GM recall, Unsafe at Any Speed all over again?

[Sunburn74]

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 understand that but still the manufacturer has an obligation to do everything possible to improve the chance of survival once they know about a problem. Imagine if a trauma doctor said "well he's drunk, smokes, and caused his own spinal injury so I'm only going to take half the steps needed to treat his pain and improve the chances of him ever walking again". He'd be run out of town immediately. Yes, people are stupid and cause accidents. Bad manufacturing, like bad doctoring, shouldn't contribute to worse outcomes.

 

[bradly1101]

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.

Well there it is, it happened to one of us. Are we still blaming the motorists?

This is back in the news with reports going back with the same ignition cylinder design to 2001 Saturn Ions with perhaps over 300 deaths.

I agree that it seems odd that so many think that this is OK in the face of an obvious scandal replete with coverup.

To some GM can do no wrong despite their track record.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

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.

While I never had any life threatening incidents occur in any GM vehicles I owned, the ones I had were real POS. The Chevette I had in the 80s needed constant work even though I hardly drove it (I was in the navy at the time and frequently out to sea). The S10 I had in the 90s was a real nightmare too - constantly breaking down. I will never again own a GM vehicle.

The Toyota I currently drive is running great at over 10 years.

 

[bradly1101]

The Toyota I currently drive is running great at over 10 years.

22 years and still cruising in my Toyota. The only major service it's needed was for the AC. I can't throw things away until they break.

 

[Thebobo]

I forgot to mention that back in the '80s two different people gave me their old Corvairs. The red '63 had a four on the floor. The yellow '67 handled better, but had a two-speed auto. They became money pits though and I got rid of them.

2 speed auto! The old slip and slide! I one on my 64 Chevy van in the seventies.

Did you know you could start one at speed like you can a stick shift vehicle. Had to do it a couple times, wasn't pretty sounding but it worked lol.

 

[bradly1101]

2 speed auto! The old slip and slide! I one on my 64 Chevy van in the seventies.

Did you know you could start one at speed like you can a stick shift vehicle. Had to do it a couple times, wasn't pretty sounding but it worked lol.

No I never knew that. Speaking of vans, I remember a rear engine, early minivan based on the Corvair. That boxer engine had a unique sound, very unlike other boxers of the day. It was almost like the whir of a helicopter engine without the flap of the blades.

 

[Thebobo]

No I never knew that. Speaking of vans, I remember a rear engine, early minivan based on the Corvair. That boxer engine had a unique sound, very unlike other boxers of the day. It was almost like the whir of a helicopter engine without the flap of the blades.

Your talking about the Corvair Van are you?

 

[bradly1101]

Your talking about the Corvair Van are you?

Yeah, there was one with a bed too. It seemed like the engineers were having fun.

 

[desy]

303/17000000=.0000178*100=.00178
Means I have a 99.9982% chance I won't die of iginition failure
See I'm still not worried, still much more worried about drunks and distracted drivers
I agreed they were lazy in rectifying the situations however all manufactuers have faultly product
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2013/07/the-top-10-biggest-recalls-of-2013.html
I'd be just as worried about Hondas and Toyota Airbag failures from roughly the same era.
Here they are fixing 10 yr old problems, did they not know until just today as well?

 

[werepossum]

2 speed auto! The old slip and slide! I one on my 64 Chevy van in the seventies.

Did you know you could start one at speed like you can a stick shift vehicle. Had to do it a couple times, wasn't pretty sounding but it worked lol.

Yup, the older 2-speeds had a rear pump that also worked backards, to turn the engine over from wheel rotation. Can't remember if the Corvair trans did; it was largely unique.

303/17000000=.0000178*100=.00178
Means I have a 99.9982% chance I won't die of iginition failure
See I'm still not worried, still much more worried about drunks and distracted drivers
I agreed they were lazy in rectifying the situations however all manufactuers have faultly product
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2013/07/the-top-10-biggest-recalls-of-2013.html
I'd be just as worried about Hondas and Toyota Airbag failures from roughly the same era.
Here they are fixing 10 yr old problems, did they not know until just today as well?

