Recall Alert: 2007-2011 Chevy Silverado, GMC Sierra 2500/3500

6a00d83451b3c669e201a511d9827c970c-800wi

Vehicles Affected: About 9,400 model-year 2007-2011 Chevrolet Silverado 2500/3500 and GMC Sierra 2500/3500 pickup trucks equipped with the auxiliary battery option

The Problem: The owner's manual for the recalled vehicles does not specify a maximum amperage rating for the auxiliary battery feed to a trailer harness. An electrical overload of the auxiliary battery feed may cause the underhood fusible link to melt and damage nearby wiring. GM is aware of six fires and 10 incidents of melting, all handled through warranty coverage.

The Fix: Dealers will inspect the affected vehicles, make the maximum amperage information available and replace any damaged parts for free.

What Owners Should Do: Contact your local Chevy or GMC dealer, or call Chevy at 866-694-6546 or GMC at 866-790-5700.

Need to Find a Dealer for Service: Go to Cars.com Service & Repair to find your local dealer.

 

Comments

oh my and the saga continues.

They describe the problem as an "owner's manual" issue but it seems like they would have a way to reduce effects of overload before a fire would occur...

And they are only making the information available? I am no electrical engineer but you think they could add a fused link of some kind. One has to expect misuse and mitigate risk.

If there were 16 incidents including 6 fires, GM should do more than make info available.

Jezus H, GM's culture taking over again. Its not that they failed to correctly design it. No, instead, it's the manual trying to educate the customer to watch out for their design flaw. That's the ticket GM.

I've never heard of a pickup manufacturer screwing up the auxiliary battery amp. I'd expect something like this from Mahindra, maybe.

Preface: I drive a Honda, so I have no skin in this game. Take note of this. I've watched plenty of fanboys bash on the 33 quadrillion recalls GM has announced this year. If you truly hate GM (which is pretty stupid), you're in trouble. Their CEO has just taken a crisis and used it to totally reset the cultural expectation of quality of one of the two largest automotive companies in the world. Let that sink in a bit. If you think of yourself as a "teammate" or "proxy" of another automotive company, good luck. Speaking as an executive, it will be 10 times as hard for your beloved company to accomplish the same goal without a similar crisis. In two to three years, GM will absolutely dominant the quality rankings. Your company will suffer because of this.

I am not bashing GM or anything, but these recalls are getting a little ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAKksqKR3pI

These new G.M. models of trucks are DEADLY DANGEROUS!
Fire is the worst recall of all recalls. I hope G.M. customers take these recalls seriously. They are at great risk. I think G.M is a sinking ship taking on water. Glad I am not a G.M. customer. I
was holding reservations of possibly owning a G.M. truck. Now they are on the same list as Ford with their record fire recalls.
Been there down that. So now I am satisfied with just Dodge, Jeep and Ram brands.

To the extent that no company is perfect, then yes, every auto company has defects that they have not handled properly in the past.

However, GM's failure in this matter is truly spectacular and I, for one, do not think that GM is setting some new standard for transparency that other manufacturers will soon be following.

If I was in the market for a vehicle, GM cars wouldn't be on my list. Chevy and GMC trucks are a maybe, but passenger cars. I don't think so.

Chris: The status quo for the big three (and I'm sure many others) has always been to "manage" the number of recalls each year. It has never been a true reflection of the quality of the vehicles. If you think that Ford or Chrysler have been building superior quality vehicles all this time, when compared to GM, then perhaps you should review all the quality metrics available. This is a fundamental shift in how a car company is handling quality metrics.

The truth is fan bois are few and far between. I think most of us consumers only care about buying quality product for a reasonable price.

I've owned 2 duramax trucks and I'm in the market for a new half ton. GM isn't in the running based on styling, features, quality, and price.

I'm okay with tough love. If GM can't figure things out then they need to implode and possibly re-invent themselves. Let the free market reign.

Chrysler's Hellcat Supercharged V-8: Time for a New Ram SRT?

"it's easy to think that the glory days of big-inch performance are over. But Detroit continues to surprise us with such tasty morsels as the Corvette Z06, the Shelby GT500, and as of yesterday, the flabbergastingly powerful 707-hp Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat."

