GM financial woes have begun

Lessmore wrote:
These threads get tiresome and very predictable. Some brand loyal individual sees an article unfavourable to what they consider to be the enemy brand and then start a thread....and a range war.

Sides are chosen and are predictable. Brand X fans go after Brand Y fans...and then vice versa.

There is absolute no value in any of this...it is all a waste of effort on everybody's part.

There is, I will admit, perhaps some perverse entertainment.

I include myself. I have opened a bag of regular chips and also have cracked open my favourite beverage...a classic coke if you will.

The moderator has to then eventually lock the thread, as the usual no good has come of it.

Why...do we never learn ?

And yet you click on and even respond to these threads over and over. :B You just can't stay away can you? :B

These threads get tiresome and very predictable. Some brand loyal individual sees an article unfavourable to what they consider to be the enemy brand and then start a thread....and a range war.

Sides are chosen and are predictable. Brand X fans go after Brand Y fans...and then vice versa.

There is absolute no value in any of this...it is all a waste of effort on everybody's part.

There is, I will admit, perhaps some perverse entertainment.

I include myself. I have opened a bag of regular chips and also have cracked open my favourite beverage...a classic coke if you will.

The moderator has to then eventually lock the thread, as the usual no good has come of it.

Why...do we never learn ?

Oh Oh looks like another thread kill :W

ib516,

I just did the very same test on 2 different GM vehicles about 5 hours ago that I own and I'm calling BS on "almost impossible" steering either of them with the ignition turned off. For crying out loud, I just did it and know it's NOT that hard to steer either of them and they are so much heavier than Melton's light Cobalt. Besides that, Melton blew thru a stop sign at 58 mph so do you think she was intending to turn at the intersection using her steering wheel? DUH! Planning to stop at the intersection for the stop sign as she most assuredly had brakes? DUH! OR Did she miss seeing the stop sign, was distracted for some reason, sleepy, or never intended to stop anyway? Normal people don't go thru stop signs at intersections at 58 mph ignition on or off!

As for the road Melton was on, she was going to her BOYFRIENDS and apparently she DID know the road even if it was wet or it was raining! Was the blowing thru the stop sign caused because the ignition switch cut power? Extremely unlikely as any vehicle slows down when the ignition is turned off or please tell everyone why you would even remotely turn a vehicle's ignition switch off! Is it so they CAN'T steer the vehicle or CAN'T stop the vehicle so the uncontrolled vehicle will become an uncontrolled missle that can then crash into an innocent parties vehicle and kill the kids in it along with their parents? Get real! You remotely turn the subject vehicle ignition off so the vehicle WILL come to a stop so you can catch the people inside!!! How dumb do you think forum readers are anyway?

Lawyers are the only ones who will get rich from the frivilous lawsuits and it's the public who will ultimately pay for their sucking dry the corporations, insurance companys, and the common citizens bills. Hint! Corporations do NOT have money trees out back they pick money off as needed or wanted no matter which domestic corporation it is and guess where corporations do get their money from? Let me help you. Sales of their products only and what the buyer pays for the products is what any corporation has for money coming in. The citizen ultimately is who actually pays the bills and then they wonder why things cost so much! DUH! HELLO! Try to sue a Chinese, Mexican, or nearly any foreign importer and see where it gets you!

NinerBikes wrote:
As I see it... Ford Basher... knows now, that it's really a reason to bash Robert Bosch for the subsystem fuel injection system /fuel pump design as being defective, for the High Pressure Fuel Pump.

As for GM /Delphi, manufacturers of automobiles should ban key chains from the keys and tumblers of ignitions systems, period. No excuse, no other keys on the chain of the key to automobiles. That is, to me, just plain common sense.

Keyless entry and ignition systems will solve that issue. Some cars have them already, pretty sure most will in the not too distant future.
But the family of the CHP officer killed in a runaway loaner Lexus might have preferred a key with a chain. Nobody told him you have to hold the button for 5 seconds to stop the engine - he was stabbing at it, which did not work.
I know GM for one changed the control logic as a result so repeated stabbing has the same effect.

As I see it... Ford Basher... knows now, that it' really a reason to bash Robert Bosch for the subsystem fuel injection system /fuel pump design as being defective, for the High Pressure Fuel Pump.

As for GM /Delphi, manufacturers of automobiles should ban key chains from the keys and tumblers of ignitions systems, period. No excuse, no other keys on the chain of the key to automobiles. That is, to me, just plain common sense.

I have experienced this many times with vehicles. As a collision reconstructionist, part of my duties include testing our departments "bait" cars we use to combat auto theft. These are vehicles that are equipped with hidden GPS trackers, remote controlled ignition switches, and recording equipment.

I have to drive them and test their control ability when driven normally, then again when they are remotely disabled after they are stolen. It a liability thing. It IS harder to bring them to a stop, but not impossible, and very hard to steer after the power assist is taken away.

Steering is much harder than stopping. I can easily stop them from 50 - 60 mph - albeit in a longer distance. Taking away the power assist in the steering makes most vehicles almost impossible to control unless you want to just go straight. It would be even more difficult it if was completely unexpected. I gave the command to shut the test cars down when it happened so I knew what was going on.