Assuming you aren't driving off-road at high speed sans seat belt, your odds are even better.

All manufacturers have their problems. A friend had a Cherokee recalled because the air bags sometimes fail to deploy. That Cherokee was rear-ended and totaled. The later Cherokee is waiting on parts for its recall because the airbags sometimes unexpectedly deploy without cause. This isn't just Government Motors, it is inherrent to all human artifacts and endeavors.

 

[88keys]

All of these recalls drive up the cost of cars. More government regulation destroying businesses. People need to take more personal responsibility by fixing their own vehicles instead of depending on the government to make them fix it.
If the automakers didn't have the NTSB up their asses; the automakers could focus on building better cars.

 

[deadken]

All of these recalls drive up the cost of cars. More government regulation destroying businesses. People need to take more personal responsibility by fixing their own vehicles instead of depending on the government to make them fix it.
If the automakers didn't have the NTSB up their asses; the automakers could focus on building better cars.

I gotta say, YOU SOUND LIKE A TOTAL ASS.

Do you realize how stupid it sounds to suggest that there shouldn't be a recall to repair a defect that has caused the death of 13 people already?

Please, please, please, buy an affected Cobalt that HASN'T been fixed. Then put about 50 "Mitt Romney 2012" key rings on it and drive around without wearing a seat belt. That is the only way I believe you'll understand why GM should recall the products that they know are faulty.

Simply put: Self regulating didn't work, because GM sat on their hands for 10 years without fixing the problem they knew about. Why?!? Because they didn't want to spend the money and frankly they didn't care if people died because of it.

 

[DietDrThunder]

You should do your research before you post.

A 1972 safety commission report conducted by Texas A&M University concluded that the 1960–1963 Corvair possessed no greater potential for loss of control than its contemporary competitors in extreme situations.[25] The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a press release in 1972 describing the findings of NHTSA testing from the previous year. NHTSA had conducted a series of comparative tests in 1971 studying the handling of the 1963 Corvair and four contemporary cars—a Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, and Renault Dauphine—along with a second-generation Corvair (with its completely redesigned, independent rear suspension). The 143-page report reviewed NHTSA's extreme-condition handling tests, national crash-involvement data for the cars in the test as well as General Motors' internal documentation regarding the Corvair's handling. NHTSA went on to contract an independent advisory panel of engineers to review the tests. This review panel concluded that "the 1960–63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests...the handling and stability performance of the 1960–63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic."
Car and Driver magazine criticized Nader for ignoring drivers' failure to adapt their driving and vehicle-maintenance practices to the characteristics and requirements of the Corvair. None of the issues Nader raised were problems among owners of the Porsche 911, which had the same layout and similar suspension, nor with the less powerful Volkswagen Type 1 Beetle.
Journalist David E. Davis, in a 2009 article in Automobile Magazine, noted that despite Nader's claim that swing-axle rear suspension were dangerous, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen all used similar swing-axle concepts during that era.

 

[bradly1101]

You should do your research before you post.

A 1972 safety commission report conducted by Texas A&M University concluded that the 1960–1963 Corvair possessed no greater potential for loss of control than its contemporary competitors in extreme situations.[25] The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a press release in 1972 describing the findings of NHTSA testing from the previous year. NHTSA had conducted a series of comparative tests in 1971 studying the handling of the 1963 Corvair and four contemporary cars—a Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, and Renault Dauphine—along with a second-generation Corvair (with its completely redesigned, independent rear suspension). The 143-page report reviewed NHTSA's extreme-condition handling tests, national crash-involvement data for the cars in the test as well as General Motors' internal documentation regarding the Corvair's handling. NHTSA went on to contract an independent advisory panel of engineers to review the tests. This review panel concluded that "the 1960–63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests...the handling and stability performance of the 1960–63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic."
Car and Driver magazine criticized Nader for ignoring drivers' failure to adapt their driving and vehicle-maintenance practices to the characteristics and requirements of the Corvair. None of the issues Nader raised were problems among owners of the Porsche 911, which had the same layout and similar suspension, nor with the less powerful Volkswagen Type 1 Beetle.
Journalist David E. Davis, in a 2009 article in Automobile Magazine, noted that despite Nader's claim that swing-axle rear suspension were dangerous, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen all used similar swing-axle concepts during that era.