"Will Chrysler build a Ram Hellcat? While far from a foregone conclusion, it's not impossible. Of the Detroit three, Chrysler has the best track record of bringing wild or far-fetched concepts to the showroom. And trucks in general are major money-makers for the domestic manufacturers, and Chrysler in particular. So plucking a few models off the line in Warren for the hot rod treatment is not altogether irrational or logistically impossible. Ralph? Bob? I know you guys technically work in different departments, but I know you guys could put together an epically bad-ass truck. Let's do it."

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/news/2014/1407_chrysler_hellcat_supercharged_v_8_time_for_a_new_ram_srt/

And yet GM stock up AGAIN on recall news. At this rate GM will recall everything they have ever made in the past decade and their stock will be $50 a share. And the news media says their is no bubble being created in the market by the funny money pumping? LMAO believe that , you believe anything

"The owner's manual for the recalled vehicles does not specify a maximum amperage rating for the auxiliary battery feed to a trailer harness...."

@Ray - funny how this recall had no impact on the stock price...lol. I mean the 2 people who actually read the manuals will be really impacted!

The price of the stock has not moved because over and above the GM recalls, the following recalls were made in June....

"Ford expands F-150 recall to inspect, repair electronic power assisted steering"

"Hyundai recalls Elantra Touring over brackets that could dislodge as airbag inflates"

"NHTSA examining data on exhaust leak in 2011-2014 Ford Explorer"

"Chrysler vehicles investigated for ignition switch issues similar to GM's"

"Subaru, Mitsubishi also received potentially defective airbag inflators, Takata says...Honda Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. were among four Japanese car makers joining this month's global recall over potentially flawed Takata air bag inflators made in 2000-02."

"Nissan, Mazda expand recalls over Takata airbag flaw"

"Chrysler's Betts: Recall volume is like boy who cried wolf...Chrysler raised eyebrows when it spurned a government recall request for older-model Jeep Grand Cherokees and Libertys."

and it goes on and on and on and on.....

Lesson: THE MARKET HAS LEARNED THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU BUY....THE QUALITY IS GENERALLY CRAP!


GM's stock is woefully under performing the S&P 500. Their EPS was down 57% in the 1st quarter. It won't be long and GM will have negative earning again.

And today GM's Indian plant (makes parts for GM pickups) explosion kills 1 and injures 5. I guess when it rains it pours.

GM's second hearing at the Senate Subcommittee is scheduled for July 17.

@Ken

Indiana plant, not Indian.

@Ken - great point Ken....

http://news.nom.co/chrysler-faces-nhtsa-query-on-10386080-news/

Ford should recall their F350's from 2006. The company truck I drive just burned out the brake controller and the wiring harness from a short in the truck. $1457 later it is fixed but not sure if it will happen again.

While it is true that all company have recalls at some point or another, the whole situation with GM is just getting ridiculous.

We all know that their strategy is to try to get all the recall over with in a certain period of time so this means a lot of recalls all at once.

I will argue that this strategy is not going to help GM in the long run even if it looks like it's working short term. First of all, recalls are not needed unless there are defects found. This means GM sold 20 million defective cars to the American people some only a few model years old and even '13 and '14 models.

How can a brand that has such a poor reputation of quality think that issuing a bunch of recalls all at once is going to increase people's perception of the brand and feel that GM is now "transparent"? That is beyond me how anyone wouldn't see straight through that B.S.

Aside from the recalls, GM has really been struggling to create cars that sell, despite the picture that the media paints. The Malibu for instance had to get an "emergency" redesign recently due to it's stagnant sales.

The GM trucks are the same story. It should be a truck that people want to buy, but there isn't much interest in it. I heard over and over a year back many people saying that the "New" GM's success depended on the trucks revolutionizing the truck market. Didn't happen.

The bottom line is that fanboys will rationalize the GM recalls all day long, but the rest of us here and even a good portion of the general public see through all of GM's games and we want nothing to do with the company or any of their vehicles.