DUH! Just got back in from drive testing 2 of our GM vehicles of the same era as Melton's vehicle. The Chevy 2004.5 D/A CC LB 4X4 truck that has the 11'4" Lance on it and the 2005 Trailblazer. Both are so much bigger and heavier than Melton's light Cobalt. The Trailblazer curb weight without me is over 4800 lbs. The truck/TC unit is nearly 4 times as heavy as Melton's Cobalt! Both were driven to 30 mph, then 45 mph, then 55 mph on a local quiet country blacktop road and then when at speed, the ignition key was turned to off. Both reacted the same. ZERO handling issues and both were beginning to slow down after the ignition was turned off so I had to quick slam on the brakes at each speed.

Steering with ignition off:

The Trailblazer was a little stiffer in steering but very easily turnable with one hand. The truck rig required a little more effort to turn the wheel but it woundn't have been even a remote issue for my 72 year old disabled wife to do.

Braking with ignition off:

No problem and I pumped each vehicle 3 times and still had very effective brakes. The ABS system did not operate but there was still no loss of braking ability.

Not about to test the airbags to see if they work as they are only activated by front end impact registered by the airbags sensors in the front bumper.

Both of our vehicle tested handled just like when the engine was running with the slight alterations noted above. Try it for yourself with your vehicle and be enlightened and educated instead of just flapping your lips and fingers!

However, of course, I didn't blow thru a stop sign at 58 mph though. That's DRIVER error and not the vehicle manufacturer's or the vehicle's problem, doing, or responsibility! The speed limit was 55 where I did this testing and it wasn't raining nor were the roads slippery as I wouldn't have even been going 55 mph! Obviously, some of you posters don't even have a slight clue as to what happens in a GM vehicle when the GM ignition is suddenly turned off at highway speeds and my little simple test proves it exactly! Other brands of vehicles may do differently but Melton was driving a GM too fast for the conditions as was noted and placed into evidence from the police report.

Of course the ignition is not supposed to turn off when driving by what had caused Melton's to have turned off if it actually did prior to blowing thru the stop sign? Was it heavy key stuff or was the switch damaged in the crash? An all around money seeking grab sought thru lawsuits!

bigdogger wrote:
...........snip..........
Apparently to you, power steering, power brakes and antilock brakes do not provide any benefit in handling a vehicle, take them away with no warning and there will be no difference in how the car handles in an emergency. And now it is OK for airbags to not deploy if there is an impact on a vehicle in a location other than the front? Good to know since many front airbag deployments occur when a vehicle makes secondary impact after being hit elsewhere, exactly like it apparently failed to deploy in this collision. I always had heard the exact opposite was true and that the airbag system had multiple redundant controls to prevent exactly that failure scenario.............snip

1) She did not lose POWER brakes unless she stomped on the pedal several times.
2) The steering would have been fine (at high speed power is not needed, especially in a smaller car).
3) Granted, the ABS would not work with the engine off.

So one out of three ain't bad.

C'mon, she blew a stop sign at 58mph and got side-swiped. How was that the car's fault?

As for air bags deploying, these cars had front air bags only the sensors for which are in the FRONT bumper. They do not deploy (and would't do any good anyway) in a side impact. That's why newer cars have side (and roll-over) airbags as well.

Look, we can argue this 'til the cows come home - the courts are the place where it will get resolved.

And BTW GM has said they will not use bankruptcy protection to avoid paying out in injury/fatality cases. They MAY use it to fend off people who want compensation because they think there cars have lost value. AFAIC those owners should make sure they get new switches and move on.
Two totally different scenarios.

This ends my discussion.

travelnutz wrote:
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!

With that logic, any failure of the airbag systems in any vehicle would be a moot point since there wouldn't have been a failure if there wasn't an accident. Heck, if the girl hadn't been out driving, none of this would have happened, so it's the fault of the state for giving her a license and letting her drive in the first place. Maybe it's the fault of whomever sold or provided the vehicle, since she wouldn't have been driving if she hadn't had a car.
Apparently to you, power steering, power brakes and antilock brakes do not provide any benefit in handling a vehicle, take them away with no warning and there will be no difference in how the car handles in an emergency. And now it is OK for airbags to not deploy if there is an impact on a vehicle in a location other than the front? Good to know since many front airbag deployments occur when a vehicle makes secondary impact after being hit elsewhere, exactly like it apparently failed to deploy in this collision. I always had heard the exact opposite was true and that the airbag system had multiple redundant controls to prevent exactly that failure scenario.
But all of these arguments are really a smokescreen to hide fact that it appears GM knew of the defect in the ignition and covered it up, willing to accept the cost of paying claims as a cheaper alternative to fixing the problem and then continued to cover it up through the bankruptcy process creating a situation where those injured prior to that bankruptcy are now barred by law from seeking damages. If it had not been covered up, those potential lawsuits and settlements would have been considered by the court and most likely funds would have bee withheld from the general creditors who got paid and placed into a trust account for those injured parties to ultimately be paid from. Instead those funds went to the pay those creditors who ultimately got more than they should have from the bankruptcy proceedings. And in the case of GMs bankruptcy, which was different than any bankruptcy before or after, those creditors were not the normal suppliers, lenders or bond holders but were the pension accounts, the union health funds and ultimately the GM itself, since the amount it had to borrow from the US Treasury to make themselves viable was less than it would have been had it accounted for those claims. Since the same management that hid the problems and the potential liability is the same management that kept their jobs and were awarded bonuses when GM emerged from bankruptcy protection, that makes it a fraud that current GM management actively benefited from.