From Reuters (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=233VA2S2EFHHACRBAE0CFEY?type=businessNews&storyID=8284942) DETROIT - General Motors Corp. Monday said it was recalling more than 2 million vehicles to fix a variety of potential safety defects, most of them on cars and trucks sold in the United States.

In the latest setback for the world’s largest automaker, GM said the largest of the safety actions included nearly 1.5 million full-size pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles from the 2003 to 2005 model years with second-row seat belts that may be difficult to properly position across passengers’ hips.

GM, which led the auto industry in U.S. recalls last year, said it voluntarily conducted that recall, although it had no reports that the belts caused or contributed to any injuries, and an analysis indicates a very low likelihood of problems occurring.

“Recalling these vehicles to provide improved routing of the lap belt is an important precautionary measure,” Bob Lange, GM’s director of structure and safety integration, said in a statement.

The recall includes some of GM’s top-selling pickup trucks and SUVs, including the model year 2003 to 2005 Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Tahoe, Hummer H2, Cadillac Escalade, GMC Yukon, GMC Yukon XL and the crew cab versions of the Chevrolet Silverado and the GMC Sierra.

The recall is one of the largest for GM since March last year when it recalled more than 4 million full-size pickup trucks to replace tailgate support cables that may corrode and fracture. That led to a record year in recalls for GM, which ran counter to claims it had improved the quality of its cars and trucks.

Last week, GM said it lost $1.1 billion in the first quarter, including a loss of $1.56 billion in North America alone, where the automaker has lost market share to Japanese competitors with a reputation for building quality vehicles.

Five other recalls
GM also announced five other recalls on Monday. They include a recall of 332,202 of the 1500 Series Chevrolet Suburban and Yukon XL SUVs from the 2000 and 2001 model years for possible overheating of fuel pump wires that could lead to engine stalling, failure to start, a possible fuel leak and inaccurate fuel-level readings.

Also recalled were 142,585 1500 Series Silverado and Sierra pickups from the 1999-2002 model years and 2500 and 3500 Series pickups from the 2001-2004 model years with manual transmissions. The parking brakes could wear out, allowing the vehicles to move unexpectedly.

GM also recalled 69,037 of its 2005 model year Buick Lacrosse and Buick Allure sedans, which went on sale last year, for a potential problem with a brake part that could lead to brake loss. GM said it was aware of a low-speed crash, which did not result in any injuries, as a consequence of the potentially faulty brakes.

Also recalled were 39,078 2004-model year Buick Rendezvous and Pontiac Aztek SUVs, which could stall or fail to start due to a faulty ignition relay. GM said the problem resulted in one minor crash, but no injuries.

Lastly, GM recalled 22,115 Saturn L Series wagons from the 2002 to 2004 model years because they were built with center and passenger-side rear seat belt anchors that fail to comply with U.S. and Canadian safety standards.

GM will notify owners of the recalled vehicles and dealers will repair the parts for free.

And this one,


I sure wish I could borrow money from myself!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

OutFront Creative Finance Joann Muller, 05.09.05



You aren't wowed by the new Buick LaCrosse? Maybe we can interest you in a two-year CD. You know the General Motors finance guys are getting imaginative when the automaker establishes its own bank to scare up cash. Now, with the blessing of federal regulators, GM can get financing via its own bank subsidiary at half the cost of what it would pay investors to take bonds off its hands. GMAC Automotive Bank, an industrial loan corporation set up in Utah in June 2004, is not unique--Toyota and other competitors have banklike subsidiaries in Nevada and elsewhere. (GMAC operates three other limited-purpose banks, serving its unrelated mortgage business.)



Toyota doesn't need the money; GM does. GM's bonds are rated one notch above junk by Standard & Poor's and Moody's, and the unsecured debt of its financing arm, General Motors Acceptance Corp., is scarcely better. The burden of keeping the money spigots flowing falls on Eric Feldstein, 45, who became GMAC chairman in November 2002. GMAC, with $324 billion in assets, has been carrying the automaker for several years; in 2004 it racked up earnings of $2.9 billion, while the core auto business lost $89 million.



Now, with GM expected to lose nearly $1 billion in the first quarter, Feldstein's challenge is more daunting than ever. He must find a way to shrink the finance unit's balance sheet (freeing up cash for the parent to use for product development and for possible factory closings and job cuts) while keeping the profit engine from conking out. Feldstein figures GMAC will earn at least $2.5 billion in aftertax profit this year and provide a dividend to GM of at least $2 billion. And he says GMAC has enough funding alternatives, such as sales of asset-backed securities or income from its fast-growing mortgage and insurance businesses, to preserve the company's liquidity. The new bank, with assets of $1.2 billion and growing, could help out there. It accepts brokered deposits and then invests that money in high-quality vehicle loans made to GM customers and dealers. Those deposits are insured up to $100,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. So GM's bank can pay an affordable 4% on a two-year certificate of deposit.



That sure beats having GMAC borrow money itself for lending to dealers--two-year GMAC paper is yielding 7.5% to maturity. The hazard here is that GM might be tempted to load up the bank with poor-quality loans to shaky dealers in an effort to pump up vehicles sales, says Sean Egan, managing director of Egan-Jones Ratings. Depositors needn't worry. But taxpayers could be forgiven for getting a little anxious.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please folks see the news below & decide should we put quality on trial. Is there any other way of improving the system, process or products.

GM to recall more than 2 million vehicles.
source CNN.com & ASQ.org dated april 27, 2005

FYI
I merged the last post from a new thread Mr. Amanbhai started in the "Preventive Actions" forum; because the topic was being discussed here already.

Please folks see the news below & decide should we put quality on trial. Is there any other way of improving the system, process or products.

GM to recall more than 2 million vehicles.
source CNN.com & ASQ.org dated april 27, 2005

What an intriguing question.

I do not think we could put "quality" on trial. But perhaps the "absence of quality" could be put on trial. Or perhaps the "quality movement and its real achievements" might be put on trial.

...should we put quality on trial. Is there any other way of improving the system, process or products... It's not clear that this is a quality or system issue at all. It sounds like a design issue to me. The article speaks of a "...better routing..." which to me implies a design issue.

It's not clear that this is a quality or system issue at all. It sounds like a design issue to me. The article speaks of a "...better routing..." which to me implies a design issue.

You raise an interesting point. Some who read your statement might leap out of their chairs and say, "But wait! Good design is quality." But the distinction lies in the idea that many (most?) companies are structured with engineering departments and quality departments, and the quality department makes judgments based on the specifications generated by the engineers. So it's possible for a successful operation to result in a dead patient.

I bet the suppliers of all the components were TS, and PPAP'd their parts!!!
This is system all the way - sounds almost like a 'stack up' issue on wear the belt hits the hips - so a combo of seat 'thickness,' the buckle 'height' etc. Could be alot of things. But I'd throw it into the 'design' arena.

Seems like there should have been a "design FMEA" on this one.

As I recall, most of my complaints about products from tea kettles to automobiles seem to be more "dumb design" than poor execution of the design by manufacturing. Here's some examples from just this week:

Stainless steel whistling tea kettle with plated steel fasteners holding the handle and which rusted within two months of purchase
Automobile radio with controls so tiny and dim I have to use an unsharpened pencil to punch the buttons because my fingers cover two buttons at once.
Scissors with plastic handles that break in normal use (wrong grade of plastic, too thin a cross-section at stress point)
wooden stool with only one undersize wood screw holding each leg to seat - torsion from twisting on seat shears unhardened screws.
automobile designed so airflow when vehicle is in motion sucks up salt spray from street and deposits it on rear window where it dries (with or without rear window defroster in use) and blocks vision.
"childproof" cigarette lighter which requires holding down a special lever before and during lighting to sustain flame. Problem is the device gets too hot to hold if the flame is lit for more than 5 seconds - takes another ten seconds to cool enough to return to pants or shirt pocket.
Coffee maker designed with nonfunctional lines and creases which collect coffee stains from the drip basket and can only be cleaned with a toothbrush and mild bleach solution, because the plastic soaks up the stain.

Seems like there should have been a "design FMEA" on this one.
What about the the DFMEA on the Firestone tires?

...most of my complaints about products from tea kettles to automobiles seem to be more "dumb design" than poor execution of the design by manufacturing. My experience as well.

Seems like there should have been a "design FMEA" on this one.

You can bet that there's a DFMEA document somewhere, but was there really an analysis? I doubt it. In general, automotive-world doesn't differentiate between the container and the thing contained.

