The 2014 Recall Thread
04-09-14, 01:09 AM
#91
Center for Auto Safety calling for Chevy Impala airbag probe
April 7, 2014
The Honorable David J. Friedman
Acting Administrator
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Administrator Friedman:
On about November 15, 2013, Don Friedman of Xprts LLC filed a defect petition (DP) with NHTSA on a defective algorithm in 2003-10 General Motors that can suppress airbag deployment by erroneously classifying the occupant weight as being too low to deploy the airbag. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) is greatly concerned that there is no listing of a Defect Petition on the Agency's Website. Under Section 124(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (recodified at 49 USC § 30162(d), hereinafter Safety Act), NHTSA must grant or deny the petition within 120 days. Well over 120 days have passed since NHTSA received the petition so the Agency is in continuing violation of the Safety Act. (Attachment A shows no DP listed on NHTSA's investigation page.)
Mr. Friedman is not your average petitioner. He designed the guidance system for the Sidewinder missile, the Lunar Rover, and was the chief contractor for NHTSA's Minicars Safety Research Vehicle which provided 50-mph barrier equivalent crash protection. Mr Friedman has likely directed more dynamic vehicle crash tests than anyone outside the auto industry. In addition, he has been involved in evaluation of many hundreds of real world crashes. Like Mark Hood who uncovered the defective GM ignition switch in the Chevrolet Cobalt and its role in airbag non-deployment before NHTSA did, Mr. Friedman is an independent engineer who appears to have discovered a defective algorithm in GM advanced airbag vehicles before NHTSA did.
The defect in the algorithm is fairly simple as discovered by Mr. Friedman. "The algorithm for the weight of the passenger used the instantaneous weight to determine whether to inhibit the airbag deployment. [A vehicle] lift and bounce [can] momentarily reduce[d] the weight of the passenger to that of a small adult. Using a weight averaged over a few tens of seconds would have avoided suppressing the airbag and the resulting serious injury and fatality. Since the control module is field reprogrammable a simple recall and modifying a few lines of code can avoid repeat occurrences."
This is a design defect in every GM vehicle with the flawed algorithm. Even though the defect cases litigated by NHTSA under the Safety Act in the 1970's (see NHTSA Chief Counsel Frank Berndt memo) do not require a so-called "defect trend" as contrived by NHTSA today, existence of a design defect means every vehicle has the flaw.
In its analysis of airbags failing to deploy in crashes, NHTSA pointed to FARS as a good starting point to find crashes which may point to a defect. While FARS cannot pinpoint the precise failure mode in a crash such as a flawed algorithm, FARS can pinpoint cases to examine to find such failure modes. From Calendar Year 2000 when GM could have introduced advanced airbag vehicles with the flawed algorithm just through 2010, there were 143 frontal impact fatalities in model year 2000 to 2010 Chevrolet Impalas where the airbags failed to deploy with 98 of the fatalities being occupants who were lap/shoulder belted. (Attachment B.) We call on NHTSA to examine each of the fatal non-deployment crashes to determine whether the airbag should have deployed and why it didn't.
The Center is deeply troubled that NHTSA once again may have missed an advanced airbag like it did with the Cobalt. The Center is even more troubled that once again NHTSA has kept whatever it is doing secret behind closed doors even though there is a specific legal requirement for NHTSA to make its activities public.
The Center requests NHTSA to immediately grant or deny the defect petition filed by Mr. Friedman and Xprts as required by the Safety Act.
Sincerely,
Clarence Ditlow Executive Director
The Honorable David J. Friedman
Acting Administrator
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Administrator Friedman:
On about November 15, 2013, Don Friedman of Xprts LLC filed a defect petition (DP) with NHTSA on a defective algorithm in 2003-10 General Motors that can suppress airbag deployment by erroneously classifying the occupant weight as being too low to deploy the airbag. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) is greatly concerned that there is no listing of a Defect Petition on the Agency's Website. Under Section 124(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (recodified at 49 USC § 30162(d), hereinafter Safety Act), NHTSA must grant or deny the petition within 120 days. Well over 120 days have passed since NHTSA received the petition so the Agency is in continuing violation of the Safety Act. (Attachment A shows no DP listed on NHTSA's investigation page.)
