GM recalls more than 2 million vehicles - Lap Belt Problems

[Marc]

From Reuters

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.

[Al Dyer]

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.

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

[amanbhai]

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

[Atul Khandekar]

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.

[AllanJ]

Originally Posted by amanbhai

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.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by amanbhai

...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.

[Jim Wynne]

Originally Posted by Marc

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.

[Laura M]

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.