Posted on 07/08/2014 9:29:09 AM PDT by jazusamo
Subaru last week announced a second recall for vehicles which are prone to brake line corrosion in "salt belt" states. This latest recall follows a 2013 recall for the same issue, which can cause brake failure from burst brake lines due to rust. As Subaru does the right thing by consumers and motorists regarding the safety concern, General Motors continues to claim that brake line rust is a normal maintenance issue and refuses to recall its vehicles with the same problem.
The Subaru recall weakens GM's defense that rusting brake lines do not need to be addressed by manufacturers and owners should bear the costs and responsibility to replace rusted brake lines. As with GM's models, the Subaru models affected are prone to rust after six or seven winters. In the case of GM models, the company has far more complaints of brake line rust than any other manufacturer, as reported here last week.
The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has had an ongoing investigation on GM's rusting brake lines problem for four years. Despite evidence that the problem plagues newer model as well, the investigation has not been expanded to include later model GM vehicles. The current investigation focuses on 1999 through 2003 model year trucks, leading to GM's defense that rusting brake lines are only a problem on older vehicles. A search of NHTSA's website (as well as on the internet), however, finds hundreds of complaints for model years 2004 through 2007.
GM has been giving an outward appearance of safety concern of late as millions of vehicles were recently recalled. However, a closer inspection of the types of recalls that are issued may give evidence of a nefarious strategy by GM to recall vehicles with low costs of repairs while ignoring serious safety concerns that have more costly fixes.
One of GM's latest recalls was for over 7 million vehicles with ignition switch problems similar to that found in the infamous Chevy Cobalt recall debacle. What is less widely known is that GM's fix this time around is to insert a plastic insert into owners' keys and warn them not to use extra keys on their key rings. This ludicrous fix was tried on the recalled Chevy Cobalts before the problem was properly addressed by replacing the ignition switches. It will literally cost GM just pennies per vehicle to "fix" the millions of recently recalled vehicles.
There may be an even more sleezy reason for GM's willingness to recall vehicles with low costs of repairs. It appears that the extra showroom traffic that is driven by the recalls can lead to increased sales for GM. GM initially realized this when they first called in Chevy Cobalts after delaying the ignition switch recall for years. To compensate owners of the recalled cars, GM offered $500 towards a brand spanking new GM vehicle.
GM's new Vice President of Global Safety, Jeffrey Boyer, continues to follow the lead of previous positions set forth by GM spokesman Alan Adler when he denied the National Legal and Policy Center's request to recall GM vehicles prone to brake line rust. It is hard to believe that Mr. Boyer independently came to the conclusion that millions of GM vehicles with rusting brake lines are not a risk to the public. Let's hope that increased media attention spurred by the Subaru recall and continued calls for GM to recall its dangerous vehicles will finally get trucks with corroding brake lines off the highways.
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.
On May 13, we asked GM to recall Chevy Silverados and other pickups and SUVs with a brake line corrosion problem. GM responded by claiming that it was a "maintenance issue" and therefore not a reason to order a recall.
The media is finally paying attention to the issue. Yesterday, Bloomberg ran a story titled "GM's Rusting Brake Lines Don't Make the Cut in Record Recalls," by Jeff Plungis and Jeff Green. From the piece:
"They seem to be doing a lot of recalls, but on closer investigation, you find they're more hesitant to do the recalls that cost more money," said Mark Modica, an associate fellow with the National Legal and Policy Center, who was a onetime GM bondholder and a former manager at a Saturn dealership in Pennsylvania. "GM's response has been quite callous."
The New York Times also covered the issue yesterday in an article titled "G.M. Resists Recalling Trucks Over Brake Line," by Christopher Jensen.
Likewise, James R. Hood of the Consumer Affairs website posted a piece titled, "GM Truck Owners Say Safety Review Has Ignored Brake-Line Corrosion Issue," which extensively quotes Modica.
Let's hope this media attention will prompt GM and/or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to act. The fact that Subaru last week ordered a recall for the exact same problem should also increase pressure on GM to do the right thing.
