The top component is the switch detent plunger of a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt, which is one of the seven GM models that have been recalled over problems with the vehicles’ ignition switches. The bottom image is the same component in new service replacement part. It’s longer in order to produce more tension. The weak tension of the shorter spring is believed to be the reason why ignition keys in the cars would easily switch from the on position to the accessory position if jostled. Courtesy of McSwain Engineering
Here’s a side-by-side comparison of the switch detent plunger in action. The image at left is the defective component. Notice the spring is more relaxed than the one used in the replacement part at right. This means the spring on the right is holding the plunger in the switch plate notch with greater force. A key in the ignition of the part at right would be held more securely in place than the one on the left. Courtesy of McSwain Engineering (black circles added by IBT)
March 14 UPDATE: Could this flawed part be in the auto parts aftermarket?
The distance between life and death could be 1.6 millimeters.
At least that’s the theory proposed by McSwain Engineering Inc., a Pensacola, Fla.-based failure analytics firm that took a scientist’s eye view and an X-ray machine to the ignition switch that has become the focus of a recall by General Motors of 1.6 million cars manufactured between 2005 and 2007.
The results of McSwain’s analyses show just how much small mechanical differences in automotive components can affect people’s lives. Had it not been for the death of a 29-year-old nurse in Georgia, the expert eye of a Mississippi auto mechanic and forensic engineers in Florida, these images that explain precisely what is wrong with the ignition switch would not exist.
At least 13 people have been killed in 31 accidents linked to this component since 2004, and GM is facing intense scrutiny over how the world’s second-largest automaker handled the apparent design flaw that caused vehicles to shut down while moving. Evidence is mounting that GM engineers were aware of a problem as far back as 2004, enough so that the part in question was quietly tweaked later to add that 1.6 millimeters of length to a component that holds the ignition key in place.
What is exactly the problem? How can an ignition key switch from the “on” to the “accessory” position while the car is moving, shutting down power steering and airbags and causing cars to careen with little handling ability while their drivers try to stop?
And more at the link as well as a link to a story about if this part may be defective even at the parts store.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 03-30-2014).]
Its ok, the goberment owns them, their allowed to get away with anything.
No, the govt sold the last of it's GM stock as of Dec last year, but that's starting to look pretty shady. As in-insider trading shady. As recently as 2nd qtr 2012, Govt said it wanted to wait till the stock price rose to the value that the taxpayer would be made whole again, no loss. Then, suddenly it was reported that GM was urging the Treaury Dept to go ahead and sell the Govt's share in total-all of a sudden, they did exactly that. The govt always claimed they had no part in running GM, but it has now come out, that many in GM and in NTSB NHTSA knew about the safety issues with the ignition switches, and some are now saying (speculating) that someone in either NTSB NHTSA or GM (or both) let Treasury know the sheet was about to hit the fan over this deadly ignition switch thing, and the govt hurriedly got out ahead of the smelly stuff, leaving the taxpayer on the hook for several billion $.
Another issue has arose regarding the GM bankruptcy. The congressional committee is leaning toward an investigation of whether GM indulged in fraud, since all aspects of any possible liability was supposed to be revealed to the court before the bankruptcy judge made his ruling. GM obviously knew about this switch problem before 2009, and failed to inform the court. (they knew as early as 2002 because Delphi advised GM at that tie, that the switches didn't meet GM specs) The other fly in the buttermilk is that GM has been pushing to get out of pre-bankruptcy claims--says any liabilities went with "old GM" and they shouldn't have to pay for those year model problems.
The whole thing stinks-who new what and when--in GM, in US Treasury, in NHTSA, --in the White House?
This is the kind of thing that happens when you have collusion between government and large companies. This is certainly not the first and probably won't be last of the corruption that has happened under the Obama run government. Just so you don't go off on me for being partisan, it has happened with the Republicans too, just not a flagrantly. Anytime you have governments making accommodation's for big businesses and there is a pipeline between government and big business this will happen.
For a few pennies more, they could have had the longer spring. I already removed the extra keys from my 2008 Sky key ring, but with my car being added to the list, I'll go ahead and remove the fob too. I haven't received my recall letter yet.
This is the kind of thing that happens when you have collusion between government and large companies. This is certainly not the first and probably won't be last of the corruption that has happened under the Obama run government. Just so you don't go off on me for being partisan, it has happened with the Republicans too, just not a flagrantly. Anytime you have governments making accommodation's for big businesses and there is a pipeline between government and big business this will happen.
I don't think it had anything to do with the governments part ownership of GM, check my answer to the next post why.
quote
Originally posted by carnut122:
For a few pennies more, they could have had the longer spring. I already removed the extra keys from my 2008 Sky key ring, but with my car being added to the list, I'll go ahead and remove the fob too. I haven't received my recall letter yet.