@HEMI MONSTER - "While it is true that all company have recalls at some point or another, the whole situation with GM is just getting ridiculous"

I agree Hemi maybe GM should use the Chrysler method...."Chrysler Group has been placed back in the recall hotseat with federal safety regulators for allegedly dragging its feet in efforts to improve the rear crashworthiness of older-model Jeep Grand Cherokees and Libertys"

Maybe that's the way to go....lol

http://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/chrysler-too-slow-to-fix-jeep-fuel-tank-risk,-regulators-say-292804

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u1JcMxE8hY

@Cameron Carlile - you are correct that car companies manage their recalls and set aside money to deal with them.

Another web site actually did research on the topic (unlike this site that regurgitates press releases).

They found that (obviously) car companies will not release recall information directly but they do release the cost of recalls in their annual financial statements.

I do believe that part of the reason why GM has been overrun by recalls is that the new CEO is trying to change the corporate culture by hammering any department for any problem.

One can also add to that fact government scrutiny. I do think that excessive government oversight is a way of distancing themselves from the "Government Motors" moniker. They do not want to appear soft on a corporation that they bailed out. This may curry favour with those voters that were against bailouts.

@Lou_BC
I think that Mary has good intentions for the future of GM and changing the culture, but she doesn't realize that if GM fails to meet expectations, she will become the scapegoat.

I have the feeling that she is being used as a pawn more or less by the GM board of directors and stakeholders.

From the outside it looks good to the public: first woman CEO of General Motors, but on the inside I think they will put all the blame for GM's problems on her the minute something goes wrong.

Whether GM continues the recall pace during the second half of the year remains to be seen. But Barra was proven wrong when she suggested, more than a month ago, that the worst was over. June alone brought the recall of roughly 12 million vehicles in the U.S.

http://www.nbcnews.com/#/storyline/gm-recall/nearly-every-gm-model-touched-recalls-year-n145961

If you think GM is bad, what about Fiat-Chrysler? They are the worst when it comes to problems, recalls, warranty work and getting anythng done.

NHTSA Back On Chrysler for Slow Response to Jeep Recall Fix


"Chrysler made headlines last year when it refused to recall the 1993 to 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee and the 2002 to 2007 Jeep Liberty at the request of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Chrysler eventually gave in and devised an acceptable recall for the close to 2.5 million SUVs, but now more than a year later, no vehicles have been repaired."

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/nhtsa-back-on-chrysler-for-slow-response-to-jeep-recall-fix-83377.html

Although the recall was issued on June 19, 2013, NHTSA says that Chrysler “waited until December 6, 2013 to select a hitch supplier and did not issue a purchase order to the hitch supplier until January 29, 2014.” As of April, Chrysler said that the hitches won’t be available to dealers until August.

US safety agency says Chrysler moving too slowly on recall to protect Jeep SUV fuel tanks

Last year NHTSA said a three-year investigation showed 51 people had died in fiery crashes in Jeeps with gas tanks behind the rear axle.

Chrysler maintains that the SUVs are not defective and says it agreed to the trailer hitches because the matter "has raised public concern."

But Clarence Ditlow, head of the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research, said in a letter to NHTSA Wednesday that the agency should immediately force Chrysler to speed up the recalls. While NHTSA and Chrysler argue, four MORE people have been killed and two MORE seriously burned in Jeep fire crashes, according to Ditlow.

http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/fe5e65884928454fbad5053f46bceda6/US--Chrysler-Slow-Recall

The "suits" are at it again going along with a lower than spec rated fusible link which allows the battery current to short circuit through the harness causing a voltage spike that causes the adjacent wiring to catch on fire.

It seems a lot of these components are designed at the bare minimum thresh hold these days instead of being slightly overbuilt like they were in the past.

You get top notch infotainment technology to keep you entertained and all the safety nannies you could desire to drive the truck while half asleep. However, that comes at the expense of things like this when the "suits" try to find a way to reduce costs.

The above pic of the HD extended cab sure makes me long for the days of a proper looking extended from GM. The new mini "crew cab" look for the new models churns my stomach.

@HEMI MONSTER - I agree 100%. Putting a woman at the helm was strategic. If she weathers the storm and turns things around she will be a hero but if she fails she will get hung out to dry. I suspect that insiders expect she will fail and the subsequent hope is that the axemen will be more gentle to a woman.

