Posted on 03/30/2014 1:19:58 PM PDT by jazusamo
DETROIT — Somewhere inside the two-inch ignition switch from the 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt was the clue that Mark Hood was seeking.
Mr. Hood, an engineer in Florida, had photographed, X-rayed and disassembled the device in the fall of 2012, focusing on the tiny plastic and metal switch that controlled the ignition. But even after hours of testing, Mr. Hood was at a loss to explain why the engine in Brooke Melton’s Cobalt had suddenly shut off, causing her fatal accident in 2010 in Georgia.
It was no small matter to her family, which had hired Mr. Hood for their lawsuit against General Motors.
Then he bought a replacement for $30 from a local G.M. dealership, and the mystery quickly unraveled. For the first time, someone outside G.M., even by the company’s own account, had figured out a problem that it had known about for a decade, and is now linked to 13 deaths.
The discovery was at once subtle and significant: Even though the new switch had the same identification number — 10392423 — Mr. Hood found big differences. A tiny metal plunger in the switch was longer in the replacement part. And the switch’s spring was more compressed. And most important, the force needed to turn the ignition on and off was greater.
“There was a substantial increase in the torque of the switch,” Mr. Hood said. “We took measurements. And they were very different.”
So began the discovery that would set in motion G.M.’s worldwide recall of 2.6 million Cobalts and other cars, and one of the gravest safety crises in the company’s history.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The ignition switch is separate from the “key lock cylinder”. The ignition switch is located on the steering column beneath the dashboard. I believe that jarring and/or wear can effect the internal contacts of the old style switch causing a break in continuity. This may or may not be associated with jarring of or dangling of weight on the “key lock cylinder”.
Thanks for linking, good catch and a most interesting article.
Yet more info that GM is hanging out there a mile. Tuesday and Wednesdays hearings with Mary Barra looks like they’ll be very interesting.
If the part is a safety replacement, then yes, it shouldn’t have the exact same number, for exactly the reason you mention. But it wasn’t clear to me from the article that that’s how this was viewed.
Back in 1979 or ‘80 I flew into Minneapolis and went to claim my reserved rental car at Avis. The gal said it was a blue Ford Granada in slot 14. When I got there, there was a blue Mercury Monarch in slot 14. After reporting this to the counter and being assured that it was the vehicle for me, and upon approaching it from the opposite side, I discovered that on the driver’s side it had the name plates, etc. of a Ford Granada, but on the passenger’s side, from which I originally approached it, it bore all the markings of a Mercury Monarch. Boo-boo on the assembly line.
I haven’t kept up with all the model names. GM actually named a car the Flaw?
Using the same part number for the redesigned switch with redesigned parts doesn't border on fraud. It is fraud!
Will Ray LaHood be advising Government Motors owners of affected cars to not drive their recalled cars??
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.