• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM Ignition Nightmare Won't Go Away, for Victims or Company

Anomalism

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
profit > people

GM Ignition Nightmare Won't Go Away, for Victims or Company - Bloomberg Business

Zachary Stevens was a teenager headed to bible study when his Saturn Sky shot across a Texas highway into a pickup and killed the driver. Ruben Vazquez, 20, died after a drunk slammed into his stalled Chevy Cobalt on a California freeway. James Yingling III couldn’t brake or steer his Saturn Ion away from a culvert in Pennsylvania. He lingered for 17 days before dying at 35. These are among the claims facing General Motors Co. this year, the first of hundreds demanding that GM pay for the deaths of loved ones or injuries ranging from broken bones to paralysis. The raft of trials, scattered across the country, begins Monday in federal court in Manhattan.

Engineers at America’s biggest automaker, which got a $50 billion government bailout in the financial crisis, knew of a flawed ignition switch but rejected a fix that would have cost 90 cents apiece, according to evidence provided to lawmakers. The switch could be jarred into the “accessory” position, shutting off the engine, disabling power steering and brakes and preventing air bags from deploying. The faulty switches are linked to the deaths of at least 124 people, many of them in entry-level cars marketed to young drivers -- a graduation gift from proud parents, a starter car for college -- least prepared to react to a sudden loss of power on the road.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fight Club -

"Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

In all seriousness, a bean counter somewhere in GM's management did some math along these lines. And the customer lost...
 
I agree that GM made terrible decisions in not upgrading that defective switch ASAP, but disagree with the assertion that fixing the problem in existing vehicles would not cost much, much more than $1/vehicle. GM may have (falsely?) assumed that the cost of a massive recall, coupled with the related drop in consumer confidence, would have cost more than offering a few out of court settlements and defending some class action lawsuits.
 
In contrast, Toyota constantly recalls trucks and cars for some of the dumbest fixes I have ever seen. I have missed two of their recalls because they don't need to be replaced, yet Toyota is just playing CYA. What a shame GM never got a clue to do what was right.
 
Am I wrong, or is it not really the ignition switch?

I was told by a friend that when they took their car in, the changed the key to one that had a hole rather than a sliding slot. If that's the case, what can happen, someone with a heavy key chain can lever the ignition switch to a new position. My understanding is that ignition switch and lock cylinder are replace because the key can easily be removed in the run position. They even say in their update:


There is a risk, under certain conditions, that your ignition switch may move out of the “run” position, resulting in a partial loss of electrical power and turning off the engine. This risk increases if your key ring is carrying added weight (such as more keys or the key fob) or your vehicle experiences rough road conditions or other jarring or impact related events. If the ignition switch is not in the run position, the air bags may not deploy if the vehicle is involved in a crash, increasing the risk of injury or fatality.

Additionally, some of these vehicles have a condition in which the ignition key may be removed when the ignition is not in the “Off” position. If the ignition key is removed when the ignition is not in the “Off” position, unintended vehicle motion may occur: (a) for an automatic transmission, if the transmission is not in “Park”; or (b) for a manual transmission, if the parking brake is not engaged and the transmission is not in reverse gear. This could result in a vehicle crash and occupant or pedestrian injuries.
​

GM-IgnitionParts.jpg


GM Ignition Update - United States - FAQ

I'll bet all cases involved a several keys of a heavy keychain attached. I would say of you have a slotted hole on your key, just don't use a heavy keychain.

This is also interesting:

GM Knew About Deadly Defect For Nearly A Decade, Dismissed It In Technical Service Bulletin - The Truth About Cars

cobalt-tsb-key.jpg
 
Last edited:
The solution is simple: dont buy a GM or a Ford.
 
PoS said:
The solution is simple: dont buy a GM or a Ford.
Click to expand...

Lets buy Toyota or Honda and have the airbags maim you instead.
 
Lovebug said:
Lets buy Toyota or Honda and have the airbags maim you instead.
Click to expand...

Well at least an air bag does give you a bit of cushion for the pushin'. :2razz:
 
Anomalism said:
profit > people

GM Ignition Nightmare Won't Go Away, for Victims or Company - Bloomberg Business
Click to expand...

This has been on going with multiple car makers for decades, ignoring major safety and reliability concerns because lawsuits tend to be cheaper. Gm nissan and honda seem to be leading today as far as I have seen on unreliable and unsafe products released without recalls. Chrysler ford and toyota have seemed to do much better overall in terms of issuing recalls, as major problems are found.

For example chrysler had some rear wheel drive cars that would fall out of park, causing them to roll away, and chrysler issued a recall. Toyota had massive brake failures and lower control arms shredding to pieces on older tundras, and toyota issued a recall. Ford has had probably more safety recalls than any other company I have seen, yet their fault rate seems to be on par with other companies, ofcourse ever since the bridgestone firestone rollover fiasco, ford has taken recalls very seriously.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I agree that GM made terrible decisions in not upgrading that defective switch ASAP, but disagree with the assertion that fixing the problem in existing vehicles would not cost much, much more than $1/vehicle. GM may have (falsely?) assumed that the cost of a massive recall, coupled with the related drop in consumer confidence, would have cost more than offering a few out of court settlements and defending some class action lawsuits.
Click to expand...

The big cost is paying their mechanics to install those switches, plus lost revenue for stealerships when they can not sell new repair work when warranty work has every bay filled.

Fyi those one dollar cylinders, gm ordered a whole lot of them 6 months before the issue ever became public, so they knew full well the recall was going to be cheaper than the court settlements, they most likely were just trying to buy time before having to shell out the money to fix it.
 
Have we really gotten to the point in the country that when a car stalls, the driver doesn't know how to control it?
 
Mason66 said:
The engine shutting off doesn't prevent the car from being steered or stopped. Why is the ignition being blamed for that case?
Click to expand...
Because when the switch moves to the off position, the steering locks.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Because when the switch moves to the off position, the steering locks.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't

The ignition has lock, off, on and start.

It couldn't have had that much movement in the switch to move all the way back to the lock position.
 
Mason66 said:
No it doesn't

The ignition has lock, off, on and start.

It couldn't have had that much movement in the switch to move all the way back to the lock position.
Click to expand...

Sure it can. If the weight on the key allows it to move one position, nothing keeping it from moving two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom