Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: General Motors Issues A Recall Of 254,000 2000-2003 Saturn L-Series Cars.

This is topic General Motors Issues A Recall Of 254,000 2000-2003 Saturn L-Series Cars. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002180

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-24-2003, 09:48 PM:

Another quality control problem? This recall is about several things:

1. The recall is to correct an engine problem that has led to fires. The recall is to replace ignition modules and spark plugs. Apparently, Some of these vehicles may misfire, which could lead to failures in the exhaust system. If the initial condition is not fixed and the vehicle continues to be driven, there could be further damage to the brakes, fuel sustem, or other components. Continued driving could result in a car fire.

2. Also slated in the recall is reprogramming of the power train control module.

I wonder if this is another case of "Let's get it on the streets and worry about making it work later."

I read that Ford had a failure like this some time ago, where the engine continued to backfire but it was driven anyway. Eventually, the catalytic converter spit out hot sparks and set the right-of-ways along the highway on fire. Eventually, the engine quit, the car caught fire and was destroyed by that fire.

If I recall correctly, this happened in Wisconsin.

Somewhere I have heard the auto manufacturers are well aware of their design engineering problems, but it is cheaper to "let it go" and face the recall. By time the recall might happen, most of the vehicles are on the junk pile anyway.

Wasn't there a major class-action suit on Ford's Pinto with the exploding gasoline tank? And wasn't there a class action suit on General Motors pick-up trucks about the gasoline tank rupture in event of a side collision?

I wonder about this....quite often. [Eek!]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-24-2003, 10:05 PM:

I think the infamous Pinto lawsuit involved a car that pulled out onto a highway in front of a van traveling at 50+ mph and got rear ended. Is anything supposed to survive that?

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-24-2003, 10:20 PM:

Well, Steve...it did shorten the wheelbase slightly... [Big Grin]

I don't think the Pinto was unsafe as many said it was. The biggest think I didn't like about it is that it was grossly under-powered. I had one once, and it was a mere re-enforced Budweiser Beer Can.

Most Ford products I am aware of have the gasoline tank relocated to give it some protection from a rear-end collision.

I think GM's pick-ups were not any worse than Ford's Gran Torino or Mercury Montego station wagons of the same basic vintage. The fuel tank had no protection at all, just like the GM trucks. GM got caught...Ford didn't. That's the only difference.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 06-25-2003, 12:23 AM:

Without debating the specifics of the lawsuit, whatever it took to get those fugly Pintos out of production was ethically & morally justifiable.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-25-2003, 01:06 AM:

Yeah, William. I gave that old Pinto away (complete with an asbestos suit) just to get that under-powered hunk of crap out of my face. [Smile]

Bt the way, I read some time ago the Late Henry Ford II was arrested in Los Angeles during a automotive convention. He was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The LA police noticed a Pinto going the wrong way on a one way street. When he was arested, they asked him what his name was. After the dust settled, a Ford Motor Company spokesperson had "No Comment."

I forgot what year that was....but it was shortly before the Pinto finally went out of production. Maybe some of you guys remember reading that.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2003, 02:08 AM:

I've never had anything except bad times with Fords (wow, look at all of the negative words in that sentence... "never", "bad", "Fords"). Everyone I know has had troubles with every single Ford they have owned as well. I, for one, will not buy an American car simply because they are not built as well nor as reliable. That really isn't debatable. Once America starts making the majority of their vehicles reliable, safe, and well and prove it by keeping it up for a decade, then I will buy an American car again.