I believe all of that is true if the crazy differential between front and rear tire pressure is maintained. Back in those days service stations would check your tire pressure for you, and I guarantee if the attendant saw 15psi (the pressure GM settled on to correct severe handling problems) in the fronts he would pump them up.

Even if the recommended inflation numbers had been increased with a similar differential, say 19/28, there was still another huge obstacle: essentially no one in America was used to the concept of a differential tire pressure. When I was a gasoline station attendant in 1968-1970, we inflated all car tires to 24-26 lbs, unless told otherwise. Which we never were, except the occasional sports car fanatic who knew and cared about such things.


Chevrolet made no effort to educate its dealers and the public on the importance of these differential tire inflation recommendations. As well, there was no reference to “oversteer” and how to identify it and compensate for it by counter-steering in the Corvair Owner’s Manual or elsewhere. This was an innately counter-intuitive thing to do for Americans that had grown up with understeering cars, and were repeatedly told in Driver’s Ed to “steer into the skid”, not against it.

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto...1960-1963chevrolet-corvair-gms-deadliest-sin/

 

[boomerang]

Hey boys and girls! I've got a hard-on for GM and I've come up with this theory that what GM is doing right now has a direct parallel to what a shyster lawyer named Ralph Nader, who was looking to make a name for himself, cooked up waaaay back in the sixties when he wrote a book about the Corvair! Who's with me?

 

[bradly1101]

Hey boys and girls! I've got a hard-on for GM and I've come up with this theory that what GM is doing right now has a direct parallel to what a shyster lawyer named Ralph Nader, who was looking to make a name for himself, cooked up waaaay back in the sixties when he wrote a book about the Corvair! Who's with me?

Mr. Nader began a movement toward better auto safety. I read Unsafe at Any Speed. Only one chapter was about the Corvair. The whole book was about many safety defects that manufacturers were sidestepping. You are benefitting from his efforts if you drive a car.

In the case of the Corvair the discoveries in a lawsuit (where a little old lady lost an arm in a low speed rollover) showed that GM was aware that the understeer would occur in low speed speed turns and if the tires weren't inflated properly the inside rear wheel could fold under the car, resulting in a rollover.

The only parallel I see (again) is that GM went ahead with a known unsafe design. Why? Image? Profits?

 

[werepossum]

Mr. Nader began a movement toward better auto safety. I read Unsafe at Any Speed. Only one chapter was about the Corvair. The whole book was about many safety defects that manufacturers were sidestepping. You are benefitting from his efforts if you drive a car.

In the case of the Corvair the discoveries in a lawsuit (where a little old lady lost an arm in a low speed rollover) showed that GM was aware that the understeer would occur in low speed speed turns and if the tires weren't inflated properly the inside rear wheel could fold under the car, resulting in a rollover.

The only parallel I see (again) is that GM went ahead with a known unsafe design. Why? Image? Profits?

Dude, you have a serious boner for profits wherever they are found. Perhaps you can share with us the wonderfully advanced automobiles created outside the profit motive. The Zil springs to mind . . .

As far as Nader, his book was an attack on all American automobile manufacturing in particular and Western capitalism and industrialization in general. Thankfully, he accomplished little or nothing other than attracting a cultish following sufficient to allow him to be prosperous without doing a single useful thing.

 

[bradly1101]

Dude, you have a serious boner for profits wherever they are found. Perhaps you can share with us the wonderfully advanced automobiles created outside the profit motive. The Zil springs to mind . . .