Mr. Friedman is not your average petitioner. He designed the guidance system for the Sidewinder missile, the Lunar Rover, and was the chief contractor for NHTSA's Minicars Safety Research Vehicle which provided 50-mph barrier equivalent crash protection. Mr Friedman has likely directed more dynamic vehicle crash tests than anyone outside the auto industry. In addition, he has been involved in evaluation of many hundreds of real world crashes. Like Mark Hood who uncovered the defective GM ignition switch in the Chevrolet Cobalt and its role in airbag non-deployment before NHTSA did, Mr. Friedman is an independent engineer who appears to have discovered a defective algorithm in GM advanced airbag vehicles before NHTSA did.
The defect in the algorithm is fairly simple as discovered by Mr. Friedman. "The algorithm for the weight of the passenger used the instantaneous weight to determine whether to inhibit the airbag deployment. [A vehicle] lift and bounce [can] momentarily reduce[d] the weight of the passenger to that of a small adult. Using a weight averaged over a few tens of seconds would have avoided suppressing the airbag and the resulting serious injury and fatality. Since the control module is field reprogrammable a simple recall and modifying a few lines of code can avoid repeat occurrences."
This is a design defect in every GM vehicle with the flawed algorithm. Even though the defect cases litigated by NHTSA under the Safety Act in the 1970's (see NHTSA Chief Counsel Frank Berndt memo) do not require a so-called "defect trend" as contrived by NHTSA today, existence of a design defect means every vehicle has the flaw.
In its analysis of airbags failing to deploy in crashes, NHTSA pointed to FARS as a good starting point to find crashes which may point to a defect. While FARS cannot pinpoint the precise failure mode in a crash such as a flawed algorithm, FARS can pinpoint cases to examine to find such failure modes. From Calendar Year 2000 when GM could have introduced advanced airbag vehicles with the flawed algorithm just through 2010, there were 143 frontal impact fatalities in model year 2000 to 2010 Chevrolet Impalas where the airbags failed to deploy with 98 of the fatalities being occupants who were lap/shoulder belted. (Attachment B.) We call on NHTSA to examine each of the fatal non-deployment crashes to determine whether the airbag should have deployed and why it didn't.
The Center is deeply troubled that NHTSA once again may have missed an advanced airbag like it did with the Cobalt. The Center is even more troubled that once again NHTSA has kept whatever it is doing secret behind closed doors even though there is a specific legal requirement for NHTSA to make its activities public.
The Center requests NHTSA to immediately grant or deny the defect petition filed by Mr. Friedman and Xprts as required by the Safety Act.
Sincerely,
Clarence Ditlow Executive Director
04-09-14, 01:11 AM
#92
Total auto recalls already on record pace in 2014
If you've noticed that there have been more recalls than usual this year, you may be on to something. According to a report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the US market is on pace to break a record for recalls. In 2013, 22 million cars were recalled. We're only a third of the way through 2014, though, and we've already halved that figure, with 11 million units recalled. That's wild.
Considering the past few months, it shouldn't be a surprise that General Motors is leading the charge, with six million of the 11 million units recalled coming from one of the General's four brands. Between truck recalls, CUV recalls and the ignition switch recall, 2014 hasn't been a great year for GM.
Other recall leaders include Nissan (one million Sentra and Altima sedans), Honda (900,000 Odyssey minivans), Toyota (over one million units in a few recalls), Volkswagen (150,000 Passat sedans), Chrysler (644,000 Dodge Durango and Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs) and most recently, Ford (434,000 units, the bulk of which were early Ford Escape CUVs). So while it's been a bad year for GM so far, its competitors aren't doing too well, either.
It's not the end of the world, though. The Los Angeles Times spoke to Kelley Blue Book's Karl Brauer, who pointed out that this latest string of six- and seven-figure recalls is "the new normal," due to manufacturers' fear of the federal government. According to Brauer, it was the $1.2-billion fine handed down following Toyota's unintended acceleration fiasco that has made manufacturers so open to recalls.
"Toyota changed the thinking on recalls," Brauer told The Times. "The cost of a recall is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of what happens if you don't do it."
Considering the past few months, it shouldn't be a surprise that General Motors is leading the charge, with six million of the 11 million units recalled coming from one of the General's four brands. Between truck recalls, CUV recalls and the ignition switch recall, 2014 hasn't been a great year for GM.
Other recall leaders include Nissan (one million Sentra and Altima sedans), Honda (900,000 Odyssey minivans), Toyota (over one million units in a few recalls), Volkswagen (150,000 Passat sedans), Chrysler (644,000 Dodge Durango and Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs) and most recently, Ford (434,000 units, the bulk of which were early Ford Escape CUVs). So while it's been a bad year for GM so far, its competitors aren't doing too well, either.