Reading PUTC I become a pickup truck expert.
Going to the dealers today pricing new pickups and I am going to impress the salesmen with my knowledge of all makes and models, even know more than any salesman knows.
The July 4th weekend is the 2nd biggest new vehicle sales time of the year.
Salesmen know nothing
Customer: Where's the spare tire and the jack?
Salesman: I don't know
Customer: Can you pair my phone into the Sync system?
Salesman: I don't know how
Customer: What side of the truck is the gas cap on?
Salesman: I don't know, let me ask the sales manager
Customer: What is the load rating of the tires?
Salesman: I don't know, no customer ever asked me that question.

at least GM is fixing the problems where Ford ignores the common problems
You ask?
What common problems does the F-150 have?
5.4 engine- broken exhaust manifold bolts, plugs blowing out and injectors blowing apart blowing a hole thru the piston
heater blower resistor failures
Sync going blank, touch screen doesn't work
2009 transmission problems
2011-2013 eco-boost issues of loosing power cause moisture from the intercooler
eco-boost gas mileage decreasing after 5000 miles
burning smell from vents when ac is turned on.

The ONLY problem the Ram 1500 has is back in 2002 with the dashboard cracking but Ram corrected that problem in the next year model.
This guy is buying a new Ram 1500 and I am going to get the biggest HEMI decal I can find to place on the back tailgate so I want the world to know: "IT'S A HEMI"

GUTS

GLORY

NO RECALLS LATELY

EXCEPTIONAL QUALITY

HIGHLY DESIRABLE

RAM

Since you want to spin it, Greg, how about this great GM idea? Never recalled at all, but hey, it met the weak standards at the time built.

Part of what happened with the Jeeps was one getting hit by a tractor-trailer at highway speeds.

We seem to learn after the fact the standard should have been higher.

GM’s Exploding Pickup Problem
The carmaker—and the feds—have known for 20 years that a popular truck line is prone to going up in flames.
—Myron Levin on Tue. April 6, 2010 6:00 AM PDT

Brian Taft joined the C/K death list in November 2007. As he pulled out of a parking lot near midnight in Clifton Township, Pennsylvania, his pickup was broadsided by an SUV. Taft suffered broken ribs, but that's not what killed him, an autopsy found. Instead, it was the fireball that engulfed both vehicles when Taft's gas tank ruptured and the pickup exploded. Burned on 99 percent of his body, Taft left a wife and two young children. (The other driver survived.)

Taft, 36, was behind the wheel of a 1986 GM pickup, one of more than 9 million in the popular C/K line sold in the 1970s and '80s. For marketing reasons, the trucks had an unusual design feature. GM wanted to offer 40 gallons of fuel capacity, but there was no place to mount a tank that big. So it offered twin 20 gallon tanks, each nearly 5 feet long, two explosive containers hanging like saddle bags outside the truck's protective frame. Even after decades, that choice still resonates in the courts, in the lives of bereaved families and in the disfiguring scars of survivors.

Hundreds have been killed in fiery crashes of the side-saddle pickups, and many others suffered disfiguring burns. A review by FairWarning found that at least 100 people have perished by fire since federal authorities dropped an investigation that could have led to the trucks' recall.

Sixteen years ago, a probe (pdf) by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, found the risk of burning to death in side-impact crashes was much higher (pdf) in the GM trucks than in rival full-size pickups. But under intense pressure from GM and its congressional allies, transportation officials blinked, announcing a settlement in December 1994 that left millions of the trucks on the road. In exchange, GM agreed to pay $51.4 million for safety programs—things like buying child car seats for poor families—that transportation officials said would save many lives.

By that time, more than 600 people had burned to death in C/K post-collision fires. And the agreement did nothing about the remaining side-saddle pickups, described by consumer advocates and victims' lawyers as the most dangerous vehicles, from a fire risk standpoint, ever produced.