As I recall, most of my complaints about products from tea kettles to automobiles seem to be more "dumb design" than poor execution of the design by manufacturing. Here's some examples from just this week:

Stainless steel whistling tea kettle with plated steel fasteners holding the handle and which rusted within two months of purchase
Automobile radio with controls so tiny and dim I have to use an unsharpened pencil to punch the buttons because my fingers cover two buttons at once.
Scissors with plastic handles that break in normal use (wrong grade of plastic, too thin a cross-section at stress point)
wooden stool with only one undersize wood screw holding each leg to seat - torsion from twisting on seat shears unhardened screws.
automobile designed so airflow when vehicle is in motion sucks up salt spray from street and deposits it on rear window where it dries (with or without rear window defroster in use) and blocks vision.
"childproof" cigarette lighter which requires holding down a special lever before and during lighting to sustain flame. Problem is the device gets too hot to hold if the flame is lit for more than 5 seconds - takes another ten seconds to cool enough to return to pants or shirt pocket.
Coffee maker designed with nonfunctional lines and creases which collect coffee stains from the drip basket and can only be cleaned with a toothbrush and mild bleach solution, because the plastic soaks up the stain.
This is a great list. My guess is that numbers one and four were the result not of poor engineering necessarily, but cost cutting. The engineers presented a design, a BOM and a cost breakdown and a bean-counter decided .08 cents needed to be cut from the per-unit cost, and the engineers were faced with a d*mned if you do, d*mned if you don't choice.

Seems like there should have been a "design FMEA" on this one.

As I recall, most of my complaints about products from tea kettles to automobiles seem to be more "dumb design" than poor execution of the design by manufacturing. Here's some examples from just this week:

Stainless steel whistling tea kettle with plated steel fasteners holding the handle and which rusted within two months of purchase
Automobile radio with controls so tiny and dim I have to use an unsharpened pencil to punch the buttons because my fingers cover two buttons at once.
Scissors with plastic handles that break in normal use (wrong grade of plastic, too thin a cross-section at stress point)
wooden stool with only one undersize wood screw holding each leg to seat - torsion from twisting on seat shears unhardened screws.
automobile designed so airflow when vehicle is in motion sucks up salt spray from street and deposits it on rear window where it dries (with or without rear window defroster in use) and blocks vision.
"childproof" cigarette lighter which requires holding down a special lever before and during lighting to sustain flame. Problem is the device gets too hot to hold if the flame is lit for more than 5 seconds - takes another ten seconds to cool enough to return to pants or shirt pocket.
Coffee maker designed with nonfunctional lines and creases which collect coffee stains from the drip basket and can only be cleaned with a toothbrush and mild bleach solution, because the plastic soaks up the stain.


It is quite an impressive list, Wes, and your post infers you actually purchased some or all of those products. If the defects such as the auto radio were patent before you bought why did you buy them? :confused:

It is quite an impressive list, Wes, and your post infers you actually purchased some or all of those products. If the defects such as the auto radio were patent before you bought why did you buy them? :confused:

He didn't say he bought the car - maybe it was a rental or a borrowed vehicle ;)

I always remember my dad would be in the driveway working on one of the family cars and shouting from under the hood "What #$@! engineer designed this *insert broken part here* anyway? I'd like to shake his hand, he's done a fine job. He's designed something that's sure to break, and when it does, you can't get at it to fix it without a complete engine pull!!!"

It is correct to say I did not spend any of my own money for the products in the list, but they did come into my use and/or observation in the past week.

I don't smoke, for instance, but I did borrow a lighter from someone who did to light the little candles on a child's birthday cake - hence the reason to keep the flame lit for more than a second or two.

I was talking to a woman sitting on the stool. She twisted to reach something and the stool seat detached from the legs because the screws had been sheared off. After I helped her up, I examined the stool parts and discovered the condition. Since nothing was injured except her dignity, she had no recourse to a lawsuit. She might be able to make a case to the store which sold her the stool for her money back, but she said, "For the $14 it cost, I'll just throw it out and be more aware when I buy the next stool what to look out for."

The problem is not that the products are design defective, it is that the manufacturers do not have a system in place to harvest comments and complaints and evaluate them for clues to continual improvement of their products. I looked that stool over from top to bottom and there was not one identifying mark to trace the stool back to its manufacturer.

The lighter was a "Bic-style", but had no logo identifying manufacturer. Same for the tea kettle.

One car was American design and manufacture. One car was foreign design manufactured by American plant.