Our March 19 request for a recall of vehicles with a power steering loss defect received a much quicker response. On March 31, GM announced it would recall 1.3 million vehicles.
Mark Modica and NLPC has stayed with this and is finally getting the attention of media, maybe GM will finally make this right with truck owners.
Could the difference between the two companies and their response be that one is private and the other is a government agency by proxy, responsive to the obama mob and its agenda?
I love Subarus. I’ve but 200k miles on mine over the last 14 years or so and it has been a great car. All wheel drive, good gas mileage (for an all wheel drive), safe, reliable, and believe it or not the lower center of gravity of the boxer engine is something you can feel in the way it handles.
Anything is possible with 0bama and GM and probable in this case.
I agree with GM on this one. Cars in the rust belt have rusting problems. How many years should a rusted out hunk of junk last?
‘There may be an even more sleezy reason for GM’s willingness to recall vehicles with low costs of repairs. It appears that the extra showroom traffic that is driven by the recalls can lead to increased sales for GM. GM initially realized this when they first called in Chevy Cobalts after delaying the ignition switch recall for years. To compensate owners of the recalled cars, GM offered $500 towards a brand spanking new GM vehicle.’
Granted its tacky but...who in their right mind would buy another GM product? Its sort of a double whammy, your trade (yet unfixed) is worth little, youre in deeper debt than when you came in for a longer period and its pretty likely your new vehicle is going to have problems/high cost of ownership just like the one you currently own. I just dont see the draw...
NHTSA Lists 1,895 Complaints for GM Brake Lines, GM Denies Problem
Like I said, it’s the rust belt. How many years should GM have to warranty their vehicles from rusting out?
Brake line corrosion due to salt is far too expensive to be recalled.
Using my 2005 Safari AWD van as an example, the brake lines are not available due to the size/shipping cost of the shaped brake lines. When I replace them, and I will have to because the car spent one year in Denver where Mr. Van met Mr Salt, I will have to buy the bulk tubing, bend it to shape, and swage the fittings and tube ends.
I can hardly wait - - - :-(
I agree and don’t see the draw either. If I owned one of those vehicles I sure wouldn’t turn around and buy another GM product.
You’re correct and that’s why GM is refusing to recall, this would cost them big bucks.
GM and Nissan must have the same policy on recalls since my 2003 Nissan Frontier Pickup had to have its gas tank replaced at my expence even though it was ordered recalled by the NHTSA.
The vehicle’s gas tank had to be replaced because of poor engineering on behalf of Nissan.They put a fuel pump/Sensor unit in the tank that was prone to shorting out as a result of contamination with snow and road salt.
Something we get a lot of here in the NorthEast.
That tank was replaced twice 4 years apart.I’ll never buy a Nissan or GM.
some of the trucks they are complaining about are only 3-5 years old..
So...
How long should they last?
My Subaru isn’t on the recall list because we live in Virginia. I should get it checked, however, because I drive to Iowa every winter. After coming back through W VA one year, I had about 1/2” of salt on the fenders.
It is always a problem for someone who is dishonest when someone honest does the right thing.
A young friend had this brake problem on a suburban he fought with for about a year before just dumping it. He drives a Ford truck now and is very happy with it. Ford will be my next truck even though my Cummins soldiers on with integrity. I will not buy from an obastard union spawn.
I told my wife quite some time ago that our next car would probably be an Outback. Well designed, durable, safe, not so efficient, maybe not too exciting but you can’t have everything. It certainly won’t be the GM product we have bought for almost 40 years and my parents bought for 20 years before that and that my grandfather built at Fisher Body since before WWII.
I disagree with GM. I’ve seen the problem on vehicles that have never seen one day of snow, ice or even freezing weather. The corrosion is internal so the salt bunk is bunk.
I bought my last in 2006. I had no end of trouble w/ that truck even after keeping it properly maintained.
More than the six or 7 years the article states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.