ like most other cars, then the front would hop around like a jumping bean while cornering. I've done it myself, just to test, and it's scary as hell.

Properly maintained and serviced, the Corvair is one of the best auto designs in GM's history.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
True. >90% of the issues related to poor handling with the Corvair were directly related to stupid owners over inflating their front tires. The manual said 18lbs, but people normally filled them up to 35+ like most other cars, then the front would hop around like a jumping bean while cornering. I've done it myself, just to test, and it's scary as hell.

Properly maintained and serviced, the Corvair is one of the best auto designs in GM's history.
That and just not understanding the car. The Corvair has very light steering, and far too many people assumed that it was therefore a poor man's sports car. It isn't, any more than a Beetle is a sports car, and like the Beetle is has the oversteer inherent in all rear engine cars. But the thing I hate most is that the car Nader killed was the '65 - '69 Corvair, not the shitty econobox VW killer that was the older Corvair. And whereas the older Corvair was suitable only for sedate speeds, the latter Corvair was indeed a fine automobile.

Also a good remainder that Nader was aiming not only at the Corvair, but at automobiles in general and Western industrialization as a whole.
 

PhoKingGuy

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2007
4,685
0
76
BS BS BS

Bunch of GM apologists in this thread. Have any of you owned this royal POS cobalt? I did.

I had this exact same problem probably 3-4 times. All were simply driving around town. Off road only my ass. Once happened to be going 80 mph on highway 5 in the left lane, you lose everything, luckily I managed to shift it into neutral and turn it on (automatic transmission) and wonder wtf happened.

Every time it happened chevy looked at me like I was retarded and said they could find nothing wrong with it. I owned the car from 2005 till 2008 when I sold it for a GTI. I even opened a case with GM who said there wasnt anything they could do if the dealer could find nothing wrong (I tried two of them)

That being said heres what else broke on that thing:

Transmission shifter jammed and needed to be replaced
Radio failed twice
Driver and passenger exterior door handles broke off
Steering rack replaced because of excessive noise
Headlight replaced due to condensation
Tail light replaced for condensation
Rear suspension was noisy as hell and they refused to do anything about it
Burned tail lights out every 6 months

I finally had enough and dumped it, never again GM. Have had absolutely zero problems with my "problematic" euro cars.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Bit more fuel for the fire. http://www.designnews.com/author.as...ndustry_auto,bid_22,aid_271938&dfpLayout=blog

Last week’s recall follows on the heels of 780,000-vehicle recall three weeks earlier to fix ignition switch malfunctions that shut down engines, cut power assist to brakes and steering, and disabled airbags. Problems caused by the ignition switches are now believed to have resulted in 31 crashes and 13 front-seat deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may investigate whether GM moved quickly enough to address the problem.

”The chronology shows that the process employed to examine this phenomenon was not as robust as it should have been,” said GM North American president Alan Batey, in a press release issued by the automaker last week.

The problem, which has been traced as far back as the 2003 model year, involved the “torque performance” of the ignition switch. Because the switch mechanism was out of specification, it could too easily pop out of its “run” position and move to “accessory” or “off” positions, thereby shutting off the ignition and disabling the airbags. The problem could be initiated by something as simple as a heavy keychain or the sudden impact of the vehicle hitting a pothole.

Click on the car below to see the GM automobiles affected by the ignition switch problem.

GM says it became aware of issues on its vehicles as early as 2004, when it received a field report of Chevy Cobalt vehicle losing power after a key moved out of the 'run' position, according to documents filed with NHTSA. Cobalts in the 2005-2007 model years have been recalled. (Source: Wikicars)
GM says it became aware of issues on its vehicles as early as 2004, when it received a field report of Chevy Cobalt vehicle losing power after a key moved out of the “run” position, according to documents filed with NHTSA. Cobalts in the 2005-2007 model years have been recalled.
(Source: Wikicars)
Last week’s recall targeted 588,000 GM vehicles, including 2003-2007 Saturn Ions, 2006-2007 Chevrolet HHRs, and 2006-2007 Pontiac Solstices and Saturn Sky models. An earlier recall on February 13 named 780,000 Chevrolet Cobalts, Pontiac G5s, and Pontiac Pursuits from the years 2005-2007.