GM officials have consistently defended the trucks, saying they have a fine overall safety record and met fuel-system safety standards when they were produced. "The safety of the trucks was established a number of years ago after extensive investigations and reviews," said GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson. "We don't have anything new to add." Over the years, GM has settled hundreds of lawsuits and claims by fire victims or their families, paying out well in excess of $500 million.

Robert Lawrence of Turner, Oregon, settled his case following a fiery crash in 2005 that nearly killed him and his fianceé. Both suffered extensive burns and other injuries when a car ran a stop sign and hit the side-saddle truck in which they were riding, rupturing the fuel tank and triggering a massive fire. Five years later, Lawrence's voice still wobbles with emotion when he talks about it. GM "knew that people were getting killed," but "they were selling these trucks like hotcakes, so rather than stop and fix it they continued to sell them," Lawrence said.

"Yet they make all these advertisements on TV—'The Heartbeat of America' and 'We care about your family,' and all that stuff," said Lawrence, 46. "It just freaks me out."


Unlike Lawrence's case, the Taft family's lawsuit was virtually wiped out last year by the GM bankruptcy, along with hundreds of other product liability claims with a total settlement value of more than $400 million, according to a court document. With nearly all assets shifted from the "old GM" to the new company, lawyers say the Tafts and other claimants will be lucky to get 10 to 20 cents on the dollar.

Taft family members declined to be interviewed, but their lawyer Michael Gallacher said they were "angry that this vehicle was still out there." GM knew from the start the risks of the outboard tanks, Gallacher said. "I think it's probably the worst example of corporate negligence that you can possibly have."

• • •

According to a federal database, following the government's settlement with GM, the side-saddle trucks were involved in nearly 400 fatal crashes with post-collision fires through 2008. However, the database, known as the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), attributed most deaths to the force of the collision, and only 97 to explosions or fires. But when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compared the database's records on C/K pickup deaths with actual autopsies in 1994, it found that fire deaths were incorrectly attributed to crash forces more often than the other way around.

Accordingly, the estimate of at least 100 fire deaths since December 1994 seems conservative. It includes the 97 cases coded in FARS, along with 10 additional fatalities in which autopsies, police reports or witness statements reviewed by FairWarning indicated that victims survived the crash then died in the flames.

The toll has eased with the gradual disappearance of the trucks. But as they slowly wind their way to the junkyard, the tough old pickups are a reminder of how decisions by industry and government can have profound and lasting consequences.

"I still see them on the road every day," said B.J. Kincade, an Oklahoma woman whose 29-year-old son Jimmy died in a fiery C/K wreck. "They last forever, and that's part of the problem," she said. "Except for the fact that they burn up, they're not a bad truck."

With its emergence from bankruptcy, GM could face new claims. Late last year, Megan Holt, 16, of Vicksburg, Michigan, burned to death when her '86 side-saddle pickup veered off the road for unknown reasons and struck a tree. She survived the impact, but the truck burst into flames. Other motorists told police they heard her screams as they tried unsuccessfully to free her. An expert retained by lawyers for the Holt family has yet to inspect the truck to determine if a ruptured tank caused the deadly fire.

GM used the outside-the-frame design in its 1973-to-1987 C/K pickups, "C" denoting the two-wheel-drive and "K" the four-wheel-drive model. The trucks came with twin 20-gallon tanks or 16-gallon tanks for a shorter model. Customers could also get a single side-mounted tank. The outboard design continued in a small number of specialty trucks through 1991.

Any vehicle can leak fuel and catch fire in a sufficiently violent crash. But critics say the use of dual tanks in such a vulnerable location substantially raised the danger. Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety in Washington, DC, which had campaigned for a C/K recall, compared the design to "taking a human heart and putting it outside the chest. The heart is protected by the ribs, and the fuel tank should be protected by the frame."

Though GM maintained there was nothing wrong with the outboard design, a GM engineer, asked in a deposition to name a worse place for a tank, gave this blunt reply: "Well, yes. You could…put it on the front bumper."