It's not the end of the world, though. The Los Angeles Times spoke to Kelley Blue Book's Karl Brauer, who pointed out that this latest string of six- and seven-figure recalls is "the new normal," due to manufacturers' fear of the federal government. According to Brauer, it was the $1.2-billion fine handed down following Toyota's unintended acceleration fiasco that has made manufacturers so open to recalls.
"Toyota changed the thinking on recalls," Brauer told The Times. "The cost of a recall is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of what happens if you don't do it."
04-09-14, 06:51 AM
#93
5 defects lead Toyota to recall 6.4M vehicles
Toyota Motor Corp is recalling 6.39 million vehicles globally for faults affecting various parts ranging from steering to seats in the company's second-largest recall to date. Video provided by Reuters
Fred Meier, USA TODAY 9:30 a.m. EDT April 9, 2014
Toyota Recall
TOKYO — Toyota Motor Corp. is recalling 6.39 million vehicles worldwide -- about 2.34 million in the U.S. -- in actions for five different defects.
None of the various defects affecting 27 Toyota models and the Toyota-built Pontiac Vibe and Subaru Trezia in various markets is linked with crashes or deaths, the Associated Press reports, but Toyota is aware of two fires linked to a defective starter..
Some vehicles were recalled for more than one problem and the models' production spans April 2004 through August 2013.
Toyota models affected by one or more of the defects include: RAV4, Corolla, Matrix/ Vibe, Trezia/Viz, Yaris, Highlander, Tacoma and Hilux pickups, Reiz, Fortuner, Innova, Land Cruiser Prado and Camry nameplates. Vibe is a rebadged Toyota Matrix and the Trezia is a Toyota Viz.
Toyota said it was simply how the engineering probes evolved that resulted in the recalls coming together at the same time. The recalls follow Toyota's settling for $1.2 billion last month a U.S. criminal into concealing information from safety regulators about defects that led to its massive sudden acceleration recalls in 2009 and 2010 that were linked with five deaths.
After those recall, Toyota head Akio Toyoda vowed to reform the company's quality control and recall reporting processes.
The problems (with number of vehicles worldwide) that led to the latest batch of recalls, according to trade journal Automotive News from Tokyo:
Cables for the driver air bag module that can be damaged, disabling the bag, though a warning light will come on (3.5 million vehicles, 1.67 million in the U.S.).
Seats that don't lock in place (2.32 million, 670,000 in North America)
Steering column brackets that may become loose or fail (760,000, Europe and Asia only)
Windshield wiper motor (160,000, Asia only)
Starter motor fire hazard (20,000, Asia only)
Toyota Motor Corp is recalling 6.39 million vehicles globally for faults affecting various parts ranging from steering to seats in the company's second-largest recall to date. Video provided by Reuters
Fred Meier, USA TODAY 9:30 a.m. EDT April 9, 2014
Toyota Recall
TOKYO — Toyota Motor Corp. is recalling 6.39 million vehicles worldwide -- about 2.34 million in the U.S. -- in actions for five different defects.
None of the various defects affecting 27 Toyota models and the Toyota-built Pontiac Vibe and Subaru Trezia in various markets is linked with crashes or deaths, the Associated Press reports, but Toyota is aware of two fires linked to a defective starter..
Some vehicles were recalled for more than one problem and the models' production spans April 2004 through August 2013.
Toyota models affected by one or more of the defects include: RAV4, Corolla, Matrix/ Vibe, Trezia/Viz, Yaris, Highlander, Tacoma and Hilux pickups, Reiz, Fortuner, Innova, Land Cruiser Prado and Camry nameplates. Vibe is a rebadged Toyota Matrix and the Trezia is a Toyota Viz.
Toyota said it was simply how the engineering probes evolved that resulted in the recalls coming together at the same time. The recalls follow Toyota's settling for $1.2 billion last month a U.S. criminal into concealing information from safety regulators about defects that led to its massive sudden acceleration recalls in 2009 and 2010 that were linked with five deaths.
After those recall, Toyota head Akio Toyoda vowed to reform the company's quality control and recall reporting processes.
The problems (with number of vehicles worldwide) that led to the latest batch of recalls, according to trade journal Automotive News from Tokyo:
Cables for the driver air bag module that can be damaged, disabling the bag, though a warning light will come on (3.5 million vehicles, 1.67 million in the U.S.).