When I made complaints about design flaws to auto manufacturers in the past (in writing, neat, not explosive expletives), I never even received the courtesy of an acknowledgement, let alone an individualized reply.

Arrogance and hubris pervades manufacturing and service companies across the world. Folks like the lady with the stool are so inured to the situation, they don't waste breath or effort anymore to seek redress or change. When the complaints stop, the complacency factor is added to hubris and arrogance for a deadly combination leading to disasters like gas tank explosions, train wrecks, plane crashes, car rollovers, broken bones, blinded eyes, shuttle disintegration, and death.

It all hearkens back to "For want of a nail, the shoe was lost . . ."

Is it any wonder so many of our profession have become so cynical?

I don't smoke, for instance, but I did borrow a lighter from someone who did to light the little candles on a child's birthday cake - hence the reason to keep the flame lit for more than a second or two.



Ah-ha - so you used a 'cigarette lighter' to light candles, and you want to blame the design? I'm busting on you a little, but at the same time, maybe it was designed to be help upright and used long enough to light a cigarette, not sideways and long enough to light candles. :bonk:

When I made complaints about design flaws to auto manufacturers in the past (in writing, neat, not explosive expletives), I never even received the courtesy of an acknowledgement, let alone an individualized reply.

While I agree that there's no excuse for not acknowledging a customer's feedback (I've had the same experience) and at the risk of straying :topic:I think a lot of the problem of lack of responsiveness is due to the huge number of chronic whiners in our society. There are lots of people who are never happy about anything and go to great lengths to express their displeasure on a regular basis. Anyone who has worked with the public knows the type. The use of the word "inured" works both ways, I think, because it's exactly what happens to people who do nothing but listen to malicious whining all day. I write an op-ed column for the local paper and a few years ago I wrote one about the fact that people are always complaining about the apparent indifference of retail clerks but have no clue as to what those people put up with on a daily basis. I'll post a copy if anyone's interested. The column got an unbelievable response and I was a hero for a while in the local supermarkets. There are two sides to every story...

While I agree that there's no excuse for not acknowledging a customer's feedback (I've had the same experience) and at the risk of straying :topic:I think a lot of the problem of lack of responsiveness is due to the huge number of chronic whiners in our society. There are lots of people who are never happy about anything and go to great lengths to express their displeasure on a regular basis. Anyone who has worked with the public knows the type. The use of the word "inured" works both ways, I think, because it's exactly what happens to people who do nothing but listen to malicious whining all day. I write an op-ed column for the local paper and a few years ago I wrote one about the fact that people are always complaining about the apparent indifference of retail clerks but have no clue as to what those people put up with on a daily basis. I'll post a copy if anyone's interested. The column got an unbelievable response and I was a hero for a while in the local supermarkets. There are two sides to every story...

Please do post a copy - I used to be a retail clerk and they really do put up with a lot. OTOH, I always tried not to act indifferent, even when someone was acting like a total jerk. Of course, I always quit a job like that when I'd finally dealt with the last customer I could handle. A few months down the road, when I had to start doing it again, I'd rested enough to have the strength to cope again. Unfortunately, some people don't have that option, and I don't blame them for acting fed up.

Ah-ha - so you used a 'cigarette lighter' to light candles, and you want to blame the design? I'm busting on you a little, but at the same time, maybe it was designed to be help upright and used long enough to light a cigarette, not sideways and long enough to light candles. :bonk:
Not that it makes a big hairy difference, but I opened the pack of candles, laid them on the table, lit lighter, picked up candle and lit it, then stuck in cake. Repeated relighting lighter for first three candles and had difficult time holding down "childproof lever" to relight, so I kept lighter lit through next three. It got too hot and I had to revert back to first method for last two candles. Last candle was reluctant to stay lit and it took about 6 or 7 seconds and when I handed lighter back to owner, she dropped it because it was too hot to hold, let alone return to her pocket.

POINT: Lighter was in upright (0 degrees) position whenever it was lit, not 45 degrees, not 90 degrees, not 135 degrees, certainly not 180 degrees. Candles were held variously from 45 degrees to 90 degrees from vertical.

Not that it makes a big hairy difference, but I opened the pack of candles, laid them on the table, lit lighter, picked up candle and lit it, then stuck in cake. Repeated relighting lighter for first three candles and had difficult time holding down "childproof lever" to relight, so I kept lighter lit through next three. It got too hot and I had to revert back to first method for last two candles. Last candle was reluctant to stay lit and it took about 6 or 7 seconds and when I handed lighter back to owner, she dropped it because it was too hot to hold, let alone return to her pocket.

