GM financial woes have begun

And I thought the "Did you know re. Dodge Ram?" thread was sad.

Many of you- and sadly, you know who you are- badly need a new hobby to replace lobbying for companies that care as much about you as they care about a stray dog in a ghetto alley.

Maybe some of you are addicted to loyalty in all forms, in which case you're probably excellent fathers, friends, etc.

I hope that's what drives some of you; otherwise it's pathetic.

Until this case has its day in court all the speculation in the world will not expose all the facts. I have read all the above postings and I still don't have anything that I could take to the bank.

FishOnOne,

Since your signature says you have a Ford truck, this is how they do it.

Ford has done their revision control for as long as I can remember by advancing the last number or letter in their original assigned part numbers. Such as AA being the original release and AB being the first revision level. AC is the second revision and so on. Ford uses the same part number for the life of the part and simply indicates the revision/engineering change level.

45Ricochet wrote:
Not exactly what a new CEO would hope for, along with the sagging truck sales this year. A lot of that expense was for re- tooling and adjusting foreign plants.
Happy stock holders, not. But they basicly shed their books of these losses in one lump. Should be good returns for the next couple of quarters anyway. They're selling like hotcakes in China.
But this entire key problem could have been avoided if a couple of bean counters had taken care of the problem much earlier . A few heads need to roll. How can you change a part and keep the same part number anyway? Dumb way to do business.
So anyway, no gloom and doom for the mighty GM.

You can keep the same part and part number. It's called Revision control.

BillyW,

kaydeejay just got done explaining to you that the power brakes doesn't go away for a minimum of 3 brake uses AFTER the engine shuts down. You can cross that off your list. Besides that, atthe 58 mph her vehicle was traveling, it doesn't even need power assist on the brakes so why couldn't she stop or have slowed down?

Next, she didn't need even need any power steering as she was traveling 58 mph, not turning a corner, and she blew thru the intersection. She could have very easily turned the front wheels if she wanted to. There's no explanation or reason for her to not have control other than her excessive speed for the conditions. She HAD brakes AND steering! Cross the steering off too as it doesn't lock when the vehicle is in gear. Number 2 is gone!

Did she even need her accelerator? Are you kidding? She was already traveling too fast for the conditions and you think she needed to go even faster??? Cross that gem off your list too!

Anymore foolish claims?

Maybe what you drive has these possibilities you described but her vehicle does/did NOT!

She was simply driving too fast for the conditions and blew thru the intersection and was hit in her passenger side door by the vehicle coming on her right. Jamming on her brakes on the wet pavement and/or jerking the steering wheel or both on the wet pavement most likely caused her to lose control but nobody knows for sure but her and she can't tell what happened. Well, maybe it's now OK to drive 58 mph or the speed limit what ever it is because, Hey, that's the posted speed limit!

Her estate was sued as she blew thru the intersection at 58 mph causing the accident and GM would be a fool to pay a dime of the law suit. The 58 mph side impact damage from the other vehicle on her passenger's side may very well have caused the problem with the airbags not going off in Melton's vehicle. Do you know where the sensor controls are for the front airbags? I didn't think so!

Not exactly what a new CEO would hope for, along with the sagging truck sales this year. A lot of that expense was for re- tooling and adjusting foreign plants.
Happy stock holders, not. But they basicly shed their books of these losses in one lump. Should be good returns for the next couple of quarters anyway. They're selling like hotcakes in China.
But this entire key problem could have been avoided if a couple of bean counters had taken care of the problem much earlier . A few heads need to roll. How can you change a part and keep the same part number anyway? Dumb way to do business.
So anyway, no gloom and doom for the mighty GM.

GM issues and billion dollar bailout is why my motorhome has the Ford chassis and my daily ride is a Jeep Wrangler and my wife's daily ride is a Nissan, oh yea and my boat motor is also a Nissan..

travelnutz wrote:
BillyW,

Nice misleading parsing of the article you quoted from! Why didn't you include the statement made by the police that she (Melton) was traveling to fast for the road conditions? It's was a rainy night as was said/printed in the article also. Doesn't take anyone with even half a brain to know that's why she lost control because when the ignition cuts OFF, the vehicle instantly loses drive power to the drive wheel/wheels and naturally slows down!

Quote:

"Although Cooper said Melton was observing the speed limit, police said she was "traveling too fast for the roadway conditions." AND "In Melton's crash, she was driving on a rainy night in Paulding County, Ga." AND "People in the car that hit her were injured and sued Melton's estate."

The whole truth with all the printed facts sure alters your parsed cherrypicked version of the omitted facts, doesn't it???

If she wasn't driving too fast for the rainy conditions, would she have even lost control???

I don't know. Would you lose control when your steering locked, your power brakes went away, your accelerator quit working, etc. The other vehicle hit hers because she went through an intersection with NO CONTROL of her vehicle. I'm sure GM ultimately paid "via her estate" to the occupants of the other vehicle too. I didn't imply anything with my parse. I simply singled out the REAL meat to this subject. I could also have included the fact that she had the vehicle serviced the prior day because of that faulty ignition switch. Sounds to me like she had the bad designed one replaced with another bad designed one. Go ahead and try to make it her fault, just to support your blind loyalty.

lbrjet wrote:
I agree Nutz, if the ignition switch hadn't malfunctioned then there would have been no accident.

Ignition switches do not turn off on their own. There is no doubt these GM ones moved too easily, but SOMETHING moved the key to the accessory position. Whether that was the driver or a swinging chain we will never know.
And BTW, loss of engine power does NOT result in the loss of power brakes - they are good for at least three applications before the reserve is exhausted. And small cars such as these can be steered with no power assist, especially at highway speeds; it's low speed manoeuvring when the power assist is REALLY needed.
So why did she lose control?? Your guess is as good as mine.
What had the dealer done to the car the day before when it went in for ignition problems?
Let's agree that there's a lot we don't know about these accidents, but also let's agree that quoting only snips of reports that totally alter the entire meaning is also being rather negative.