[jazusamo]

Good piece by Bill Vlasic on the background of this defect and how GM seemingly tried to cover it up.

[Paladin2]

"the force needed to turn the ignition on and off was greater. "

Functional specs on components manufactured in the millionz are really not that bad of an idea.

In fact most long lived corps. learn and remember as time progresses.

[NonValueAdded]

The newer, improved switch has now gone back into production at a Delphi plant in Mexico.

I don't know about you but I feel relieved. /s

[Cyclone59]

I wonder if the fine will be as hefty as the one that DOJ just dealt Toyota?

[lbryce]

GM. Still sweating the details.

[Still Thinking]

Mr. Hood came to realize that G.M., and the supplier that made the part, Delphi, had quietly changed the switch sometime in 2006 or early 2007, making it less likely that an unsuspecting driver could bump the ignition key and cause the car to cut off engine power and deactivate its air bags.

Now, the details behind the change have become critical issues in determining whether the automaker intentionally concealed a safety defect.

Don't think I'd call failing to resist your customers motions with adequate force, a "safety defect". Don't whack the ignition while you're driving. D'oh!

[ClearCase_guy]

the new switch had the same identification number — 10392423 — Mr. Hood found big differences.

Wow. That's a huge indicator of sloppy manufacturing process. Where was QA? I thought we tried to learn from Toyota? Traceability from functional requirements through design and on to production is pretty important. Inability to uniquely identify your components breaks the entire chain.

[Theophilus]

Im no fan of Government Motors, but black boxes exist for lawsuits which in turn will help inflate the cost of cars beyond reach, just like general aviation.

[hecticskeptic]

About 10 or 15 years ago, I rented a number of Olds Aleros and as I recollect, there were several of them that had a very serious problem. As you were turning left and giving it gas, the engine would just conk right out. Now imagine a car bearing down on you from the other direction as you are madly trying to restart the engine right in the middle of the intersection. I never did hear what the problem was all about as I don’t believe it was just isolated to the cars that I had rented.

[Gay State Conservative]

Mr. Hood came to realize that G.M., and the supplier that made the part, Delphi, had quietly changed the switch sometime in 2006 or early 2007, making it less likely that an unsuspecting driver could bump the ignition key and cause the car to cut off engine power and deactivate its air bags.

Does GM have to design and build each and every one of it's parts to withstand a "bump".One wouldn't ordinarily anticipate an "out-of-the-way" item like an ignition switch to be bumped...particularly while the car's in motion.Imagine what commercial aviation would be like today if Boeing and Airbus had to design *all* of their parts to withstand an encounter with a flock of Canadian geese.

[rawhide]

Somebody at Delphi knew about this safety problem, thus the change.

[logi_cal869]

Nobody, repeat...NOBODY changes specs on a mass-produced component with unique engineering specifications for 3rd-party outsourcing without corresponding documentation, including version subsets.

That stated, draw your own conclusions on why GM/Delphi did.

Gee...I wonder if it was ‘2 rogue engineers in the Chicago engineering dept.’...

/s

It’s my understanding they tried to kill this in the bankruptcy, but I’m too busy to follow with detail...

[piytar]

Government Motors. Obastard will just bail them aka the UAW out again.

You could not pay me enough to drive a Government Motors / UAW built death trap.

[Ramius]

I don’t think it’s all as conspiratorial as the reporters wish to think. GM does, and has done, thousands of recalls over the years, and they’ve probably got a few dozen open recall projects going at any one time. It’s nothing new to them and they’ve done them for issues larger and smaller than this ignition switch. They have whole departments full of people that this is all they do. They do, also... make a huge priority out of getting well out in front of any recall that has even the tiniest safety implications.

Especially for recall issues as seemingly cheap and easy as a swapped out ignition switch. I don’t work for GM but I’ve been in those meetings with the people who make decisions like this— and everybody always has them bassackward. They really don’t care all that much how much a recall costs. What they care about is safety and the reputation of the company. A few million here and there doesn’t mean anything if the public starts to lose faith in GM as a safe brand. That really is how they think.

[The Great RJ]

"the recalled cars were safe to drive, as long as there were no objects attached to the ignition key..."

I'm sure all of us have a remote entry fob and at least one other key attached to our ignition keys. An old time Chevy dealer told me years ago not to load up my ignition key with lots of keys and other junk as it would cause premature ignition switch failure.

[rawhide]

Delphi told panel GM approved ignition switches below specifications

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-house-panel-gm-nhtsa-documents-related-recalls-185520640—sector.html

[Verginius Rufus]

I haven’t kept up with all the model names. GM actually named a car the Flaw?

[publius911]

Good piece by Bill Vlasic on the background of this defect and how GM seemingly tried to cover it up.

Using the same part number for the redesigned switch with redesigned parts doesn't border on fraud. It is fraud!