GM Ignition Recall Snowballing

[Soup DeVille]

If the engine shuts down, there's enough reserve in the brake booster for one, maybe two, applications of the brakes before power brake assist is lost.  I'm going to guess that the ABS system gets deactivated.  However, you probably aren't going to need much from the brakes if the car shuts down when in gear because of the sudden onset of engine braking.  The steering will be functional, but driving a car after the power steering is gone requires considerably more effort.  For someone who has never experienced it and is used to being able to steer the car with finger-tip pressure, it may well feel like the steering wheel has locked up.  Therein lies the problem:  many people don't know how to react in the event of a vehicular malfunction (stuck throttle, stalled engine, loss of power steering or brake assist, loss of brakes).  And even some that do "know" what the correct response should be don't necessarily respond that way when under the stress of reacting to a vehicular emergency when they experience one.  I can't say I wouldn't choke if I was closing on a bunch of stopped cars and found my brakes no longer worked at all, I can certainly tell you what someone should do under such a scenario when not under duress.  It takes a fair bit of practice/experience to develop the muscle memory required to respond to a sudden, emergency situation and most people are unlikely to have experienced any of the aforementioned scenarios even once in a controlled environment, or otherwise.  It's kind of like driving in snow.  Someone who's used to it doesn't panic when their car slides around a bit in the snow.  They know to pump their brakes, turn into a skid, etc...  Someone who's never experienced it tends to choke and crash (or abandon their car in the middle of the highway in favor of walking home...).  I'm not at all surprised that people would crash their cars if the ignition suddenly shut off.

At any decent speed, the power assist for steering is minimally necessary, the brakes work perfectly fine the first couple of pumps, automatic cars don't engine brake when the engine dies ( and most people who drive manuals are cognizant enough to know how to coast with the clutch).

Yes, somebody might freak out and do all the wrong things. Most won't, judging by the number of cars seen regularly stopped and disabled and safely parked at the side of the road

[FoMoJo]

The the car doesn't "lurch sans brake lights" either.

It does if you're driving a '51 Mercury and you jam it into second and keep popping the clutch to see if it'll fire up again before it grinds to a halt.

Its happened to me several times when the engine has died in traffic. At most it's been an inconvenience to other drivers.

No doubt it was an inconvenience to you as well.  Not every time, when a car stalls in traffic, does it cause massive destruction or death. Occasionally, it does.

[GoCougs]

Cars have been stalling in traffic since cars have been on the road. And if a driver does do all the wrong things, how does it cause a death? If a car stalls in an intersection and then gets t-boned, which is to blame - the reason why the car stalled or the idiot who ran the red light/stop sign or failed to see the stalled car?

Yeah, I'm just not buying it until I see a LOT of evidence. For now I have no choice to conclude that like the Audi and Toyota debacle somehow the myth got out there and then entered a positive feedback loop with the MSM, ambulance chasers, liars and idiots taking advantage.

[FoMoJo]

At any decent speed, the power assist for steering is minimally necessary, the brakes work perfectly fine the first couple of pumps, automatic cars don't engine brake when the engine dies ( and most people who drive manuals are cognizant enough to know how to coast with the clutch).

Yes, somebody might freak out and do all the wrong things. Most won't, judging by the number of cars seen regularly stopped and disabled and safely parked at the side of the road

"12 deaths and 31 crashes".  The airbags didn't deploy either.  It doesn't say how many times a car stalled because of the ignition switch failing.

[FoMoJo]

Cars have been stalling in traffic since cars have been on the road. And if a driver does do all the wrong things, how does it cause a death? If a car stalls in an intersection and then gets t-boned, which is to blame - the reason why the car stalled or the idiot who ran the red light/stop sign or failed to see the stalled car?

Yeah, I'm just not buying it until I see a LOT of evidence. For now I have no choice to conclude that like the Audi and Toyota debacle somehow the myth got out there and then entered a positive feedback loop with the MSM, ambulance chasers, liars and idiots taking advantage.

Perhaps GM should invite you to the congressional hearing on this matter.  Are you free on April 1st?

[Soup DeVille]

It does if you're driving a '51 Mercury and you jam it into second and keep popping the clutch to see if it'll fire up again before it grinds to a halt.
No doubt it was an inconvenience to you as well.  Not every time, when a car stalls in traffic, does it cause massive destruction or death. Occasionally, it does.

I would posit that it very rarely does. Just as not every time a tire goes flat does it cause death or destruction; because most people can handle it most of the time.

[JWC]

I think the problem is when it stops in cross traffic more than just driving along in traffic.  And, evidently when the ignition switches off, the air bags won't deploy.

