GM Ignition Recall Thoughts.

[DMCVegas]

I was thinking this weekend about the GM recall, and something caught my attention of sorts...

In 2009 when the massive automotive bailouts occurred, Ford sold off their subsidiaries as apart of their plan to avoid bankruptcy (which they were successful in doing). Chrysler really didn't have anything to sell save for interest in other companies, but GM was courted by two big buyers: Penske Automotive Group was in serious talks to buy the Saturn brand from GM (with Renault continuing manufacturing for Penske), and DMC Houston was looking to purchase the Kappa platform & tooling to keep the Delaware plant open with the Solstice/Sky being rebadged as a DeLorean.

There was lots of positive buzz going on for both of these deals at the time, but both suddenly came to a screeching halt. Thousands of jobs were lost when both deals failed to materialize, and taxpayers lost $139M to Fiskar when they failed. But it got me wondering about something... Apparently GM knew about these ignition switch problems for years, and even have engineers that have perjured themselves in trials related to said ignition switches. The Saturn brand has cars included as apart of the recall, and the Kappa platform itself is directly affected by this issue.

It makes me wonder if GM purposefully scuttled talks with Penske AG & DMCH for fear that these problems would have been discovered by them through disclosure or lawsuits, and GM was simply hoping that this problem would never be discovered.

[Mark D]

It makes me wonder if GM purposefully scuttled talks with Penske AG & DMCH for fear that these problems would have been discovered by them through disclosure or lawsuits, and GM was simply hoping that this problem would never be discovered.



I'd like to hope that the top GM execs were the dark regarding the true nature of the issue. From what I've read it sounds like service reported the field failures to engineering, engineering issued a change to increase the length of the detent pin and doubled the spring pressure but failed to pull a new part number for the revised part. Nobody at the time seemed to grasp how serious of an issue it really was so the revision was made as a running change. A new PN would have allowed differentiation between the old and new revision level of the part, but since there was no recall related to the switches at the time they wouldn't have necessarily felt that a new PN was warranted.

In general new part numbers should get pulled when a change to form, fit, or function is made. From the outside the switch still looked, fit, and performed the same as the old switch. I don't think the decision to retain the original PN was done as an attempt to cover up the fact that changes were made. Rolling changes are just easier to manage than a part swap. Old inventory can simply be used up and there is no wasted stock, etc.

So the service guys did't think it was a huge problem, engineering responded to service with an equally low level of concern, and no concern gets passed up to the top since the change was made and the problem was 'fixed'. I think part of the investigation at this point is to determine if people truly acted to cover things up or if it was mainly ignorance.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't think this is any excuse for what has happened and GM should still be held liable, bankruptcy/restructuring or not.

[Ikeaboy1]

I'm actually pretty blown away this isn't getting the press Toyota's unintended acceleration issue did a few years ago. It's getting covered, but not at all with the same 'Something in your car can KILL YOU! More at 11...' attitude.

[DMCVegas]

The damming evidence though has been with the engineer, Ray DeGiorgio. He himself was the engineer that worked on the ignition switch, and I believe also was the very first person to discover the issue on GM's own test track many years ago, pre-production. He also perjured himself in court stating things such as that he wasn't aware of any issue (when he discovered it himself), and that there was no problem with the switch that warranted a parts change over, when he himself was later found to have issued the request for the new ignition part. It sounds like only one person, but the problem gets much, much worse. Documents have been found showing that Delphi themselves who made the part did so under objection that the ignition switches failed GM's on quality standards, yet GM still forced them to make the part. Even later on when GM discovered the issue in 2005, they declined to do a recall, and simply offered the inserts for the keys to prevent increased leverage to rotate the switch. Not to mention tons and tons of complaints on airbags and other related items that they just never followed up on, all the while cranking out cars they knew had problems. Then on top of this are the cost savings summaries that GM has that shows they declined to go with improved switches due to an increased cost of .57¢

An article over on Jalopnik summed it up perfectly that the best damage control GM could possible execute is to convince the American consumer that they're a bunch of incompetent executives involved in a failed, dysfunctional business model. Because it's easier to say that GM is a bunch of morons that are begging for the public's forgiveness and understanding while they initiate a massive reorganization as an act of goodwill, than to say that GM is a bunch of heartless, greedy douchebags that care more about money than they do human life and will hide behind a bankruptcy to avoid liability. So far there are at least two engineers involved with this mess that had knowledge of the ignition switch problem, and we'll just have to see how it goes. It's definitely not fair to Mary Barra who has pretty much just wound up as the scapegoat in all this, and looks awful when she was questioned thanks to the corporate mentality of "deny everything".

Sure, there are recalls from every manufacturer out there. Even the DMC-12 had issues with the castle nuts (or lack of) on the front suspension. But GM has demonstrated a pattern of neglect, and that's what the lawyers are going after. You have the design issues with the Corvair suspension. Then you have the legendary Ivey memo that placed an actual value on human life in terms of recall vs. settlement and what was cheaper. Then you had gas tanks in Novas that exploded. Side saddle gas tanks in trucks that exploded. Airbags that would randomly detonate while driving in Geos, GM's years-long fight to suppress the Ivey memo, DEX COOL lawsuits for planned obsolescence, and now this. Lots of car makers were cutting corners and having firesales on assets to avoid bankruptcy. Yet GM kept backing out of it's deals that were tied to these brands. It just seems very suspicious in hindsight.

[Kenny_Z]

Nova gas tanks exploding? I'm assuming it's the rebadged Toyota version and not the older cars? I've been restoring a 66 for over 15 years and that is the first I've heard of that problem.

[DMCVegas]

My bad. Malibu, not Nova. And this would be the 78-81 A-Body

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/10/us/4.9-billion-jury-verdict-in-gm-fuel-tank-case.html

http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=570

[Bitsyncmaster]

There is another recall with my electric power steering in my 2005 Malibu. They had sent me a notice a long time ago but it would only cover cost if under so many miles. I was over that mileage so never bothered. Now it looks like they are going to do that recall for all existing cars. That is really going to cost them because it entails replacing the column motor and electronics.

Of course it's only to cover there ass from future law suits.

[Kenny_Z]

My bad. Malibu, not Nova. And this would be the 78-81 A-Body

Gotcha. Had me confused there for a bit.