Before the side-saddle design, gas tanks in GM pickups rode inside the cab behind the seat, treating drivers to the sound of sloshing fuel. Moving the tanks outside the frame was seen as a safety improvement. Still, the risks of the outboard design were well-known when the side-saddle trucks were introduced, internal documents show. A 1964 GM memo (pdf) on safety improvements for the next generation of pickups stated: "The fuel tank must be mounted outside the cab and as near the center of the vehicle as practical." A 1966 memo from rival truck maker Dodge said side-mounted tanks were "not acceptable…Any side impact would automatically encroach on this area, and the probability of tank leakage would be extremely high."

In fact, GM engineers wanted to move the tank inside the frame long before it was finally done in 1988. One memo advised: "Moving these side tanks inboard might eliminate most of these potential leakers." Another noted that 1977 FARS data showed a higher risk of fire-related deaths in GM pickups than in rival Ford and Dodge models. Yet another dealt with liability: "Pickup truck design is subject to intense pressure as the result of litigation due to post-crash fuel-fed fires," the memo said. By switching to a single tank between the frame rails in 1988, "we are reducing this concern."

With millions of the old trucks still on the road, however, the toll continued to mount. In 1992, Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety petitioned (pdf) NHTSA to investigate. The following year, the agency requested a voluntary recall. GM refused.

Then things came to a head. Armed with findings of the NHTSA investigation, Transportation Secretary Federico Peña (pdf) declared the C/K fuel system defective in October 1994. Among other things, investigators found the risk of burning to death in side-impact crashes was 3.4 to 6 times higher in the GM trucks than comparable Fords and Dodges.

Under federal law, the defect finding could have led to a recall. But GM furiously resisted, and even sued NHTSA. A key congressman also pitched in, going so far as to demand an investigation of Peña. Chief executives of GM, Chrysler, and Ford signed a letter to President Clinton, warning that the defect finding "threatens the entire automotive industry by creating needless, unreasonable regulatory confusion."

A court fight could have consumed years with uncertain results. When the C/K trucks were made, they complied with the weak federal standard for fuel systems. GM would have argued in court that this meant the trucks could not be deemed defective. Seeking a graceful retreat, Peña settled.

In an interview years later with the Los Angeles Times, Peña defended his actions as necessary to avoid years of litigation. "People can criticize it to death, but there would have been nothing…[and] I would not have been at peace with myself."

• • •

The deal did not spare GM the wrath of victims, both occupants of their trucks and those unlucky enough to hit them. When Nevada teenager Robert Bugajski was shopping for a used pickup, his parents declared the side-saddle trucks rolling firebombs and told him to pick something else. But when Bugajski, 17, was driving in May 1997, he hit a C/K truck that ran a stop sign. The tank ruptured and both vehicles exploded in flames. The two people in the C/K were incinerated on the spot. Bugajski, burned on 60 percent of his body, was pulled from his truck moaning in agony. He lingered eight days before he died.

GM settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. The company has always put the blame elsewhere—on careless driving or the violence of the crash. Indeed, most crashes do involve driver error. Brian Taft and the driver who hit him had both been drinking. Megan Holt might have nodded off before veering off the road.

But did careless design make the injuries worse? The specter of motorists surviving a crash only to become human torches is too horrific to risk the reaction of juries—so GM has almost always settled.

The number and size of settlements was kept secret from the public until 2003, when a federal judge in Montana, responding to a petition by the Los Angeles Times, unsealed an internal document over GM's strong objections. The document showed that through August 2000, 297 lawsuits and claims were settled. "The total amount paid in settlement to date is $495,076,104," the document said. "This yields an average of…$1,666,923 per lawsuit/claim."

Many survivors go through life severely scarred. Art Johnson, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, who has represented C/K plaintiffs, said he was struck by how the "consequences of a relatively minor accident are so incredibly severe. Once you see the burn injuries of many of these victims, you never forget it."

Days before his 19th birthday in February 2003, John Hacker was heading to his night shift at a beef jerky plant in Oregon when he nodded off behind the wheel of his side saddle truck and veered into a guardrail. The impact left him virtually unscathed, but he was horribly burned by flaming gasoline. A coworker driving behind him rolled Hacker on the pavement to put out the flames. A police report said that when the officer arrived, Hacker "was lying several yards to the south of the vehicle and was still smoldering."