As far as Nader, his book was an attack on all American automobile manufacturing in particular and Western capitalism and industrialization in general. Thankfully, he accomplished little or nothing other than attracting a cultish following sufficient to allow him to be prosperous without doing a single useful thing.

If you think that about Nader, you obviously don't understand the man or read his work. He was tired of seeing people hurt or killed at the wheel when it could have been prevented if profits weren't the main goal. He oddly thought that the main goal should be getting people from point A to B without designed-in risk where profits could be maintained and enhanced with less bad press.

He 'accomplished so little' that GM put a private eye on Nader in an attempt to discredit him. Oh and GM completely redesigned the suspension.

 

[werepossum]

If you think that about Nader, you obviously don't understand the man or read his work. He was tired of seeing people hurt or killed at the wheel when it could have been prevented if profits weren't the main goal. He oddly thought that the main goal should be getting people from point A to B without designed-in risk where profits could be maintained and enhanced with less bad press.

He 'accomplished so little' that GM put a private eye on Nader in an attempt to discredit him. Oh and GM completely redesigned the suspension.

The redesigned rear suspension (which was part of a total redesign taking the Corvair from cheapo econobox to sporty stylish hardtop coupe) debuted in late '64; Nader released his book in '65. Unless one believes that the very rumor of Nader's book caused GM to redesign the suspension - which could be designed, tested, tooled and put into production in a few weeks - the two are only tangentially related. Nader's war against the automobile in particular and Western industrial capitalism in general actually predates the Corvair - which don't forget was exonerated as having no greater risk than similar small cars, including front engine rear wheel drive models with the understeer more common to American drivers.

Again that boner for profit. Again I ask for examples of better cars in nations where the profit motive was or is replaced with enlightened government direction. Or for that matter, any automobile without designed in risk. Having designed both over-road and industrial equipment in both subordinate and lead roles, I can attest that no such product exists. All design is a series of compromises, and no design as safe as it possibly could possibly be is practical or marketable.

 

[piasabird]

Just wiggle the key or move the gear shift around. Helps if you don't have 10lbs of junk on your key ring.

So how much of this is a problem with all the government regulations about how an ignition key switch is suppose to work?

 

[bradly1101]

The redesigned rear suspension (which was part of a total redesign taking the Corvair from cheapo econobox to sporty stylish hardtop coupe) debuted in late '64; Nader released his book in '65. Unless one believes that the very rumor of Nader's book caused GM to redesign the suspension - which could be designed, tested, tooled and put into production in a few weeks - the two are only tangentially related.

The lawsuits (sans Nader) started in '61. He gave them a louder voice and turned them into a consumer advocate movement that helped introduce the strange concept of accountability for defective unsafe designs to the American corporate world. Especially if those designs caused injury or death - there are many in his book.

Nader's first chapter told the story of a California woman who lost her left arm when her 1961 Corvair spun out of control and flipped onto its roof. She allegedly was going only 35 mph. The matter went to court and GM settled for $70,000. Nader said GM paid up because it didn't want to "expose on the public record one of the greatest acts of industrial irresponsibility in the present century."
Nader said that the Corvair's biggest problem was stability, and that aftermarket companies were selling stabilizer bars for the front end to give it better balance. GM began offering an anti-roll bar as an option for the 1962 model year and made it standard on the 1964 model when the suspension was modified. For 1965, the Corvair had a fully independent rear suspension...
By then Nader had a reputation as one of America's top consumer auto safety champions. His testimony before Congress helped shape the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, which set automobile safety standards. [the horror!]

Meanwhile, GM paid private detectives to snoop into Nader's personal life and intimidate him, a move that would embarrass the company. Nader sued GM. He used part of the $425,000 court settlement paid by GM in 1970 for invasion of his privacy to set up the Center for Auto Safety - the watchdog group that has been a thorn in the side of automakers for decades.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20111031/CHEVY100/111029892/corvair-gave-nader-a-ride-to-prominence

Nader's war against the automobile in particular and Western industrial capitalism in general actually predates the Corvair.

