Recent Topics
Mobil 1 5w50 now FS too
by BobFout
Yesterday at 11:55 PM
Front brakes for 1991 GMC Sierra 2500
by sr17
Yesterday at 11:35 PM
7200 Miles
by Yup
Yesterday at 11:08 PM
Result; 5 additives tested in a lab
by DrAdmin
Yesterday at 09:25 PM
What are advantages of rotation ?
by HTSS_TR
Yesterday at 09:22 PM
Arthritic joints
by Eddie
Yesterday at 08:55 PM
Trouble Installing Filter
by Astro_Guy
Yesterday at 08:09 PM
Kia P0138 Code From Old Amsoil Stabilizer ??
by Quadrasteer
Yesterday at 07:43 PM
Micro Guard Filter
by Jason1221
Yesterday at 07:38 PM
'88 Caddy Brougham 307 c.u. oil selection
by momo
Yesterday at 07:34 PM
Kawasaki FX730V
by Jason1221
Yesterday at 07:30 PM
'88 Caddy Brougham 307 c.u. oil filter
by momo
Yesterday at 06:57 PM
Newest Members
troutwest66, AIRJAC3, bpete65, LEVY, Timmytimmy
58000 Registered Users
Who's Online
35 registered (barkingspider, alan003, 01rangerxl, 6 invisible), 754 Guests and 314 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
58000 Members
66 Forums
249507 Topics
4084441 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
#3401022 - 06/18/14 09:51 PM Re: Another 3.16 Million GM Recall [Re: Falcon_LS]
artificialist Offline


Registered: 09/23/07
Posts: 8048
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
All I can say is, I'm glad they're taking it seriously now. I'll give GM credit for that.


I'm glad someone else looks at it the same way. Instead of hiding it under the bed sheets, they're taking responsibility for their actions in the past and doing something about it.

If they really cared that much, they would have gone back, and recalled most of their V6 engines that have weak intake manifold gaskets.
_________________________
2010 Lancer Ralliart Sportback

Top
#3401043 - 06/18/14 10:06 PM Re: Another 3.16 Million GM Recall [Re: tenderloin]
FetchFar Offline


Registered: 10/17/13
Posts: 831
Loc: Colorado
Strange: GM gets in trouble because thier ignition switches turn off the car while driving, and Toyota gets in trouble (runaway throttles) because their push-buttons they use DON'T allow you to turn the car off while driving that easily.
_________________________
'07 BMW 530xi N52 engine, E60 chassis, 255 hp
'11 Chevy Camaro LS, 3.6L V6, Zeta chassis, 312 hp
'40 Chevrolet Special Deluxe 2-Door Town Sedan

Top
#3401187 - 06/19/14 05:14 AM Re: Another 3.16 Million GM Recall [Re: FetchFar]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 17430
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Strange: GM gets in trouble because thier ignition switches turn off the car while driving, and Toyota gets in trouble (runaway throttles) because their push-buttons they use DON'T allow you to turn the car off while driving that easily.


Interesting dichotomy, eh? And with 9 of the 13 reported incidents suggesting driver impairment in decade old car, too.

Absolute baloney as far as I'm concerned...
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3401226 - 06/19/14 07:12 AM Re: Another 3.16 Million GM Recall [Re: tenderloin]
supton Offline


Registered: 11/09/08
Posts: 8289
Loc: NH
I don't know about being "complete" baloney but it does underscore how many things have to go wrong. Bad switch, too many keys on the ring, bad driver and bad luck. Remove any one of them, and voila! no incidents.
_________________________
2011 Toyota Camry, base, 6spd manual, 114k, hers
2010 Toyota Tundra double cab, 4.6L, auto, 124k, his

Top
#3401499 - 06/19/14 12:58 PM Re: Another 3.16 Million GM Recall [Re: tenderloin]
Win Offline


Registered: 02/05/03
Posts: 3983
Loc: Arkansas
I'll say this for them - they're persistent to the point of driving me batty with recall notices on the ignition cylinder for the Solstice.

They've sent at least two letters to the lake house, which is the address I used for the purchase of the car.

They've figured out I have another address for the other Pontiacs, and have sent letters there.

The other day I got an e mail about it.

Now, I'm getting postcards from the dealer about the recall.

I think it's been almost two years since the car has moved from the garage, so I don't have much interest in getting it out just for this recall (GM knows this too - the OnStar subscription is still active).

Particularly when the switch works just fine.

I understand erring on the side of caution, but this seems really overblown.
_________________________
09 Torrent 3.6 V6 M1 0/30
09 Solstice 2.4 I4 Fram 5/30
08 G8 3.6 V6 Fram 5/30
04 Xj8 4.2 V8 Hav 5/40
99 S-10 2.2 I4 RECOVERED
94 Xj12 6.0 V12

Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3