POINT: Lighter was in upright (0 degrees) position whenever it was lit, not 45 degrees, not 90 degrees, not 135 degrees, certainly not 180 degrees. Candles were held variously from 45 degrees to 90 degrees from vertical.

Wes, I feel your pain. My solution is to light the first candle with the lighter then use the candle to light the rest. With an older person this is not much better though, as you will probably burn the bejeezus out of your fingers with melted wax at least once before you get all the candles lit. Another good way to avoid the problem is to let someone else light the candles and get burned.

Please do post a copy - I used to be a retail clerk and they really do put up with a lot. OTOH, I always tried not to act indifferent, even when someone was acting like a total jerk. Of course, I always quit a job like that when I'd finally dealt with the last customer I could handle. A few months down the road, when I had to start doing it again, I'd rested enough to have the strength to cope again. Unfortunately, some people don't have that option, and I don't blame them for acting fed up.

:topic: I always like the 'cranky' customers when it comes to waiting in line. Especially at Christmas. People that spend 15-20 minutes deciding between the green or blue sweater can't stand it if the have to wait 10 minutes in line!

I always try to be polite to clerks - they don't make up the prices, they don't switch the size 4 pants with the size 6 jacket, they don't 'leave the pile of clothes' in the dressing rooms, etc, but they take everyones flack. I usually comment about how busy they are, or ask when did you get here, and then say something like "Can you make sure the sale price is ringing up?" vs. the other people that used the clerk to take out their daily frustrations and just spout out "how much was that...did it come up on sale?" - you know the tone of voice.

Wes - OK - you win, but I wonder what the intent of the design was, a 3 second light of a cigarette or multiple relights - which makes the user liable or the manufacturer liable for not taking into account how consumers may use their product.

While I agree that there's no excuse for not acknowledging a customer's feedback (I've had the same experience) and at the risk of straying :topic:I think a lot of the problem of lack of responsiveness is due to the huge number of chronic whiners in our society.
. . .
There are two sides to every story...
Yep. Different strokes for different folks and all that. I've been on both sides of the complaint in my career.

I can't be responsible for the thought process or attitude of the guy or gal who received my complaint, but in my own defense (is it needed?), I did a typical Wes Bucey "build a watch instead of tell the time":
I documented make, model, VIN, circumstances of use when design defect became apparent, harm or damage (if any) as a result, and finished with suggestions for improvement and contact information to reach me for further comment or information.

It was essentially the kind of stuff I would like to see in a Corrective Action Request from one of MY customers.

I may have been ticked off by the item I perceived as a design flaw, but I did not write anything other than a straightforward synopsis and suggestion. The suggestion did NOT suggest putting the device in a body orifice of the designer, despite my emotions at the time of the event.

Please do post a copy - I used to be a retail clerk and they really do put up with a lot. OTOH, I always tried not to act indifferent, even when someone was acting like a total jerk. Of course, I always quit a job like that when I'd finally dealt with the last customer I could handle. A few months down the road, when I had to start doing it again, I'd rested enough to have the strength to cope again. Unfortunately, some people don't have that option, and I don't blame them for acting fed up.

Here you go.

I may have been ticked off by the item I perceived as a design flaw, but I did not write anything other than a straightforward synopsis and suggestion. The suggestion did NOT suggest putting the device in a body orifice of the designer, despite my emotions at the time of the event.

One would hope there would be someone smart enough on the other end to be able to filter the obvious chronic-whiner stuff from attempts to help. I had a situation almost exactly as you describe it, and I went to great pains to make the letter amiable and let them know that I knew whereof I spoke, and was answered with resounding silence.

One would hope there would be someone smart enough on the other end to be able to filter the obvious chronic-whiner stuff from attempts to help. I had a situation almost exactly as you describe it, and I went to great pains to make the letter amiable and let them know that I knew whereof I spoke, and was answered with resounding silence.
It would seem to lend ambivalence as to which side of the equation was more moronic -

them for ignoring us,
or
us for believing we might get a response - even just a postcard acknowledgement.

I like the tried and true; kitchen matches. They may get wet but a disposable lighter doesn't work when wet either and the striker on regular matches wears out.:cake:

K.I.S.S.---Keep It Simple Stupid

Al,