Seats that don't lock in place (2.32 million, 670,000 in North America)
Steering column brackets that may become loose or fail (760,000, Europe and Asia only)
Windshield wiper motor (160,000, Asia only)
Starter motor fire hazard (20,000, Asia only)
04-09-14, 12:08 PM
#94
More fuel on the GM Fire
General Motors is not fully cooperating with a federal probe of its defective ignition switches, investigators charged Tuesday.
In a letter to the beleaguered automaker, the lead attorney for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said GM was either "unwilling or unable" to answer more than a third of questions posed by regulators. Answers were due by April 3.
In response, NHTSA has levied a $7,000 per day penalty against the company. So far, the company has amassed a $28,000 fine. Perhaps more concerning for a company that posted a $3.2 billion profit in 2013 is that regulators say they'll ask the Department of Justice to compel responses for the missing information.
"To be clear, a complete response by GM means GM fully and substantively answers all questions and produces all responsive documents," O. Kevin Vincent, NHTSA's general counsel, wrote. General Motors disputes NHTSA's finding. A company spokesperson says GM has "fully cooperated" with the special order.
Intervention from the Justice Department would be a separate matter from the DOJ's own investigation into whether General Motors is criminally liable for its failure to recall more than 2.5 million affected cars in a timely manner. Documents have shown that GM knew about the problem as early as 2001 – four years before the cars even went into production. Yet the company didn't start to recall the cars until February. In the interim, GM acknowledges at least 13 people were killed in accidents related to the defect.
Two Congressional inquiries into the delay are underway, in addition to the pending DOJ and NHTSA investigations. In addition, an investigator general is conducting an audit of NHTSA's own inaction regarding the defect.
Testifying before the two Congressional subcommittees last week, General Motors CEO Mary Barra deflected many questions by saying she wanted to wait for the results of an internal GM investigation being conducted by former U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas before providing answers. Vincent's letter alleges GM attempted to answer many of the 107 questions in NHTSA's special order in the same manner: when investigators asked about the missing responses on April 4, GM cited the ongoing internal investigation as a reason for not fully responding, according to NHTSA.
"This was the first time GM had ever raised Mr. Valukas' work as a reason GM could not fully provide information to NHTSA in this timeliness investigation," Vincent wrote. "... Mr. Valukas' investigation is irrelevant to GM's legal obligation to timely respond to the Special Order and fully cooperate with NHTSA."
In month-long discussions with regulators, GM said it may not be able to fully provide answers to "technical engineering questions" by the deadline, and NHTSA stipulated it had no objection to the company taking extra time to ensure comprehensive responses to those particular questions. Yet when the responses arrived, they lacked information for not only technical engineering questions, but responses for "numerous" queries that were far more basic, Vincent said.
"These are basic questions concerning information that is surely readily available to GM at this time," he wrote. "Moreover, it is deeply troubling that two months after recalling the vehicles, GM is unwilling or unable to tell NHTSA whether the design of the switch changed at any other time."
General Motors said it has submitted 21,000 documents that total more than 270,000 pages in response to the NHTSA special order, and disputes Vincent's allegation that the company has not fully cooperated.
"GM has worked tirelessly from the start to be responsive to NHTSA's special order and has fully cooperated with the agency to help it have a full understanding of the facts," said Greg A. Martin, a company spokesperson. "We believe that NHTSA shares our desire to provide accurate and substantive responses. We will continue to provide responses and facts as soon as they become available and hope to go about this in a constructive manner. We will do so with a goal of being accurate as well as timely."
In a letter to the beleaguered automaker, the lead attorney for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said GM was either "unwilling or unable" to answer more than a third of questions posed by regulators. Answers were due by April 3.
In response, NHTSA has levied a $7,000 per day penalty against the company. So far, the company has amassed a $28,000 fine. Perhaps more concerning for a company that posted a $3.2 billion profit in 2013 is that regulators say they'll ask the Department of Justice to compel responses for the missing information.
"To be clear, a complete response by GM means GM fully and substantively answers all questions and produces all responsive documents," O. Kevin Vincent, NHTSA's general counsel, wrote. General Motors disputes NHTSA's finding. A company spokesperson says GM has "fully cooperated" with the special order.
Intervention from the Justice Department would be a separate matter from the DOJ's own investigation into whether General Motors is criminally liable for its failure to recall more than 2.5 million affected cars in a timely manner. Documents have shown that GM knew about the problem as early as 2001 – four years before the cars even went into production. Yet the company didn't start to recall the cars until February. In the interim, GM acknowledges at least 13 people were killed in accidents related to the defect.