[FoMoJo]

I would posit that it very rarely does. Just as not every time a tire goes flat does it cause death or destruction; because most people can handle it most of the time.

Of course it's a rare occurrence.  It's a rare occurrence when the car does stall but when it does and someone dies, it's a very serious matter especially when caused by a known problem that has been ignored.

[Byteme]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is an issue and/or if the ignition switch is more vulnerable to having a billions keys hanging from it but I remain extremely skeptical that this is gonna cause hundreds of deaths.

Last story I saw mentioned 12 deaths, not hundreds.

If/when the ignition switch moves to acc position the airbags are not powered.  So you have an unexpecting driver suddenly confronted with the loss of power, loss of steering boost and lack of brake boost.  So, if there is a collision in the ensuing confusion one of the primary safety devices is disabled.

And, as important as the failing ignition switch itself is let's not forget GM's handling/ignoring the problem is equally important.

[Soup DeVille]

Of course it's a rare occurrence.  It's a rare occurrence when the car does stall but when it does and someone dies, it's a very serious matter especially when caused by a known problem that has been ignored.

Then we're in agreement. All I was saying was that a couple of people seemed to over state the danger. I won't say that GM is not culpable for a malfunction that could lead to a dangerous situation: I'm saying let's keep the danger of this malfunction in perspective.

[FoMoJo]

Then we're in agreement. All I was saying was that a couple of people seemed to over state the danger. I won't say that GM is not culpable for a malfunction that could lead to a dangerous situation: I'm saying let's keep the danger of this malfunction in perspective.

Yes, we are in agreement.  Defects are not always obvious and the cause for malfunction elusive even with all the testing that's done.  In this case, weight on the key may not have been considered initially.  However, once known, it must be acted on immediately, as learned by some of the manufacturers; rather than being denied as is the modus operandi of the likes of Toyota...who prefer to blame their customers for any vehicle problems.  GM should've known better when there were indications of situations where the ignition switch failed.  They will pay a harsh price now.

[3.0L V6]

Yes, we are in agreement.  Defects are not always obvious and the cause for malfunction elusive even with all the testing that's done.  In this case, weight on the key may not have been considered initially.  However, once known, it must be acted on immediately, as learned by some of the manufacturers; rather than being denied as is the modus operandi of the likes of Toyota...who prefer to blame their customers for any vehicle problems.  GM should've known better when there were indications of situations where the ignition switch failed.  They will pay a harsh price now.

For what? Really? Cars that accelerate when you step on the gas? Or when people confuse the pedals? Or stack floormats on top of each other?

If a car company admits liability regardless of it is truly at fault, will get sued.

Admitting fault when not guilty is just as bad as not admitting fault when guilty.

[JWC]

For what? Really? Cars that accelerate when you step on the gas? Or when people confuse the pedals? Or stack floormats on top of each other?

If a car company admits liability regardless of it is truly at fault, will get sued.

Admitting fault when not guilty is just as bad as not admitting fault when guilty.

I got into trouble once because a customer started their Raider up in the building and it went through a closed door. I wasn't in trouble because the key was in the ignition or because I told her she could get her purse out of the vehicle. I was in trouble with the business owner, our insurance company, and our lawyer because I didn't apologize for her vehicle being damaged.  I had always been told to never say you're sorry for something  it isn't your fault.  They felt I was wrong, I disagreed. They wouldn't even take my statement---they took the assistant's statement and he wasn't even in the building to witness the wreck. Recently, a study found that even if you tell a customer that you're sorry something went wrong with a service or product, even if it isn't your fault, people will accept the apology and are less likely to sue. 

[Mustangfan2003]

We had a 96 S10 one time that you could start without the key. 

[Byteme]

Recently, a study found that even if you tell a customer that you're sorry something went wrong with a service or product, even if it isn't your fault, people will accept the apology and are less likely to sue.

Maybe so, but in this case it appears the problem is actually GM's fault, they knew of it discussed fixing it and decided not to bother.  From GM amended timeline in the report they submitted to the government:



The company says that it only now is reporting the 2001 incident because it only discovered a record of it last month.. After an initial recall, GM looked into other cars that used the same switch and then more than doubled the number of models and cars recalled, including the 2003 Ion, which is the earliest vehicle in the recall.
The earliest report until now was in 2004 during development of the 2005 Cobalt and it is more detailed. In that case, an engineer had the car stall while driving, according to depositions in a now-settled civil lawsuit against GM.


Engineers were able to replicate the problem and proposed solutions, according to GM's filing, but a decision was made not to adopt them, "after consideration of the lead time required, cost and effectiveness."