Its not the matter of a few pennies, well it could have been during assembly, but not any more. now it will cost hundreds per vehicle to fix this at the dealer. but this is nothing new and has been happening for decades and the parts made around the world in other countries is not helping it ether. You want a cheap car, parts are made all over the world, some of those parts do not meet OEM specs and are put into the car before that is caught by the company and even then in this case the engineers decides it was fine, let it ride, from the first article link above. I also think I read in that article above or maybe it was another one that this very same part is used in practically every dam vehicle GM makes, so this could get dammed expensive but I really don't think the government had anything to do with why GM didn't fix it to begin with.
but its happened before, remember Fords slipping from park into reverse in the mid to late 70s.
that would have cost a nickel to fix during the assemble of the trany but after the fact it could have cost hundreds if not more after the fact. this is nothing new and one of the things the bean counters are responsible for, cut cost, make cars light, make cars cheaper.
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 03-31-2014).]
But then again, congress is largely exempt from insider trading laws.
Looking at the 3 month history of GM stock, it looks to be down about 20-25% from its high in December. If it isn't a shady deal, I'd be surprised.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
No, the govt sold the last of it's GM stock as of Dec last year, but that's starting to look pretty shady. As in-insider trading shady. As recently as 2nd qtr 2012, Govt said it wanted to wait till the stock price rose to the value that the taxpayer would be made whole again, no loss. Then, suddenly it was reported that GM was urging the Treaury Dept to go ahead and sell the Govt's share in total-all of a sudden, they did exactly that. The govt always claimed they had no part in running GM, but it has now come out, that many in GM and in NTSB NHTSA knew about the safety issues with the ignition switches, and some are now saying (speculating) that someone in either NTSB NHTSA or GM (or both) let Treasury know the sheet was about to hit the fan over this deadly ignition switch thing, and the govt hurriedly got out ahead of the smelly stuff, leaving the taxpayer on the hook for several billion $.
Another issue has arose regarding the GM bankruptcy. The congressional committee is leaning toward an investigation of whether GM indulged in fraud, since all aspects of any possible liability was supposed to be revealed to the court before the bankruptcy judge made his ruling. GM obviously knew about this switch problem before 2009, and failed to inform the court. (they knew as early as 2002 because Delphi advised GM at that tie, that the switches didn't meet GM specs) The other fly in the buttermilk is that GM has been pushing to get out of pre-bankruptcy claims--says any liabilities went with "old GM" and they shouldn't have to pay for those year model problems.
The whole thing stinks-who new what and when--in GM, in US Treasury, in NHTSA, --in the White House?
is someone claiming the the G'ment owned GM back i n 2005? didnt think so.
so, who is saying the g'ment should NOT have sold its GM shares?
but, it is nice to see that every now again g'ment intel gets it right, eh? that damn stopped clock - right twice a day.....yay g'ment intel.....
edit: oh yeah - this is what a $20Mil/year salary gets ya? fine leadership. yes, that was well worth it. sell all the quality, stuff it into a few guys pockets, and then cry bankrupt, and get the g'ment bailout. yup. capitalism at its finest. Good Job Rick Wagoner, and cohorts. the rich got richer. Americans got screwed. YAY Capitalism.
and, lestly - who is claiming the g'ment should NOT force a recall, and let it all rest on the Buyer Beware principal? that is the capitalistic way, is it not? the endless stream of inconsistent BS really shows that it is not what happened which matters.
[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 03-31-2014).]
No, the govt sold the last of it's GM stock as of Dec last year, but that's starting to look pretty shady. As in-insider trading shady. As recently as 2nd qtr 2012, Govt said it wanted to wait till the stock price rose to the value that the taxpayer would be made whole again, no loss. Then, suddenly it was reported that GM was urging the Treaury Dept to go ahead and sell the Govt's share in total-all of a sudden, they did exactly that. The govt always claimed they had no part in running GM, but it has now come out, that many in GM and in NTSB NHTSA knew about the safety issues with the ignition switches, and some are now saying (speculating) that someone in either NTSB NHTSA or GM (or both) let Treasury know the sheet was about to hit the fan over this deadly ignition switch thing, and the govt hurriedly got out ahead of the smelly stuff, leaving the taxpayer on the hook for several billion $.