Burned on 85 percent of his body, Hacker was kept in a coma for weeks to avoid the excruciating pain. He awoke to find parts of his fingers gone. He waited some time before looking in a mirror. "I guess my heart dropped on that one," Hacker said. "I'm a freak now," he recalled thinking. "How are people going to look at me?"

Lingering physical effects include fragile skin that tears easily. Hacker said he has experienced a spiritual awakening that has helped him deal with the emotional scars. Spiritual faith, he said, has made "me really grateful for a lot of things I do have."

Naturally, Hacker no longer drives a C/K truck, but plenty of others do. The exact number is uncertain, but a NHTSA document from the 1990s projected a 2010 population of 200,000 side-saddle trucks.

Wow pickuptruck this is a big news wow

@Miath "Wow pickuptruck this is a big news wow"

I agree Maith this is up there with the Fisher Price F150 story...lol

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/06/all-electric-f-150-ready-for-debut-but-its-for-kids.html#comments

The bottom line... If you were foolish enough to buy a GM product in the last decade please report for your recall issue(s) that may or may not be potentially life threatening. O and get in line as GM is currently overwhelmed by their own mistakes as this is going to take a while. Sorry for the inconvenience. We promise our stuff is better now (like we have been promising for the 30 years). But thanks to government money (11 to 13 billion unpaid back/written off by the Fed) and default on debts (anyone ever tried to collect from a person or business that owed you money that declared bankruptcy?) "New" GM is nothing like "Old" GM or so GM says... O look an all new taxpayer funded shiny fast Corvette just what GM needed to take market share back from Toyota/Honda... Especially with fuel prices about to rise and a possible triple dip recession.

O Recalls happen to everyone...

Just not like this...

To anyone else...

Ever before...

GM is making recall history, and thats not a good thing.

@Ckint - "GM is making recall history, and thats not a good thing."

Are you always so stupid or is today a special occasion?

You want to talk about making recall history:

Ford
Defect: Cruise-control switch spontaneous combustion
Units affected: More than 14 million
Models affected: 1992-2003 Ford Explorer, Excursion, Ranger, Windstar, E-150 - 450 and F-150 - 450; Mercury Mountaineer.
Date: October 2009
NHTSA campaign number: 09V399000

Ford
Defect: Faulty ignition switch
Units affected: 7.9 million
Models affected: 1988-'93 Ford Aerostar, Bronco, Crown Victoria, Escort, Mustang, Tempo and Thunderbird; Ford F-Series trucks; Lincoln Town Car; Mercury Cougar, Grand Marquis and Topaz
Date: April 1996

Volkswagen
Units affected: 3.7 million
Models affected: 1949-'69 Beetle
NHTSA campaign number: 72V256000

Ford
Defect: Seatbelts
Units affected: 4.07 million
Models affected: 1970-'71 Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles
Date: June 1972
NHTSA campaign number: 72V160000

Toyota
Defect: Unintended acceleration
Units affected: 6.67 million
Models affected: 2004-'10 Toyota Avalon, Camry, Corolla, Corolla Matrix, Highlander, Prius, RAV4, Tacoma, Tundra; various Lexus models
Date: October 2009 and January 2010
NHTSA campaign numbers: 09V38800, 10V017000

You see jackass there is all kinds of "history" out there; you just have to know how to write it...lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX_tE0M3ZCI


Yes its history Lou...

25 MILLION GM cars/trucks (so far). Many of them having already been recalled but having to be Re Recalled because of GROSS mismanagment of the issue(s).

Minimum 13 fatalities.

Almost a 100 serious injuries.

NONE of your stats are even close to that.

Maybe if you COMBINE a few of your examples or some other creative attempt to deflect from the fact that this is biggest, worst, messiest, most poorly managed series of recall(s) any manufacturere has ever had.

Ill let the personal attack slide after considering the source.

@Clint - I understand Clit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/business/automakers-report-june-sales.html?_r=0

lol

What about the rust? When will GM own up to their metal corrosion issues? Even the last models are rotting out now on the streets and on dealer lots.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/gm_silverado_brakes.html

http://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/9900/chevrolet/silverado-1500/chevy-silverado-and-gmc-sierra-undercarriage-rust



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com