Ignition switch fix would've been $1 per vehicle

[dparm]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/02/us-gm-recall-delphi-idUSBREA3105R20140402


"The change would have cost an extra 90 cents per unit and additional tooling costs of $400,000, one email showed."


Unbelievable.

 

[147_Grain]

The documents submitted to Congress today said the upgrade a dozen years ago would have been $0.57 cents.

 

[Nate1979]

I'm sure this type of decision (quality vs cost) is made on almost every component of a car. Hind sight is 20/20.

 

[Brybo86]

worst case scenario.... I'll(we) well just have to bail them out... again

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
I'm sure this type of decision (quality vs cost) is made on almost every component of a car. Hind sight is 20/20.

+1

 

[ls1mike]

Quality VS Cost, it happens everywhere, even on Submarines. Doesn't make it right, but it happens.

Also like on Submarines, and other industries, a part may not meet specification, but when evaluated the decision to use it can be made. That is fine, as long as the part proves it will work as advertised. Not sure why they let this one go for so long.

 

[eljefino]

^ I've read that GM (and everyone else) will create an obscure spec like "Plastic tabs will remain flexible after 10 years exposure to X units of UV" then they'll sample a supplier's part. It'll fail, but instead of fixing it, they'll browbeat the supplier to refund 30%.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
The documents submitted to Congress today said the upgrade a dozen years ago would have been $0.57 cents.

The last thing any legislature anywhere on this planet should be doing is quoting or commenting on costs on anything.

 

[NHGUY]

I liked it when they asked Barra how many non-GM-standard parts were on present model vehicles,and instead of saying "none" she said she couldnt come up with a list.Should make buyers today feel real good that GM accepts parts that dont even meet their own mediocre standards.And this is the NEW GM,as she kept reminding.Yet nobody has been fired and the whole staff is largely the same.And seemingly she isnt in the loop,asking her a number of questions about GMs own timeline and she wasnt aware of them.Guess she's not kept up to speed..... Sounds like Robert Stempel all over again.

 

[CourierDriver]

It is all about money, but if they cannot build a spring correctly, how about you rods, bearings and so on,,,hmmmm
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/...tcmp=latestnews

 

[Silverado12]

I had an 06 Cobalt and didn't notice anything unusual about the switch. I suspect the problem is from a lot of stuff hanging from the ring.

 

[DirtyMoe21]

Gm has disappointed me.

 

[Kira]

"Gm has disappointed me." You don't say!

When did any of the car makers fail to disappoint? They increase the "glamour content" and price of their products and fail to zero in on and remedy problems.

Looking for a car sucks.
You're always walking through a minefield of shoddiness, shortcuts, overpowered engines and don't forget the PO's dereliction of maintenance.
We do cars wrong as a society. Kira

 

[rjundi]

Instead killing/injuring a few people old GM's mantra and hide/pick up the costs in court. Hope it goes away.

Sadly new GM still shoved under the rug since we are 10 years latter.

Realistically it has no effect on my desire for their products which if in the market would be large SUV only and that awesome CTS-V wagon if I had some money to burn.

 

[pottymouth]

GM is in big trouble here and rightfully so. Still, I hate this kind of journalism and the way the public just latches on with little thought.

I have read of at least three of these fatal accidents where seatbelts were not worn by those who were killed. How many more were the same? How many of these cars were travelling in excess of the posted speed limits when they crashed? Was alcohol/drugs a factor? Cell phone usage?

So again, nothing excuses GM's refusal to fix the problem when it was first exposed, but in at least some of these cases there was contributory negligence on the part of the vehicle occupants. How about equal coverage for encouraging people to wear their seatbelts? How in Hades are people still not buckling up in the 21st century?

 

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
Instead killing/injuring a few people old GM's mantra and hide/pick up the costs in court. Hope it goes away.


It's not just GM and not by a longshot. Actuaries work feverishly to determine the financial impact of liability. Even the great and benevolent government chooses the cheaper path. I worked on a project in the early '90's to melt ice on suspension bridge cables. You might be surprised that 100s of pounds of ice can form on the cables at altitude and then break loose and crash onto the roadway. We proposed a system to prevent the formation of ice but the government agency in charge decided to pass on the project because the energy and maintenance costs of the system were significantly higher than the projected costs of payouts to those who would be injured or killed by falling ice. I was shocked then, but have since come to understand that it always comes down to money.

 

[Whitewolf]

You can't bring the people back.
There was a fault that was apparently known within GM but it appears that it was concealed for years.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Kira
Looking for a car sucks.
You're always walking through a minefield of shoddiness, shortcuts, overpowered engines and don't forget the PO's dereliction of maintenance.


I hear you there. Although I've found the same to be true of homeownership.

Quote:
We do cars wrong as a society. Kira


Do we? We've made them into an extension of our bodies. Stupid things wear out, yet we shovel scads of money at them. And expect them to do everything for us, plus walk the cat. Sometimes I think I'd be better off w/o the stupid things; I expect way too much of them.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
I'm sure this type of decision (quality vs cost) is made on almost every component of a car.


This is absolutely true. Every single component on a vehicle is looked at with regard to MANY different criteria. Cost, obviously, will be one of them. Decisions are made based on cost every single day around conference room tables.

We all know that everything in life, including running a business, is all about risk management.

GM made the conscious decision that the risk of not replacing the switches did not overcome the cost. And I personally don't fault them for that; I'm sure (well, I hope, at least) that they had a fairly detailed business case that considered both alternatives. I'm pretty sure that nobody at GM said, "we know people are doing to die, but we'd rather save the 50 cents." They probably felt, though their best research at the time, that the switches did not present a severe safety hazard.

It turns out, apparently, that their business decision was wrong. I don't think they should be burned at the stake for it, much like I felt the Congressional inquiry into Toyota was ridiculous. Neither of these companies had criminal intentions as they are made out to have had. Nobody at GM or at Toyota is out to kill people.

Honestly, I'm glad that I don't have to be the guy who makes those $100,000,000 decisions on whether to replace a part or not.

 

[Whitewolf]

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive".
Sir Walter Scott.