Until then, my 2003 Honda Civic EX will last me. And I never even have to change oil, gas, air filters, engines, nothin'. It runs on magic. In all honesty however, over 400 miles on 11.5 gallons of gas driving around town with the air conditioner on is pretty damn good.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-25-2003, 05:42 AM:

Ford was a really bad anti-semite who received a decoration from Hitler and made a lot of money from his shares in German machine factories - even when Germany and the US were already at war.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 06-25-2003, 06:44 AM:

On the fuel tank stories on GM pick ups. Several years ago after getting wind of fires when vehicles with tanks mounted outside frame rail were struck from the side, one of the tv networks tried to male it happen by ramming these trucks in that area. After many attempts that didn't even result in spilled gas they rigged an explosive device to rupture the tank and ignite the fire. They ran stories showing this on the evening news. After they were found out they made many apologies and retractions. It turned out that these trucks had only a very slightly higher incidence of fire than those with tanks mounted inside frame rails. Even the NHTSA deemed it insignificant.

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 06-25-2003, 08:27 AM:

In case anyone cares, the process by which these decisions is made is referred to as "Risk Management" and it is done on a routine basis every day. Basically a company says (unofficially, within a super-secret subcommittee) "We have a problem with our product. It will cost us 20 Million dollars to do a recall and fix it. If it fails and kills someone (ormilar) they could sue us and get several million dollars. The liklihood of this happening is 10 in a million chances - let's not do the recall and take the risk - it will be cheaper."

Within large companies there are whole departments that are just there to analyze these risks and recommend such decisions to the board.

Another little-known example they taught us in marketing class is about Tab cola. Back in those days it was one of the higher selling colas because it only had one calorie. It really didn't. It had something like 40 calories, but it only cost them $250,000 a year to pay the fines for false advertising, and that was far less than their potential losses if they lost market share...

This has been marketing 101 for Wednesday, June 25th....

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 06-25-2003, 09:07 AM:

The Saturn assembly plant here in Tennessee is about an hour away from my house. I remember in 1993 or 94, me and my ex-wife had just bought a new Saturn SL2 when they very first came out. Back then, owning a Saturn was kind of like owning a Gateway 2000 computer. Kind of hip and trendy. Not so anymore. Anyway, we got a recall notice about a month later on her car that the wrong type of anti-freeze was installed at the factory, and we could return the car for a new one. Instead of replacing the anti-freeze, they replaced the entire car! It made the national news... because Saturn took all of these cars back to the factory in Spring Hill, parked them in a field and then crushed them to insure they wouldn't be back on the road.

My new wife (of almost 6 years now) drives a 93 Saturn with almost 200k miles on it. With the exception of the headliner falling and a leaking sunroof, it's been a great little car.
It does need a new valve cover gasket.. but that's about it.

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 06-25-2003, 11:33 AM:

This may be a little late, but the Ford Pinto issue was more than a lawsuit. It was the first time a corporation was charged with murder in a criminal court because they knowingly placed an unsafe car in the marketplace. They were found not-guilty. As for Henry Ford driving drunk in a pinto? I find it very hard to believe that he drove that car EVER!

Having a father that was a Ford Dealer for 32 years gives me a little insight..besides telling me to go run a theatre. The reason American automobiles are more poorly constructed is that we comparative to income pay less for our cars than other countries. As impossible as it sounds. Also most countries do not have room for junkyards and their governments place sanctions on companies that produce a failing product. As of the 2002 model year the only domestic car that had a "design life" of over 10 yrs. 100k mis. was the Lincoln LS with 150k design life. BTW it is built on a Jaguar platform.

The trend is changing though. Domestics have lost so much market share they are getting considerably better. In fact Ford is producing at least 6 cars on the Mazda 6 platform in the next 2 years. Crysler is changing many of it's cars to rear wheel drive again due to the Mercedez influence. As for European autos Audi is built better than all... my brother stayed in the car bus. and works with foreign autos on the service end.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-25-2003, 12:13 PM:

quote:
As of the 2002 model year the only domestic car that had a "design life" of over 10 yrs. 100k mis. was the Lincoln LS with 150k design life.

Ouch!