Federal regulations call for manufacturers to inform NHTSA of safety problems within five business days, once they are aware of the cause. Automakers that don’t comply face civil fines with maximum penalties of up to $35 million.

GM says it became aware of issues on its vehicles as early as 2004, when it received a field report of Cobalt vehicles losing power after a key moved out of the “run” position, according to documents filed with NHTSA. More problems in Cobalts, Chevrolet HHRs, Pontiac Pursuits, Pontiac Solstices, and Saturn Ions surfaced in 2005. Engineers suspected “low key cylinder torque effort” as a cause and devised a fix –- a key insert that would prevent the driver’s key ring from moving around and possibly shutting down the engine.

GM’s documentation does not offer an explanation, however, as to how an out-of-spec switch ended up in the ignition in the first place.

Any pending investigations are likely to center on why it took so long for GM to initiate a recall. GM documentation implies its internal investigations were thrown off track in 2006 and 2007 after the switch’s supplier, Delco Mechatronics, changed the part’s design in November 2006. The addition of a new detent and plunger improved the switch’s torque performance, causing ignition-related complaints to dry up. Although a GM engineer signed off on a release for the new part, the automaker has claimed it was unaware of any torque performance changes because the new part still employed an old part number. As a result, GM found it difficult to make a link between the earlier ignition switch problems and ongoing fatal non-deployment of airbags, which it studied from 2007-2013. A GM engineer finally linked the two phenomena in 2013, after finding that the design of its existing ignition switches “differed substantially” from the 2005 Cobalt’s original equipment. That discovery was made nearly nine years after GM began investigating the switch problem.

Engineering experts said the use of an old part number shouldn’t have been an issue in GM’s investigations. “Whether they change the part number or not is irrelevant,” Steven Eppinger, professor of engineering systems at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Design News. “Companies change parts all the time. What they’re supposed to do is test the hell out of the new part.”

Further investigations on the matter may serve as a case study on how big manufacturers handle the smallest details of design. “This is about qualification and testing and managing engineering change,” Eppinger told us. “Every company has a problem with engineering change.”

tl/dr: GM did something stupid. It knew it had a problem; it fixed the problem - BUT under the same part number. When people began to die, the people assigned to study the crashes had a difficult time finding the cause because the cars having fatal crashes had the exact same switch as the cars not having fatal crashes.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
Most of the people that died were A drunk or B off road
What was the greatest contributor to the root cause of their accidents and consequences?
 
Last edited:

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,076
2,635
136
And the rest of the story is most of those that died were not wearing seatbelts and/or had alcohol involved.

This is not a single issue that caused these deaths unlike what the OP is trying to frame.

"GM said each of those crashes occurred under unusual circumstances in which the cars were being driven across dirt and rough terrain. Neither model was designed to be an off-road vehicle.

“All of these crashes occurred off-road and at high speeds, where the probability of serious or fatal injuries was high regardless of airbag deployment. In addition, failure to wear seat belts and alcohol use were factors in some of these cases,” GM said in a statement."

That doesn't matter to me. Their job is to get it right and maximize the chance of survival. If airbags are not going off, and that can potentially improve outcomes, they are liable. This is an expectation that is held across a wide number of service industries (hospitals, police etc)
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Every time you get behind the wheel of a car its a calculated risk
The infinitesimally small probability of this is a waste of effort and energy to get worked up over
Really want to maximize your chance of survival? Get cell phones out of cars
http://www.tbnewswatch.com/news/326044/Distracted-driving-now-No.-1-cause-of-highway-fatalities

Garr said last year distracted driving led to 670 collisions in the Northwest, while impaired driving led to 79.
I've been thinking about that lately. I often talk on the phone (using my Bluetooth radio, hands free) on the way home. One night I had to wait in traffic for over an hour because some idiot decided to run across an unlit five lane, 50 mph state highway where people commonly drive like maniacs and was struck. I'm usually very cautious about watching for deer, but would I pick up a runner in dark clothing, out of my headlights?