GM says that the 2001 Ion report found "low detent pressure force" in the switch. The detent is the part of the switch's inner workings that keeps it from rotating from one setting to another unless the driver turns the key.


Low force could allow it to move unintentionally out of the "run" position while underway into the "accessory" position, shutting off the engine and disabling safety systems -- the problem for which GM now has recalled 1.62 million vehicles worldwide, 1,37 million of those in the U.S.


The company said a change was made to the switch in 2001, the matter was closed and the Ion went on sale .


But the search of the records, according to GM's amended time line, also found that a dealer service technician reported an incident of a stall while driving in an Ion in 2003. It said the technician noted the car owner had "several keys on the key ring" and that the "additional weight of the keys had worn out the ignition switch." GM said the tech replaced the switch and again the matter was closed.


The new chronology says that GM knows of four fatalities in 2004 Saturn Ions, which should have had the "design change" switch referred to in the 2001 report.
The chronology says that in February GM searched records for all the vehicles using this switch and the recall of the 2005-07 Chevy Cobalt and 2007 Pontiac G5 then was expanded to include the 2003-07 Saturn Ion, the 2006-07 Chevy HHR, the 2006-07 Pontiac Solstice and the 2007 Saturn Sky.


GM has said that a heavy key ring -- the problem cited in 2003 with the Ion -- will make it more likely for the faulty switches to slip out of "run" and cut off power. It is advising owners of the recalled models to strip everything from their ignition key and use only the key itself while driving.

[Soup DeVille]

We had a 96 S10 one time that you could start without the key. 

In my Toronado, the keys would sometimes fall out while the vehicle was running. The car kept running after that.

[hotrodalex]

My Saturn didn't have an ignition lock. It was quite handy in the winter since I could run outside to start the car and then take the keys with me back inside. No worrying about locking the keys in the car or having the car get stolen out of my driveway.

[Mustangfan2003]

In my Toronado, the keys would sometimes fall out while the vehicle was running. The car kept running after that.

Well they always say that GM cars run terribly the longest. 

[FoMoJo]

For what? Really? Cars that accelerate when you step on the gas? Or when people confuse the pedals? Or stack floormats on top of each other?

If a car company admits liability regardless of it is truly at fault, will get sued.

Admitting fault when not guilty is just as bad as not admitting fault when guilty.

Not the only problems.

[FoMoJo]

In my Toronado, the keys would sometimes fall out while the vehicle was running. The car kept running after that.

There was an era, with GM cars, when you could remove the keys and leave the engine running.  I believe the reasoning was that you could leave the engine running, lock the doors while temporarily leaving the car, and then have the keys with you to unlock the doors again.  People who were in the habit of doing this, sometimes forgot to take the keys with them and locked the doors with the keys still in the ignition.

[JWC]

There was an era, with GM cars, when you could remove the keys and leave the engine running.  I believe the reasoning was that you could leave the engine running, lock the doors while temporarily leaving the car, and then have the keys with you to unlock the doors again.  People who were in the habit of doing this, sometimes forgot to take the keys with them and locked the doors with the keys still in the ignition.

The 1962 Buick Special station wagon my ex and I owned was one. We could leave it warming up and get coffee. It is why I like Ford's door keypads.  I really missed that car after we got rid of it. We traded it and my 1965 worn out LeMans for two 1983 Ford Escorts. We got $150 each in trade.

[AutobahnSHO]

There is no engine braking in a traditional torque converter automatic transmission-equipped car (which the vast majority of these and all cars are) without fluid pressure (engine off). .

You sure?? The torque converter is still spinning, seems fluid would be still going well enough to be able to shift if you dropped it down a gear or two (assuming that it's old school and physically shifted and not electronically shifted)... And if the engine is still connected to the transmission you DO still get engine braking...

[NomisR]

So on the same subject, I haven't read closely on the subject but why was Toyota fined for the whole incident when they weren't actually found at fault?  What type of misleading statement about safety did they put out?  All the articles out there are pretty poorly written that it's pretty much leading to the point that Toyota is at fault even though they're not.

[FoMoJo]

So on the same subject, I haven't read closely on the subject but why was Toyota fined for the whole incident when they weren't actually found at fault?  What type of misleading statement about safety did they put out?  All the articles out there are pretty poorly written that it's pretty much leading to the point that Toyota is at fault even though they're not.

"Toyota admits that it misled U.S. consumers by concealing and making deceptive statements" to both consumers and regulators about the extent of sudden acceleration problems in 2009 and 2010. The Justice Department said Toyota minimized the problems, mislead regulators and provided inaccurate facts to Congress. But the company wasn't charged with lying to Congress.