Ever car that I've owned has had over 100k miles, until I bought my current one (1996 Volvo station wagon which now has just over 71k miles) in February. My previous car (a 1990 Volvo station wagon) had about 186k when I sold it. It ran fine, but was going to need $1200 worth of work soon and I couldn't justify spending $1200 on a car that was worth maybe $1500. I expect to keep my current car for at least five years and will probably put another 80-100k miles on it in that time. I know that Volvo station wagons aren't exactly "chick magnet" cars, but they are practical for me and I've been quite happy with the quality of the two that I've owned. Definitely a step up from the 1985 Pontiac station wagon that I had before then (sold it in the late '90s with 144k miles on it).

I know relatively little about the mechanical aspects of cars, but from an economic point of view I have a hard time understanding why so many people want to buy "new" cars when there are so many good used ones for sale with low mileage for significantly lower prices.

Barry--why would Saturn replace the whole car when they could have just replaced the antifreeze? Was it just a marketing stunt?

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-25-2003, 01:44 PM:

OK now youve done it! I have to defend ford here.

First of all, EVERY car maker has crappy product, not just ford. Ford does not have the worst record either. When it comes to trucks, the number of ford trucks vs every other truck that remains on the road after ten years is 2 to 1.

The ford taurus was also the first american made car to recieve all five stars in crash tests from all angles.

While there have been plenty of setbacks, the new head of Ford, Bill Ford Jr. has revamped operations to make safer, longer lasting, and less costly vehicles. His efforts in the past two years have let to a 6 percent increase in market share, and a whopping 40 percent decrease in vehicle recalls.

Note that a 40 percent decrease in vehicle recalls does not mean that they are just refusing to issue them. ON the contrary, they are issuing recall notices as fast as they can process them.

Remember it was the Ford/Firestone fiasco that led to hundreds of Explorer turnovers and many deaths. Ford was on the brink of elimination and bankruptcy when Bill Ford Jr. Stepped in to make Ford a respectable auto company.

As for quality control, it is always easy to say that they are just rushing them as fast as possible to road without proper QC. However how can you really know what is going to happen until you get those models on the road? The lab and the real world are quite different. It takes several months of hundreds if not thousands of users to find defects over a period of months or years.

later this year you will see the new Mustang, loaded with safety features, and one hell of a powerful engine, and a really sleek new look that brings the old mustang look into the new age.

The pinto is dead, lets leave it dead. The pinto should not be the defining factor of a car maker, when they have so many other things to be proud of.

I mean really, no one ever talks about your cousin fred who happens to be a fighter pilot and just once fucked a goat as bieng fred the goat fucker now do we?

Dave

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-25-2003, 01:47 PM:

Don is corrrect about the "risk management" idea. I read that some time ago, and I was aware of it when I made my post. However, I was not able to write it as good as Don did, so I skipped it.

Barry, I read about the Saturn and its anti-freeze problem, and that they did replace the entire car. However, I was not aware of those cars being destroyed to get them out of circulation.

Henry Ford II did get nabbed for DUI while he was driving the Pinto. It made national attention. I wish I could remember the date that happened, and what media I read that in....but it certainly was not a sleezoid magazine...

Scott, Saturn was very proud of their product. It is my understanding that for years, Saturn didn't want anything to do with GM.

Joe, those Hondas seem to run forever. They are good cars. I bought mine out of the junkyard that were wrecked. I hung a fender and door on several of them, and drove them for a thousands of miles. I either gave them away when they were worn out, or sold them.

Personally, I had good luck with Fords, with exception of a few "dogs" such as that damn Taurus. What a POS! I think I will donate it, or call Billy Buttram (who owns a junk yard) and tell him to haul it off my property.

GM eats shit! I have one now.....it was a sorry day in hell that I bought that hunk of crap.

I guess Ford's Crown Victoria is a good machine. The city police, county sheriffs and the state patrol drive those things....and they love them. They dumped the Chevrolet Craprice line in favor of the Vics. They were having too many problems with the Chevrolets. Jack might remember some of the news articles about them....like cracked frames, brake problems, etc.