Two Congressional inquiries into the delay are underway, in addition to the pending DOJ and NHTSA investigations. In addition, an investigator general is conducting an audit of NHTSA's own inaction regarding the defect.
Testifying before the two Congressional subcommittees last week, General Motors CEO Mary Barra deflected many questions by saying she wanted to wait for the results of an internal GM investigation being conducted by former U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas before providing answers. Vincent's letter alleges GM attempted to answer many of the 107 questions in NHTSA's special order in the same manner: when investigators asked about the missing responses on April 4, GM cited the ongoing internal investigation as a reason for not fully responding, according to NHTSA.
"This was the first time GM had ever raised Mr. Valukas' work as a reason GM could not fully provide information to NHTSA in this timeliness investigation," Vincent wrote. "... Mr. Valukas' investigation is irrelevant to GM's legal obligation to timely respond to the Special Order and fully cooperate with NHTSA."
In month-long discussions with regulators, GM said it may not be able to fully provide answers to "technical engineering questions" by the deadline, and NHTSA stipulated it had no objection to the company taking extra time to ensure comprehensive responses to those particular questions. Yet when the responses arrived, they lacked information for not only technical engineering questions, but responses for "numerous" queries that were far more basic, Vincent said.
"These are basic questions concerning information that is surely readily available to GM at this time," he wrote. "Moreover, it is deeply troubling that two months after recalling the vehicles, GM is unwilling or unable to tell NHTSA whether the design of the switch changed at any other time."
General Motors said it has submitted 21,000 documents that total more than 270,000 pages in response to the NHTSA special order, and disputes Vincent's allegation that the company has not fully cooperated.
"GM has worked tirelessly from the start to be responsive to NHTSA's special order and has fully cooperated with the agency to help it have a full understanding of the facts," said Greg A. Martin, a company spokesperson. "We believe that NHTSA shares our desire to provide accurate and substantive responses. We will continue to provide responses and facts as soon as they become available and hope to go about this in a constructive manner. We will do so with a goal of being accurate as well as timely."
04-09-14, 02:19 PM
#95
VW orders stop-sale on four models for leaky transmission
Volkswagen has issued a stop sale on several models in the US while the automaker waits for parts to repair a transmission fluid leak. About 25,000 cars with the EA888 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine and automatic transmission are covered under the stoppage, which includes models of the Jetta, Passat, Beetle and Beetle Convertible. All of the affected models were built after February 1.
According to VW, an O-ring that links the transmission cooler to the gearbox can leak and potentially start a fire. Mark Gillies, VW US Product and Technology Manager, told Autoblog that there haven't been any reports of fires, crashes or injuries caused by the problem. Some of the cars were sold to consumers, but the company is still working to figure out exactly how many.
According to VW, an O-ring that links the transmission cooler to the gearbox can leak and potentially start a fire. Mark Gillies, VW US Product and Technology Manager, told Autoblog that there haven't been any reports of fires, crashes or injuries caused by the problem. Some of the cars were sold to consumers, but the company is still working to figure out exactly how many.
04-09-14, 02:20 PM
#96
GM repairing 40,500 Pontiac Vibes as part of Toyota airbag recall
General Motors has confirmed to Autoblog that the Pontiac Vibe is included in Toyota's just-announced recall action. The Vibe and the Toyota Matrix share a large number of parts, including the affected cable to the airbag.
"About 40,500 Pontiac Vibes from the 2009-2010 model years are included in the Toyota recall. Toyota designed and engineered the Vibe for Pontiac. GM will service customers with these vehicles when Toyota makes the parts available," said GM recall spokesperson Alan Adler to Autoblog in an email.
The recall covers 1.3 million Toyota units in the US, including 2009-2010 Corolla, Matrix and Tacoma, the 2008-2010 Highlander, the 2006-2008 Rav4 and 2006-2010 Yaris, plus the addition of the 2009-2010 Vibe. The models all have their airbag module attached via a spiral electrical cable. The connections on this cable can be damaged when turning the steering wheel. Once broken, the airbag deactivates and the airbag warning light comes on. Toyota has an improved part, but it's still making preparations to begin repairs. It will begin notifying owners soon
"About 40,500 Pontiac Vibes from the 2009-2010 model years are included in the Toyota recall. Toyota designed and engineered the Vibe for Pontiac. GM will service customers with these vehicles when Toyota makes the parts available," said GM recall spokesperson Alan Adler to Autoblog in an email.