As the crisis unfolded one Toyota employee reportedly said: "Idiots! Someone will go to jail if lies are repeatedly told. I can't support this," according to a summary of the facts released by the Justice Department.

The company provided Congress with an inaccurate timeline, the government said, but didn't charge Toyota with lying to Congress. The Justice Department also cited a memo written by the head of Toyota's Washington office to a more senior official that bragged that the company had saved more than $100 million by avoiding a more expensive recall. The company had only recalled about 55,000 floor mats at that point.

Toyota also opted not to make changes to existing vehicles or recall models to take into account new guidelines to avoid floormat entrapment.

The high-profile deaths of four people, including an off-duty California Highway Patrol officer behind the wheel near San Diego in August 2009 brought the issue to the headlines. The officer, his wife, daughter and brother-in-law were killed when a Lexus SUV sped out of control. Investigators blamed a wrongly installed trapped floor mat in a dealer loaner.

The Justice Department said Toyota had received reports of sticking accelerator pedals in Europe in 2008 and 2009 and a report of the problem in August 2009 in a Camry in the U.S. Toyota told its pedal supplier in spring 2009 to make a design change. By October — after the San Diego crash — it issued an "urgent" design change described as a major change with a new part number. Two weeks later, Toyota scrapped the design change and employees were instructed orally to cancel the project.

"They were instructed not to put anything about the cancellation in writing," the Justice Department said — and no cancellation was sent in writing to the supplier — "to prevent NHTSA from learning about the sticky pedal problem." The following month Toyota told engineers not to make design changes for any other cars in North America because they would "most likely mislead the concerned authorities and consumers and such to believe that we have admitted having defective vehicles."

Over 10 years, NHTSA received nearly 3,100 complaints, alleging at least 93 deaths from Toyota sudden acceleration incidents, but has confirmed a link in just five deaths.

Toyota was accused of wire fraud by allegedly defrauded consumers in the fall of 2009 and early 2010 by "issuing misleading statements about safety issues in Toyota and Lexus vehicles," the Justice Department said.

The Justice Department said the agreement — which must be approved by a federal judge — includes the "largest penalty of its kind ever imposed on an automotive company, and imposes on Toyota an independent monitor to review and assess policies, practices and procedures."

After three years, the Justice Department will ask seek to dismiss the charge if Toyota complies

Read more http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140319/AUTO0104/303190065/0/AUTO01/U-S-reaches-1-2B-settlement-Toyota-says-company-made-misleading-statements-safety

What is even more ominous...Toyota's killer firmware: Bad design and its consequences

and...2005 Camry L4 Software Analysis

of interest...http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code

What is still missing is the 800 page report produced by Bar Group documenting their research.

[Soup DeVille]

There was an era, with GM cars, when you could remove the keys and leave the engine running.  I believe the reasoning was that you could leave the engine running, lock the doors while temporarily leaving the car, and then have the keys with you to unlock the doors again.  People who were in the habit of doing this, sometimes forgot to take the keys with them and locked the doors with the keys still in the ignition.

Yes, but this was not by design.

[Soup DeVille]

You sure?? The torque converter is still spinning, seems fluid would be still going well enough to be able to shift if you dropped it down a gear or two (assuming that it's old school and physically shifted and not electronically shifted)... And if the engine is still connected to the transmission you DO still get engine braking...

With no pressure from the front pump, which is engine driven, all the clutches release.

[FoMoJo]

Yes, but this was not by design.

Yes, I know...I was just babbling.

[Byteme]

Yes, but this was not by design.

Yes it was.  My 63 Chevy discussed the feature in the owner's manual.  The switch had start, run, off, lock, and accessory.  You could remove the key in off and then restart ther car by turning the ignition switch to start without the key being in the ignition lock.

[Soup DeVille]

Yes it was.  My 63 Chevy discussed the feature in the owner's manual.  The switch had start, run, off, lock, and accessory.  You could remove the key in off and then restart ther car by turning the ignition switch to start without the key being in the ignition lock.

No, I know what you're talking about, that's not this: this was a failure. It was an '84; no other GM car of that era did this.

[GoCougs]

So on the same subject, I haven't read closely on the subject but why was Toyota fined for the whole incident when they weren't actually found at fault?  What type of misleading statement about safety did they put out?  All the articles out there are pretty poorly written that it's pretty much leading to the point that Toyota is at fault even though they're not.

Toyota was fined because they didn't play nicely with investigators. They knew it wasn't a problem with their cars, and study upon study independently showed that that was the case, so why bother playing nicely?