By the way, Billy's surname is correct. Buttram. I am not kidding.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-25-2003, 02:20 PM:

Ford had the Pinto. GM had Chevy Vega. Chrysler had those abominable K-Cars. Toyota's early 6-cylinder engines were notoriously unreliable. Honda Oddyssey vans go through transmissions like most people change their socks. There's plenty of examples of bad products from just about all the major car companies.

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 06-25-2003, 03:44 PM:

Paul wrote -

quote:
The recall is to replace ignition modules and spark plugs. Apparently, Some of these vehicles may misfire, which could lead to failures in the exhaust system. If the initial condition is not fixed and the vehicle continues to be driven, there could be further damage to the brakes,

How can a bad spark plug and ignition modules have anything to do with the brakes? In other words your car was built defective and we are trying to cover our butts before the law suits come.

I use to drive a 94 Mazda B2300, which is a Ford, in Mazda badges. I only had one problem on the way to 110,000+ miles, the check engine light came on for no reason. That was all. It is still a great little truck. I would by own again if i needed a truck.

Ford had made some good models like the F series, but there cars well need some work.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-25-2003, 04:45 PM:

David, don't forget the Chevvy Chevette.....Now THAT was a real masterpiece. Take it on the road, look at the floor of the car and watch the road go by. Then, put it in 5th and the car will slow down because the engine didn't have enough "oomph" to keep it rolling. [Big Grin]

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 06-25-2003, 05:21 PM:

Michael S.

You were correct about Henry Ford being an anti-Semite!

Old Henry was one hell of an innovator, but he was a real bastard! Look at how he treated his son, Edsel. Not to mention the infamous Harry Bennet!

Ford did publish the Protocals of the Elders of Zion.

Not to defend him, but Ford had plants all over the globe, many of which came under Axis influence. But he did contribute a lot to the U.S. war effort.

Henry II has done a lot to try ease ties with the Jewish people, and it was said that Henry did have a heart attack while viewing news-reel footage of the death camps.

FoMoCo has published a history of the company to commemorate FoMoCo's 100th birthday. I was impressed that the book does cover Ford's relationship with the Jewish people, as well as the infamous Harry Bennet.

But I do love my '65 Falcon Ranchero! Yes...I do love classic Ford's...the 289/302/351C has always been a great and reliable engine!

Don B. mentioned "Risk Management". true,true! Furthermore, notice how the Big Three forced innovators like Tucker out of business because they were a threat. If one only knew how many patents these companies have on the shelf...they of course do not introduce everything at once...it is a part of another aspect "Failure Analysis"...and also being able to constantly market new products over a period of decades. For example, look at Duesenberg...the Model "J" was a straight eight with dual overhead cams and four valves per cylinder. After Duesenberg's demise, who ever saw any of these designes in production cars? Finally, in the late 1980's and early 1990's, Detroit reintroduced these old designes and called them "new technology"!

Here is one I will never forget. In 1972 or 1973, my parents purchased a brand-new Pontiac 4 door Tempest (a low end GTO) Right from the factory the car would not startand my Dad left the car at the dealership for repairs. He got a call the the car was repaired and in working order, so he went to the dealership to pick it up. He was stunned and pissed to find that the hood and front end were badly damaged on this brand new car. The dealerships excuse for the damage was that they could not get the hood open! Anyhow, the car never did run right and was always a problem. My Dad knew that the problem lie with the carburator, but the dealership refused to touch it and continued to dick with everything under the sun. My folks finally traded the Pontiac in for a 1974 AMC Hornet station wagon with a 232 straight 6. Another pain-in-the-ass car. The distributor is mounted low and on the side of this engine...that had a fairly open engine compartment. God help you if it was raining and you went through a puddle...no matter how small! The joints and body seals on this car were not at all great, and everything always rattled like mad! Furthermor, whenever it was driven out of its native enviornment it would without fail crap out...A weekend outing always consisted of having a few gallons of spare anti-freeze, new radiator hoses, tools and other misc goodies!