The recall covers 1.3 million Toyota units in the US, including 2009-2010 Corolla, Matrix and Tacoma, the 2008-2010 Highlander, the 2006-2008 Rav4 and 2006-2010 Yaris, plus the addition of the 2009-2010 Vibe. The models all have their airbag module attached via a spiral electrical cable. The connections on this cable can be damaged when turning the steering wheel. Once broken, the airbag deactivates and the airbag warning light comes on. Toyota has an improved part, but it's still making preparations to begin repairs. It will begin notifying owners soon
04-11-14, 11:23 AM
#97
BMW broadens engine bolt recall to nearly half-million cars worldwide
BMW has informed NHTSA of its intention to voluntarily recall approximately 156,137 MY 2010-12 vehicles in the US, equipped with inline 6-cylinder engines. In very rare cases the bolts holding the variable camshaft timing (VANOS) unit housing may become loose or, in extreme cases, break. If that happens, a "Check Engine" or "Service Engine Soon" lamp will illuminate and a check control message will be displayed. If the operation of the VANOS unit is compromised, the engine will operate with reduced engine power in "safe mode". If ignored, the problem can become progressively worse, eventually leading to no start conditions, stalling and engine damage.
Affected Series:
2010-12 1 Series
2010-12 3 Series
2010-2012 5 Series
2010-12 5 Series Gran Turismo
2012 6 Series
2010-2012 X3 SAV
2010-12 X5 SAV
2010-12 X6 SAV
2010-12 Z4
Drivers of potentially affected vehicles may continue to drive their vehicles, however, if they observe a "Check Engine" or "Service Engine Soon" lamp and Check Control message warning, drivers should immediately contact their nearest authorized BMW center to arrange service. In the event of stalling, drivers should carefully move away from traffic and stop the vehicle in a safe location as soon as possible. They should contact BMW Roadside Assistance at 1-800-332-4269 to have the vehicle brought to the nearest authorized BMW center. They should not continue to drive their vehicle.
Owners of potentially affected vehicles will be contacted by BMW Customer Relations via first-class mail, to inform them of the recall and, when parts are available, will receive a second notification that will advise them to make an appointment with their authorized BMW center in order to have the repair made. Customers with questions should contact BMW Customer Relations at 1-800-525-7417 or email customer.relations@bmwna.com.
Affected Series:
2010-12 1 Series
2010-12 3 Series
2010-2012 5 Series
2010-12 5 Series Gran Turismo
2012 6 Series
2010-2012 X3 SAV
2010-12 X5 SAV
2010-12 X6 SAV
2010-12 Z4
Drivers of potentially affected vehicles may continue to drive their vehicles, however, if they observe a "Check Engine" or "Service Engine Soon" lamp and Check Control message warning, drivers should immediately contact their nearest authorized BMW center to arrange service. In the event of stalling, drivers should carefully move away from traffic and stop the vehicle in a safe location as soon as possible. They should contact BMW Roadside Assistance at 1-800-332-4269 to have the vehicle brought to the nearest authorized BMW center. They should not continue to drive their vehicle.
Owners of potentially affected vehicles will be contacted by BMW Customer Relations via first-class mail, to inform them of the recall and, when parts are available, will receive a second notification that will advise them to make an appointment with their authorized BMW center in order to have the repair made. Customers with questions should contact BMW Customer Relations at 1-800-525-7417 or email customer.relations@bmwna.com.
04-14-14, 07:24 PM
#98
NHTSA closes Ford F-150 EcoBoost acceleration probe
Typically when we report on the findings of an investigation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, it's because the government body has discovered a safety issue and prescribed a recall. In this case, however, NHTSA has closed an investigation into a reported performance deficit without ever getting to the recall stage.
The issue revolves around the Ford F-150 – specifically those equipped with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine – of which some 360,000 were built in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 model years. After receiving an initial 95 complaints, NHTSA opened an investigation last May – almost a year ago – into the reported issue of reduced engine power under hard acceleration. The agency has since received a total of 525 such complaints, and Ford itself reported receiving over 4,000.
Together, NHTSA and Ford determined that the problem resulted from cylinders misfiring, an issue itself stemming from water getting into the charge air cooler (CAC) mated to the turbochargers. In particularly humid or rainy conditions, water was found to get into the CAC, causing some of the cylinders to misfire, which in turn triggered the ECU to disable those cylinders in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage.
Ford conducted its own testing and, rather than issue a recall, published a series of technical service bulletins prompting dealers to install deflect shields onto the CAC in the vehicles in question, solving the problem to 95-percent effectiveness in 2011-12 models and 100 percent in 2013 models. Apparently satisfied that Ford had resolved the issue, NHTSA has closed the file on this particular case.
