Belanger Park River Rouge
ON THIS DATE IN DETROIT HISTORY - DOWNTOWN PONTIAC »



Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1

    Default GM’s Supplier-Squeezing Days Gave Birth to Flawed Models - Recall 13 years too late

    Curious if anyone is impacted by this and what a Class Action status would mean? I have an '07 G5 and my brother in-law has an '05 Ion, and I can confidently say what shit cars they really are.

    My father-in-law's '13 Traverse is also being recalled though unrelated

    They were purchased out of feigned loyalty as our entire family works/worked for GM at some point in their lives.

    I know I won't get crap for it when I replace it, but I'm truly disgusted by how bad things got in the run up to bankruptcy.

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...252016191.html

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...ed-models.html
    Last edited by hybridy; March-26-14 at 02:43 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    In all the discussions I have heard on the news about these faulty parts and the recalls, I have yet to hear who the supplier or suppliers were that manufactured these parts in the first place. Does anyone know? I spent many years working for sales offices for parts manufacturers and I am curious to know where these parts were manufactured and/or assembled. I doubt they were made by GM themselves, but probably by a Tier 1 or 2 supplier.

    Somebody out there in DetroitYes-land must know

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blueidone View Post
    In all the discussions I have heard on the news about these faulty parts and the recalls, I have yet to hear who the supplier or suppliers were that manufactured these parts in the first place. Does anyone know? I spent many years working for sales offices for parts manufacturers and I am curious to know where these parts were manufactured and/or assembled. I doubt they were made by GM themselves, but probably by a Tier 1 or 2 supplier.

    Somebody out there in DetroitYes-land must know

    "The right to manufacture the switch had been won by Dublin, Ireland-based Eaton Corp. [[ETN), according to documents from a wrongful-death lawsuit filed against GM. Delphi bought Eaton’s switch division in 2001.

    It wasn’t immediately clear how the pricing squeeze played out in the ignition switch made by Delphi’s Mechatronics division. The switches in the Ion and Cobalt were initially made at a Mechatronics factory in Foley, Alabama, which had an expensive union contract, said the person familiar with the supplier.

    As the pricing pressures continued, Delphi sent moving trucks late one night in 2005 to pack up the Foley factory’s machinery and move it to Matamoros, Mexico, where workers were paid far less, this person said. Workers at the plant, just across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas, made the equivalent of about $11 a day at the time, the person said."



    Last edited by hybridy; March-26-14 at 06:06 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Thank you for that information....I knew someone would have it!

  5. #5

    Default

    Everything I've read indicates that this was a design problem and not a supplier/manufacturing defect. That is why the recall is so widespread and includes so many different models of cars.

    The length of the detent plunger and stiffness of the spring were eventually revised to increase the torque in the ignition switch and keep it from rotating out of position due to the weight of heavy key rings.

    http://www.autonews.com/article/2014...erged-in-2001#

  6. #6

    Default

    Mikeg: I'm sure that GM designed it. However, in parts manufactured by the companies represented by the agencies I worked for, the manufacturing engineers would also test and re-test parts before putting them into production.

    But I'm sure no one considered the fact that drivers would use such heavy keychains, at first anyway. I sure don't understand why the design wasn't changed when they were made aware of it, though.

  7. #7

    Default

    The design of this switch was reportedly changed to provide a more solid engagement in the "on" position detent. However, because this was a physical change to the switch that was intended to make it perform differently, it should have been given a new part number - but from what I've read it wasn't. A new part number would have forced a new physical test validation of the part prior to usage and created a material delivery break point in the assembly operations.
    Last edited by Mikeg; March-27-14 at 09:53 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.