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-25-2003, 07:14 PM:

William, I don't have the slightest idea what it has to do with the brakes, unless the engine does not return to the idle when the foot is removed from the accelerator and the brake is applied.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 06-25-2003, 09:10 PM:

I love my Ford F-150 truck. It's a 1984 work truck with nearly 300k on it. I am getting ready to replace the original radiator. It still has the original engine, a rebuilt 300 6-cylinder.

I have never liked Ford cars.

I used to own Chryslers. First car was a 1967 Plymouth Fury VIP with a 440 engine. Wish I still had it!

First GM car was a 1966 Pontiac GTO. This was a really good car, except for the gas mileage. Had 3-2bbl carbs on it!

I also currently have a 1985 Olds Toronado. This one is the last of the forward-facing V8 engine front-wheel-drive cars. It is not a large car, but it is a heavy car. There is waay too much plastic on it to suit me, but it does run well, and has 101k on it with no problems to speak of.

Since gas is insane these days, I drive a 1986 Pontiac Grand AM to work. It uses the little 151 cu in. engine with fuel injection. Scoots like a bat out of hell! It is a real rust-bucket, and has almost 250k on it. I'm going to run it until it dies. It's easy to work on. It's a ruster because the original owner was from up north where they salt the roads more than they do here.

I have never owned a GM truck. I just dont like them. All the ones I see around here that are getting some age on them are rusted pretty bad.

The Ford Pinto was vastly better than that damn Chevy Vega!

I agree with the Chevette comments. Remember when they came out? I drove one and was appalled with the lack of power. The one I drove had A/C and the speed would drop by 10-15 mph when the compressor cycled. What were they thinking at GM?

I drive all these old cars because I feel like it is a big rip-off to pay the kinds of money that the manufacturers want for the junky cheap feeling cars that I see today. I paid $14,000 for my 1985 Oldsmobile. It was my last new car. I still feel that this car was not really worth that amount.

I dread buying a car again. The ones I have will not last forever, I know.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-25-2003, 09:18 PM:

Add me to the Honda list. I have never had a bad Honda. They get good gas mileage and are the most reliable vehicles I have ever had. (The worst one being a Ford Mustang pos from the 80's. 0 to 60 in 3.2 minutes!) I own a Honda Passport now and when it dies I will buy another.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 06-26-2003, 01:07 AM:

quote:
My new wife (of almost 6 years now) drives a 93 Saturn with almost 200k miles on it. With the exception of the headliner falling and a leaking sunroof, it's been a great little car.

If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they get post-1980 headliners to stay up? Recall those, I say!

quote:
Ford had the Pinto. GM had Chevy Vega. Chrysler had those abominable K-Cars. Toyota's early 6-cylinder engines were notoriously unreliable. Honda Oddyssey vans go through transmissions like most people change their socks. There's plenty of examples of bad products from just about all the major car companies.

In the mid & late 1970s, you'd see Fiat X1/9's & those mid-engined Porsches littering the shoulders of the US interstates. They were everywhere, you got where you didn't even really see them. They were like beer cans on the side of the road. I can think of no other makes over the decades that were such dense, uniform, constant abandoned road trash.

quote:
The reason American automobiles are more poorly constructed is that we comparative to income pay less for our cars than other countries. As impossible as it sounds. Also most countries do not have room for junkyards and their governments place sanctions on companies that produce a failing product.

A great example of this is the Yugo. They were actually pretty good cars (although the transmisssion felt like stirring [bs]

with a stick), but so cheap that when it came time to replace the timing belt, the parts & labor cost more than the car was worth used! You didn't see them by the side of the road so much; people walked away from them at the mechanics'. I think some of the earliest ones imported to the US had catalytic converters that failed quickly, but other than that, they were very sturdy & reliable.