The issue revolves around the Ford F-150 – specifically those equipped with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine – of which some 360,000 were built in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 model years. After receiving an initial 95 complaints, NHTSA opened an investigation last May – almost a year ago – into the reported issue of reduced engine power under hard acceleration. The agency has since received a total of 525 such complaints, and Ford itself reported receiving over 4,000.
Together, NHTSA and Ford determined that the problem resulted from cylinders misfiring, an issue itself stemming from water getting into the charge air cooler (CAC) mated to the turbochargers. In particularly humid or rainy conditions, water was found to get into the CAC, causing some of the cylinders to misfire, which in turn triggered the ECU to disable those cylinders in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage.
Ford conducted its own testing and, rather than issue a recall, published a series of technical service bulletins prompting dealers to install deflect shields onto the CAC in the vehicles in question, solving the problem to 95-percent effectiveness in 2011-12 models and 100 percent in 2013 models. Apparently satisfied that Ford had resolved the issue, NHTSA has closed the file on this particular case.
04-15-14, 11:22 PM
#101
Yessir it is, we are headed down tomorrow. It is a great way to start my week off (I do 7 on/7 off nights). Is it appropriate to start a thread for a Ford in this section? If so I will! But keep in mind while I am a vehicle lover, my technical knowledge only scratches the surface compared to you and many others that routinely post here. My contributions are selected and mostly opinions!
04-16-14, 01:06 AM
#102
Yessir it is, we are headed down tomorrow. It is a great way to start my week off (I do 7 on/7 off nights). Is it appropriate to start a thread for a Ford in this section? If so I will! But keep in mind while I am a vehicle lover, my technical knowledge only scratches the surface compared to you and many others that routinely post here. My contributions are selected and mostly opinions!
, not just Lexus specific
04-18-14, 04:28 PM
#103
Mazda recalls 109k Tribute models for rust issue
Subject: Lower Control Arm Corrosion-Regional Recall
Dear Mr. Robertson:
NVS-215KS 14V-174
This letter serves to acknowledge Mazda North American Operations's notification to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a safety recall which will be conducted pursuant to Federal law for the product(s) listed below. Please review the following information to ensure that it conforms to your records as this information is being made available to the public. If the information does not agree with your records, please contact us immediately to discuss your concerns.
Makes/Models/Model Years:
MAZDA/TRIBUTE/2001-2004
Mfr's Report Date: April 4, 2014
NHTSA Campaign Number: 14V-174
Components:
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS
Potential Number of Units Affected: 109,000
Problem Description:
Mazda North American Operations (Mazda) is recalling certain model year 2001-2004 Tribute vehicles manufactured May 22, 2000, through December 19, 2003, originally sold, or currently registered in, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. These vehicles may experience excessive corrosion at the forward attachment of the lower control arm.
Consequence:
A separation of the lower control arm can result in a significant loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy:
Mazda will notify owners, and dealers will install a newly designed reinforcement cross-brace, free of charge. Parts are not currently available. Mazda expects to send an interim notification around May 19, 2014. When parts are available, owners will be mailed a second letter to come in to have the part installed. If customers bring their vehicles to a dealer before reinforcement crossbraces are available, dealers will inspect the subframe and either inform customers that the vehicle is safe to drive until the remedy parts are available or provide a rental vehicle until parts are available if an immediate repair is needed. Owners may contact Mazda at 1-800-222-5500. Mazda's number for this recall is 7514D.

Notes:
Owners may also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.safercar.gov.
Dear Mr. Robertson:
NVS-215KS 14V-174
This letter serves to acknowledge Mazda North American Operations's notification to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a safety recall which will be conducted pursuant to Federal law for the product(s) listed below. Please review the following information to ensure that it conforms to your records as this information is being made available to the public. If the information does not agree with your records, please contact us immediately to discuss your concerns.
Makes/Models/Model Years:
MAZDA/TRIBUTE/2001-2004
Mfr's Report Date: April 4, 2014
NHTSA Campaign Number: 14V-174
Components:
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS
Potential Number of Units Affected: 109,000
Problem Description:
Mazda North American Operations (Mazda) is recalling certain model year 2001-2004 Tribute vehicles manufactured May 22, 2000, through December 19, 2003, originally sold, or currently registered in, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. These vehicles may experience excessive corrosion at the forward attachment of the lower control arm.