Another issue has arose regarding the GM bankruptcy. The congressional committee is leaning toward an investigation of whether GM indulged in fraud, since all aspects of any possible liability was supposed to be revealed to the court before the bankruptcy judge made his ruling. GM obviously knew about this switch problem before 2009, and failed to inform the court. (they knew as early as 2002 because Delphi advised GM at that tie, that the switches didn't meet GM specs) The other fly in the buttermilk is that GM has been pushing to get out of pre-bankruptcy claims--says any liabilities went with "old GM" and they shouldn't have to pay for those year model problems.
The whole thing stinks-who new what and when--in GM, in US Treasury, in NHTSA, --in the White House?
Has anyone noticed that GM used to be GM Inc. and now it is GM LLC?
If I remember right LLC is different and has limited liability's.
Yes. LLC is limited liability company, not corporation, so you can stop screaming about the chief manager's salary. Yes, it has limited liabilities ( no apostrophe )
quote
Or am I also wrong about that as well. Steve
No, but it is still early in the day. Keep trying.
I just saw on the news theres another new GM recall on power steering failures for millions of Cobalt, HHR, Malibu cars.
A girl friend of mine is on the list for the ignition switch recall. They told her it will be sometime in June.....
Ya one of the articles I read said some of the replacement parts used in the recall were wrong as well, not sure if they were the dealers inventory or auto parts places that had the old defective part to begin with, read the link in my first link about replacement parts at parts stores may be wrong.
Is this recall about the ignition switch because some genius engineer decided to change the way the ignition switches have worked for decades?
Because I just argued with the wife about this, typical college educated know it all. Or to be more precise exactly like her mother, knows everything about anything.
Any way we were arguing about this switch being able to shut the engine off while in drive and as always I had to prove that it can be done because she said this was an electrical computer problem. So we went out to our 94 Burb and I started it up and backed it out of where it was parked a few feet to give me room to drive it forward and in drive turned to key off, it shut all the electrics off, but it did not go as far as accessory position like the articles are saying is happening with some of these cars. I couldn't physically turn the key back beyond the off position that is actually ahead off the lock position and way ahead of accessory.
So WTF is going on here or am I miss informed as to what is actually happening with these ignition switches?
By the way I am in the dog house yet again for proving her wrong, as always when I prove anything she says to be wrong or false. I know I should know better, so don't go there.
By the way I am in the dog house yet again for proving her wrong, as always when I prove anything she says to be wrong or false. I know I should know better, so don't go there.
Is this recall about the ignition switch because some genius engineer decided to change the way the ignition switches have worked for decades?
............................................
Steve
It really pisses me off when people are quick to blame the Engineer for a problem with a product. There's a hell of a lot more going on in Corporations that lead to product failure beyond the Engineers "Control". You must realize that "All" Designs and Design Changes must be "Approved/Signed" by the Engineers Upper Management Staff. Before these items can even go before the "Board" countless Reviews are presented to the Management Team, to be assured that the design meets all requirements established by the Corporation. You must also realize that the Corporate Risk Management gets a say regarding "Acceptable Failure Rate" related to any cost increases on a part due to the design change. The bottom line is that the Engineer doesn't always get what they want, a book could be written about all the things that lead to product failure beyond the Engineers "Responsibility".
This picture is worth a thousand words on the matter:
[This message has been edited by California Kid (edited 04-01-2014).]
We used to have an '09 Cobalt. The key got stuck in the ignition and would not rotate to the off position TWICE and got stuck in the off position once in the 2 years we owned it. I'm glad they are recalling this (Finally) because it was a serious and widespread issue, with potential safety ramifications.
DETROIT — General Motors is recalling 1.3 million vehicles in the U.S. because the electronic power-steering assist can suddenly stop working.
Included in the recall are the Chevrolet Malibu, Malibu Maxx, Chevrolet HHR, Saturn Aura, Saturn Ion and Pontiac G6. Model years vary, but all of the vehicles are from the 2010 model year or earlier.
The new recall brings to 6.1 million the number of vehicles GM has recalled since February, and 4.9 million in the last 30 days.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-01-2014).]
GM's not going to feel the hit. The Technician who puts everyone in for 1/10 of an hour and doesn't get paid until the manufacturer pays the dealer is going to feel it.
Is this recall about the ignition switch because some genius engineer decided to change the way the ignition switches have worked for decades?
Because I just argued with the wife about this, typical college educated know it all. Or to be more precise exactly like her mother, knows everything about anything.
Any way we were arguing about this switch being able to shut the engine off while in drive and as always I had to prove that it can be done because she said this was an electrical computer problem. So we went out to our 94 Burb and I started it up and backed it out of where it was parked a few feet to give me room to drive it forward and in drive turned to key off, it shut all the electrics off, but it did not go as far as accessory position like the articles are saying is happening with some of these cars. I couldn't physically turn the key back beyond the off position that is actually ahead off the lock position and way ahead of accessory.
