RECALLS hurt CAR sales.
American car manufacturers are not the only name plates to suffer RECALLS. 2009 newly minted models, barely six months old are already showing signs of parts and manufacturing defects.
IS the pressure on suppliers and factories showing itself in QUALITY CONTROL? Since survival of the auto industry depends on the public’s perception of value, safety and reliability, consider the buyer’s confusion when some of JD Powers’ finest show up on a recall list? 
2009 Chevrolet Traverse: REAR SEAT BELTS ASSEMBLY.
2009 NISSAN FRONTIER, PATHFINDER,ARMADA: CRASH-ZONE SENSOR
2009 BMW M3: POWER TRAIN CLUTCH ASSEMPLY
2009 KIA RONDO: FUEL SYSTEM: GAS TANK
2009 DODGE RAM 3500: STEERING : LINKAGES : TIE ROD ASSEMBLY
2009 JEEP PATRIOT: POWER TRAIN : AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION : CONTROL MODULE (TCM, PCM)
2008 SUBARU IMPREZA: ENGINE, ENGINE COOLING
2008 Lexus GS 300/350, IS 250/350 and LS 460/460L: FUEL PIPES/ SEAT BELTS
The system is much better at handling consumer safety issues, as the manufacturers’ deluge the registered owners with email, snail mail and an electronic call as soon as the problem evolves to RECALL status. However, the lack of available parts may cause the some manufacturers to hold off an “announcement” until parts suppliers have sufficient inventory available to meet the production run.
Dealers are quick to fix the issue and bend over backwards to retain the consumer’s trust, yet, they are often caught in the middle when the part is not available in a timely manner.
The real rub comes when the problem is noted in hundreds of thousands of cases, but the manufacturer and parts supplier have no idea what the problem is, or how to fix it. Is it SOFTWARE or HARDWARE failure? The 2007-2008 Dodge Cummins Diesel is a perfect example of this ongoing problem.
WHY has the Dodge/Ford diesel problem failed to capture the notice of the NHTSA for RECALL STATUS?
Well, to date no person has died from the trucks uneven performance. The trucks haven’t stalled on a train track or died in an intersection, however, the problem is causing untold millions of lost revenue, increased fuel consumption and destruction of air quality as the DPF system failure results in a larger carbon footprint than the original intention of lowering carbons into the atmosphere was allegedly going to produce.
Add to this conundrum the current state of the automotive industry, and you have to wonder if a RECALL by the NHTSA would be the final nail in the coffin of at least one Detroit automaker?
Is it a “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” situation because the EP’s national emissions standards policies on Ultra Low Sulfur Fuel are involved?
I guess in a way, one might say the situation has in effect reduced some carbon exhaust, as more and more consumers and business owners opt out on Dodge and Ford diesel trucks in favor of GAS models. Given the average five thousand dollar upgrade cost for the diesel engine and the dismal fuel economy, why would you buy a truck with known issues, while gas is under $2.50 a gallon?
If the underlying premise was to make diesel trucks dinosaurs, this may be the starvation route.
If RECALLS are strictly for safety related issues, maybe we need another type of alert beyond the TECHNICAL BULLETINS, which are known issues the manufacturer does not have to pay to fix if out of warranty.
How about a NHTSA VEHICLE ALERT? This ALERT should be as nationally recognizable as a RECALL, addressing component failure that is NOT LIFE THREATENING but causes damage to the environment or to components that reduce the overall life expectancy of a part/vehicle. The suspect components would have to be replaced by the manufacturer at their cost and warranted by the manufacturer for more than one year.
A NHTSA backed VEHICLE ALERT might force the industry to opt for the quality control upfront, rather than the threat of a potential RECALL later. Unfortunately, in the case of the Dodge/Ford DPF issue, the factory is ordering the dealers to fix the problem with band-aids until the truck is out of warranty (read: not their cost anymore). A defective part is a defective part, and regardless of warranty, should be fixed gratis.
NHTSA has the teeth to make the manufacturers comply, but, if they chose to look the other way the consumer is stuck.
Sarah Lee is an automotive executive with 20+ years of experience. She writers about Cars, and is a staunch consumer advocate on car related subjects. Her company: MY CARLADY is a car buyer’s service committed to getting you the best deal on your next new or pre-owned vehicle. You can reach her at www.mycarlady.com
More From MyCarlady®
Available Cars
Download Free MyCarlady Podcasts:
Waiting for parts after a recall is announced is often not the major timing problem. The major issue I have seen in many safety recalls is the timing of the recall notification. The car companies try to avoid the federal regulations requiring a company to file a defect report within five days of determining that there exists a safety defect. Essentially, they claim that no one in their companies can officially decide a part contains a safety defect until a final committee or executive approves the decision. This ignores the fact that the engineer who decides a part contains a safety defect is often way more knowledgeable about the part than is the committee or the executive. In my opinion, it’s nothing more than a way to bend (or break!) the rules to minimize the financial and public relations aspects of a recall.
Waiting for parts after a recall is announced is often not the major timing problem. The major issue I have seen in many safety recalls is the timing of the recall notification. The car companies try to avoid the federal regulations requiring a company to file a defect report within five days of determining that there exists a safety defect. Essentially, they claim that no one in their companies can officially decide a part contains a safety defect until a final committee or executive approves the decision. This ignores the fact that the engineer who decides a part contains a safety defect is often way more knowledgeable about the part than is the committee or the executive. In my opinion, it’s nothing more than a way to bend (or break!) the rules to minimize the financial and public relations aspects of a recall.
Taras@CarSafetyLawyer.com
Taras Rudnitsky
Comment by Taras Rudnitsky — February 24, 2009 @ 10:21 pm