13 GM traffic deaths are tied to a 57-cent part
Source: AP-Excite
By TOM KRISHER and DEE-ANN DURBIN
WASHINGTON (AP) - The fix for a faulty ignition switch linked to 13 traffic deaths would have cost just 57 cents, members of Congress said Tuesday as they demanded answers from General Motors' new CEO on why the automaker took 10 years to recall cars with the defect.
At a hearing on Capitol Hill before a House subcommittee, GM's Mary Barra acknowledged under often testy questioning that the company took too long to act. She promised changes at GM that would prevent such a lapse from happening again.
"If there's a safety issue, we're going to make the right change and accept that," said Barra, who became CEO in January and almost immediately found herself thrust into one of the biggest product safety crises Detroit has ever seen.
But as relatives of the crash victims looked on intently, she admitted that she didn't know why it took years for the dangerous defect to be announced. And she deflected many questions about what went wrong, saying an internal investigation is under way.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140401/DACTJ2F01.html
General Motors CEO Mary Barra pauses as she testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, April 1, 2014, before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation. The committee is looking for answers from Barra about safety defects and mishandled recall of 2.6 million small cars with a faulty ignition switch that's been linked to 13 deaths and dozen of crashes. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Alhena
(3,014 posts)from happening in the future.
vt_native
(484 posts)F.P. sez, stop stealing my act!
FYI for the youngsters, the Ford Company knew that Ford Pinto would explode in rear impact collisions, but the cost of fixing all the Pintos exceeded the costs of paying a few wrongful death claims every year. Once it came out that Ford had made this choice, there were severe punitive damages in the resulting law suits.
Anyone feel free to supplement
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)was Vicki. For three of the family members it was their last reunion. While driving two cousins home from the reunion they were rear ended by a drunk driver. She was driving a Ford Pinto. All three died. Saddest wake I have ever attended. It was devastating to all.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Just whizzing in the wind here, and Im not gonna chase links, just give some context that wont mean a thing to those culturally indoctrinated in a longstanding antipathy that goes far beyond what happened to the Corvair. Ford certainly has made many egregious mistakes and done things which did not benefit the consumer or the environment that people dont even recognize because they settle into their oldtime media molded mindsets and dont think for themselves.
What made the Pinto dangerous was the original edict of a very light car at a very low price right away. At the same time it was designed and originally produced after a record short lead time, safety standards for bumpers had not been implemented. The 5 mph bumper was still several years off. Because the weight (a critical element in older tech MPG cost effectiveness) was being minimized, and the rush to market so extreme, engineering issues were being worked out as the car was already being sold.
By 74 they had added the mandatory safety bumpers with additional length between the bumpers and body, and more importantly there was reinforcement made to the doors as well. By 1975 a V6 option came with the "heavy duty" 8" rear axle, which alone would have solved the problem of gas tanks ripping on rear end collisions, because it lacks the rear inspection cover and bolt heads that would eventually be covered with a sheet of rubber to prevent that tragic issue.
The Pinto did not explode, the gas tanks ripped and spilled gas caught fire. That wasnt really so much the problem as the fact that the doors became inoperable upon a heavy rear collision. there just isnt much structure back there, so things buckled and you would be trapped by various factors.
I suspect that these issues came to light after they had largely been addressed, by safety measures like the 5 mph bumpers and the door reinforcement, as well as the rubber protection measure (this is where the dollar's worth of part vs the value of lawsuits come in)
but the problem was real and tragic.
The car itself is also cuter than a bug. I have a 72 wagon with those useless but attractive early chrome bumpers, hard to find and prized by enthusiasts. I also have a 74 sedan that even with the extended safety bumpers is absolutely a beautiful car.
They used to be everywhere. 74 was their best selling year, and the reputation justifiably damaged sales, so the car was done by 1980. After which Ford proceeded to sell a LOT of garbage. Consumers got screwed, as did the environment.
The Pinto is now as rare as hen's teeth, and beloved by owners.
Take all of that for what its worth, just dont overlook real crimes that happen throughout the industry in the aftermath, and dont think that Ford continued building dangerous Pintos any longer than they did. I seriously doubt cars built after 1973 posed a threat to consumers, and certainly those in the last half of their production were considerably safer than the early classics.
I love me some early Pinto. The later ones are hideous.
Cars were an industrial artform. Safety regulation, although absolutely necessary (that rascally Ralph!) put an end to a gorgeous period of design evolution. No longer was there a blank slate for designers to start with in trying to win sales. Everything changed.
To hate on the Pinto without understanding the historical context, is to hate on every beautiful car ever built until 1975.
cactusfractal
(491 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? 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.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Mika
(17,751 posts)moondust
(19,917 posts)Eventually enough people will die and word will get around that their cars aren't safe and people will stop buying them, right? Problem solved! Isn't that how unfettered market-driven capitalism is supposed to work?
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Wow that is twice what Chrysler saved on the single catch latch(rear hatch) on their minivans. I bet some bean counter got a big raise for that idea. This happened about the same time that GM was trying to figure out how to pay back the money "borrowed" from the union retirement accounts.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)With that said, this is just another example of why loyalty to brands is nonsense.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... I''m not going to defend GM here one bit, bit who came up with the .57 number? There is NO repair to ANY car that costs .57. To fix this problem they would have to replace the ignition switch. A more realistic estimate? $20 for the part and $50 for the labor. Minimum.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The same keys that they charge over $200 a piece to "program". It is possible that the original lock cylinder is reusable with the new part, so that new keys are not required. In that case, I can see just the switch part being fairly cheap. But the whole thing is designed to be not easy to take apart. Half hour at best, probably more. Car thief could do it much quicker, but one wouldn't like the look of their interior afterward.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Not quite the same thing as cost of replacing existing switches.
SharonAnn
(13,767 posts)And they continued buying that cheaper switch even after problems showed up.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)and therein lies the issue. Buying the less expensive part was not the issue, continuing to buy it and not addressing the issue once discovered is.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)1.2 billion for misleading folks about the acceleration problem in their cars? Haven't heard any talk about fining GM ..but of course they're a AMERICAN company . Ms Bigmack
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)You've watched Fight Club, no?
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)this is now what we have to look at for some months on end, for others lifetimes and beyond.