So WTF is going on here or am I miss informed as to what is actually happening with these ignition switches?
Steve
I believe around the model year 2004, GM changed the ignition switch operation.
Used to be the accessory (ACC) "on" position (ever since GM added the "ACC" position to ignition switches) had to be purposely turned COUNTERCLOCKWISE to turn on. Now all motion is in the CLOCKWISE direction to turn on, 1st click is ACC, 2nd click is RUN. It only takes 1 click COUNTERCLOCKWISE to put a running vehicle in the "ACC" position which apparently disables things like airbags.
I believe around the model year 2004, GM changed the ignition switch operation.
Used to be the accessory (ACC) "on" position (ever since GM added the "ACC" position to ignition switches) had to be purposely turned COUNTERCLOCKWISE to turn on. Now all motion is in the CLOCKWISE direction to turn on, 1st click is ACC, 2nd click is RUN. It only takes 1 click COUNTERCLOCKWISE to put a running vehicle in the "ACC" position which apparently disables things like airbags.
I think that was before 2004... my 2001 aztek only has clockwise motion.
I think that was before 2004... my 2001 aztek only has clockwise motion.
The "new" version of ignition switch probably was phased in gradually. The Grand Prix thru 2003 was the "old" way and was changed to the new version on the 2004 Grand Prix model.
It really pisses me off when people are quick to blame the Engineer for a problem with a product. There's a hell of a lot more going on in Corporations that lead to product failure beyond the Engineers "Control". You must realize that "All" Designs and Design Changes must be "Approved/Signed" by the Engineers Upper Management Staff. Before these items can even go before the "Board" countless Reviews are presented to the Management Team, to be assured that the design meets all requirements established by the Corporation. You must also realize that the Corporate Risk Management gets a say regarding "Acceptable Failure Rate" related to any cost increases on a part due to the design change. The bottom line is that the Engineer doesn't always get what they want, a book could be written about all the things that lead to product failure beyond the Engineers "Responsibility".
I think it was the first link I posted that stated that the engineer in charge of the recall who said no to recalling the problem to begin with, but I may be wrong. my problem is with engineers who won't admit their own mistakes, not when it was the bean counters or others within the company who nix the idea or innovation or whatever you want to call it. don't take offence to the fact that it was the engineer who said, "We can't fix it" even though they could and have, the engineers are the ones who changed the ignition design, whether it was their idea or not it was them who made the designed part.
How many threads have been started right here with the words, "If I ever get my hands on the engineer who" ?
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 04-01-2014).]
I think it was the first link I posted that stated that the engineer in charge of the recall who said no to recalling the problem to begin with, but I may be wrong. my problem is with engineers who won't admit their own mistakes, not when it was the bean counters or others within the company who nix the idea or innovation or whatever you want to call it. don't take offence to the fact that it was the engineer who said, "We can't fix it" even though they could and have, the engineers are the ones who changed the ignition design, whether it was their idea or not it was them who made the designed part.
How many threads have been started right here with the words, "If I ever get my hands on the engineer who" ?
Steve
I've worked in Automotive Engineering for more than 30 years, and I can tell you the idea to change the design of the switch could have come from many places, and rammed down the Design/Release Engineers throat. Being a very high volume part, minor changes that save even a penny are sought after. Part Suppliers are continually pressed to reduce costs, and submit "Suggestions" on design changes that will reduce costs. The bottom line is that Design "must meet" all Engineering Requirements set by the Corporation in order to be Released for Production, Period. The Design Release Engineer does not set up these requirements, they come from other groups, and must be approved by Corporate Management. If a part/s meets all Corporate Test Requirements, how can you hold the Engineer responsible?
That being said, I wouldn't be so quick to blame the Design/Release Engineer for faulty part/s going into a product. I'm not saying that all Engineers are great, it's just that most people do not understand the World they live in, or what they have to deal with. This issue with the Ignition Switch goes far deeper that any of the Design Release Engineers who were involved with this over the years.
I've worked in Automotive Engineering for more than 30 years, and I can tell you the idea to change the design of the switch could have come from many places, and rammed down the Design/Release Engineers throat. Being a very high volume part, minor changes that save even a penny are sought after. Part Suppliers are continually pressed to reduce costs, and submit "Suggestions" on design changes that will reduce costs. The bottom line is that Design "must meet" all Engineering Requirements set by the Corporation in order to be Released for Production, Period. The Design Release Engineer does not set up these requirements, they come from other groups, and must be approved by Corporate Management. If a part/s meets all Corporate Test Requirements, how can you hold the Engineer responsible?