I'm sure Nader drives a car or at least gets around in them. Again, it doesn't seem like you are aware of who he is. Where did you get this information? I haven't read his Wiki page, but I'll gaurantee that there's nothing about his "war against the automobile in particular and Western industrial capitalism."

He was about helping to make things safer, and trying to prevent avoidable death and injury.

Again that boner for profit. Again I ask for examples of better cars in nations where the profit motive was or is replaced with enlightened government direction. Or for that matter, any automobile without designed in risk. Having designed both over-road and industrial equipment in both subordinate and lead roles, I can attest that no such product exists. All design is a series of compromises, and no design as safe as it possibly could possibly be is practical or marketable.

Does that apply if there's an inherently unsafe design? It shouldn't be corrected? Should we be driving cheaper, less safe cars? Are recalls a bad thing? Again, you benefit from his work.

 

[werepossum]

The lawsuits (sans Nader) started in '61. He gave them a louder voice and turned them into a consumer advocate movement that helped introduce the strange concept of accountability for defective unsafe designs to the American corporate world. Especially if those designs caused injury or death - there are many in his book.


http://www.autonews.com/article/20111031/CHEVY100/111029892/corvair-gave-nader-a-ride-to-prominence


I'm sure Nader drives a car or at least gets around in them. Again, it doesn't seem like you are aware of who he is. Where did you get this information? I haven't read his Wiki page, but I'll gaurantee that there's nothing about his "war against the automobile in particular and Western industrial capitalism."

He was about helping to make things safer, and trying to prevent avoidable death and injury.

Does that apply if there's an inherently unsafe design? It shouldn't be corrected? Should we be driving cheaper, less safe cars? Are recalls a bad thing? Again, you benefit from his work.

When Nader ran for President, his campaign promise was that his inauguration procession would be on foot. While I'm sure he sometimes rides in taxis and limos, he has made a very big point of only taking public transportation. He also has made many comments over the years that he believes factory work to be dehumanizing.

 

[desy]

I'll agree that you cannot count on corporations to do the right thing without regulation.
BP spill? A decade ago Outboard boat motors were held to changing emissions regulations which at first they bitched about but easily met or exceeded with exisiting out of the box technology. The achieved the goal a couple years ahead of the curve by either moving to 4 strokes or fuel injection.
I know that my old 2 stroke burns much cleaner now that I use synth outboard oil. Auto companies have resisted and lobbied almost every safety/emission regulation ever introduced and that's all the companies not just some claiming adopting them would be their financial ruin

There is always a compromise with cheaper cars, frame rigidity, number of air bags, active systems, any and every mechanical device is flawed because human design is flawed and materials are flawed and in some case such as this has such a low frequency it takes time to investigate out if its actually a design defect.

 

[bradly1101]

He also has made many comments over the years that he believes factory work to be dehumanizing.

I googled and couldn't find anything. Gotta quote?

He has talked about poor treatment by some corporations and how rather than being decent to their employees they move their factories to China where workers are treated much worse in his article, "Stripmining America - Unpatriotically". That's dehumanizing.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/22-9

 

[bradly1101]

When Nader ran for President, his campaign promise was that his inauguration procession would be on foot.

A champion of public safety and public transportation? That's just horrible!

I get that you're a Nader-hater, but I don't understand why. He's on your side as a consumer from his accomplishments in public safety to railing against off-shoring of jobs to holding corporations and government accountable to the environment, he wants a better world. Is that not a laudable goal? Should we go backward?

I believe that if not for people like him, we would live in a worse, more unsafe place. If left to their own devices, some corporations will run roughshod over you, and maybe even injure or kill you while you are otherwise safely using their product, and yes, in the name of profits. I'd rather live in a world that includes checks and balances.