Consequence:
A separation of the lower control arm can result in a significant loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy:
Mazda will notify owners, and dealers will install a newly designed reinforcement cross-brace, free of charge. Parts are not currently available. Mazda expects to send an interim notification around May 19, 2014. When parts are available, owners will be mailed a second letter to come in to have the part installed. If customers bring their vehicles to a dealer before reinforcement crossbraces are available, dealers will inspect the subframe and either inform customers that the vehicle is safe to drive until the remedy parts are available or provide a rental vehicle until parts are available if an immediate repair is needed. Owners may contact Mazda at 1-800-222-5500. Mazda's number for this recall is 7514D.

Notes:
Owners may also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.safercar.gov.
04-22-14, 05:36 PM
#104
2014 Chevy Impala being investigated over braking issue
General Motors' recent recall woes may only be getting worse. According to The Detroit News, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened an investigation into 60,000 2014 Chevrolet Impala models over concerns relating to the sedan's emergency braking system.
The News reports that the NHTSA probe comes on the heels of a single complaint, citing "inappropriate activation of the emergency braking system." The official complaint states that the driver "alleges that the driver assist system inappropriately activated emergency braking bringing the vehicle to a complete stop under what the driver considered to be full braking force."
NHTSA reports that the driver "heard three to four beeps from the forward collision avoidance system" in the vehicle in question (a rental 2014 Impala with just 2,500 miles on the odometer), and that "this was immediately followed by an autonomous brake activation resulting in their vehicle being struck from the rear by another vehicle." No police report was filed following this incident, and there were no injuries.
A General Motors spokesperson told The Detroit News that the company is fully cooperating with this preliminary investigation. Stay tuned for more information as it becomes available.
The News reports that the NHTSA probe comes on the heels of a single complaint, citing "inappropriate activation of the emergency braking system." The official complaint states that the driver "alleges that the driver assist system inappropriately activated emergency braking bringing the vehicle to a complete stop under what the driver considered to be full braking force."
NHTSA reports that the driver "heard three to four beeps from the forward collision avoidance system" in the vehicle in question (a rental 2014 Impala with just 2,500 miles on the odometer), and that "this was immediately followed by an autonomous brake activation resulting in their vehicle being struck from the rear by another vehicle." No police report was filed following this incident, and there were no injuries.
A General Motors spokesperson told The Detroit News that the company is fully cooperating with this preliminary investigation. Stay tuned for more information as it becomes available.
04-22-14, 05:37 PM
#105
Saturn Ion steering probe closed by NHTSA
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has closed its investigation into faulty electric power steering motors affecting 334,728 Saturn Ions from 2004-2007, because General Motors has issued a recall for them. The group's research found that the part failed at a high rate in the vehicles.
GM recalled over 1.3 million vehicles a few weeks ago, including the Ion, because the power steering could suddenly fail. If broken, the cars could still turn, but it took greater effort. The automaker is also covering 96,324 2003 Ions with a lifetime warranty for their motors, but it's not immediately replacing them.
NHTSA opened its investigation into the motors in September 2011, and it found 4,787 complaints and 30,560 warranty claims that showed failure for the Ion alone. It estimated a complaint rate of 14.3 incidents per 1,000 vehicles and warranty claim rate of 9.1 percent. The investigation also found evidence of 12 crashes caused by loss of steering, two of which resulted in injuries.
According to The Detroit News, the Ion wasn't initially going to be included in the recall. During the House's hearing into GM's ignition switch recall, it presented an email from October 2011 to Mary Barra that notified her of the bad steering motors and said the "Ion data did not justify being included" in the recall. At some point, the automaker apparently changed its decision.
GM recalled over 1.3 million vehicles a few weeks ago, including the Ion, because the power steering could suddenly fail. If broken, the cars could still turn, but it took greater effort. The automaker is also covering 96,324 2003 Ions with a lifetime warranty for their motors, but it's not immediately replacing them.
NHTSA opened its investigation into the motors in September 2011, and it found 4,787 complaints and 30,560 warranty claims that showed failure for the Ion alone. It estimated a complaint rate of 14.3 incidents per 1,000 vehicles and warranty claim rate of 9.1 percent. The investigation also found evidence of 12 crashes caused by loss of steering, two of which resulted in injuries.
According to The Detroit News, the Ion wasn't initially going to be included in the recall. During the House's hearing into GM's ignition switch recall, it presented an email from October 2011 to Mary Barra that notified her of the bad steering motors and said the "Ion data did not justify being included" in the recall. At some point, the automaker apparently changed its decision.