That being said, I wouldn't be so quick to blame the Design/Release Engineer for faulty part/s going into a product. I'm not saying that all Engineers are great, it's just that most people do not understand the World they live in, or what they have to deal with. This issue with the Ignition Switch goes far deeper that any of the Design Release Engineers who were involved with this over the years.
According to documents released Sunday, GM engineers received reports about problems like this — and held meetings about it — in 2005. Engineers decided against a fix because it would take too long and cost too much money.
it is also a 57 cent part, no a few pennies as some have said, 57s cents you say why not fix it? because over the corce of building hundreds of thousands of vehicles during the build that would amount to a lot of lost profit lost. Add to that the fact that the recall would cost even more, millions in fact, what you if you owned the company making a product do?
Barra testified that the fix to the switch, if undertaken in 2007, would have cost GM about $100 million, compared with "substantially" more now.
According to documents released Sunday, GM engineers received reports about problems like this — and held meetings about it — in 2005. Engineers decided against a fix because it would take too long and cost too much money.
Steve
Design Release Engineers "DO NOT" make decisions like it will take too long and cost too much money, only Management is allowed to make those decisions. The Design Release Engineer is responsible for only reporting the issue, causes, design change to fix, cost and timing to Management. Management decides whether to Approve or Reject what the Engineer proposes to the Management Team.
I don't fault you for what you've read, but you have no idea how Automotive Engineering really works in today's World, and neither does the person how published the article you referenced, as it's poorly worded.
edit: I also read where someone said an Engineer (Specifications Group) revised the Corporate Specification for these switches without Management or Release Engineers Approval. From my experience that would be an all out Forged Document and highly unlikely. However, if it did happen, it's not the fault of the Design Release Engineer who brought the design of part/s to Production Release Status.
I'm fairly certain you won't like this response either, just telling you how it really is. All said and done, they may hang this issue on an underling Design Release Engineer, but it's the Management Team who is responsible.
[This message has been edited by California Kid (edited 04-01-2014).]
Design Release Engineers "DO NOT" make decisions like it will take too long and cost too much money, only Management is allowed to make those decisions. The Design Release Engineer is responsible for only reporting the issue, causes, design change to fix, and timing to Management. Management decides whether to Approve or Reject what the Engineer proposes to the Management Team.
I don't fault you for what you've read, but you have no idea how Automotive Engineering really works in today's World, and neither does the person how published the article you referenced, as it's poorly worded.
Hey I just quoted the article in the link that was presented to the congressional committee investigating this.
Hey I just quoted the article in the link that was presented to the congressional committee investigating this.
Read the link.
Steve
They can tell the Congressional Committee anything they want, because that Committee doesn't know how the "System" works at GM, Ford, or Chrysler related to Design Changes.
They can tell the Congressional Committee anything they want, because that Committee doesn't know how the "System" works at GM, Ford, or Chrysler related to Design Changes.
Correct.
quote
A separate, April 26, 2006, document called a "validation sign-off", authorized changes to the switch, including a new spring, designed to increase the force required to move the switch.
The document showed that the part number did not change, when redesigned, an issue which GM said hampered its own internal investigation.
"It is inconceivable," Barra said, when asked about the design change without a corresponding change in part number. "It is not our process."
Moreover, several fields on the document marked as "required" are left blank or with "N/A", including purchase order number and "validation engineer".
The document has the signature of GM "lead engineer" Ray DeGiorgio, who could not be reached for comment. In a 2013 deposition in a suit against GM, DeGiorgio had said he was unaware of a change in the part.
A retired GM manager familiar with the automaker's engineering and manufacturing procedures said that another manager would have had to sign off on the part, by company policy, given DeGiorgio's relatively low seniority. "So who approved a design change without a part number change?"
Barra confirmed that DeGiorgio is still employed by the company and said she has not yet heard his explanation for signing the 2006 document.
I received the ignition recall letter for my 06 HHR. When the car was new, it did have an issue with a "stuck" ignition key that was fixed under warrenty. With GM's reluctance to notify owners when the know of an issue with some small component speaks loudly about how GM did business in the past and probably continue to do in the future. The car companies are run by book keepers who only look at the bottom line and how to save money so if they can save $0.50/car it adds up to big bucks at the end of the year and big profits. Currently GM has only one car that could replace my HHR, a Buick Encore, but is made in Korea and has a high price tag. If I want a small Korean SUV, I can get a Kia Sportage or Hyundai Tucson for less money.
Now GM has a new CEO, who will get thrown under the bus for the company, but GM will have an "atta boy" as the first auto company to put a female as a CEO.
Yes, it has limited liabilities ( no apostrophe ) 
