NHTSA Expands Takata Airbag Recall

Ford Ranger Steering Wheel II

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has expanded the already substantial Takata airbag recall to include three more automakers — Audi, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen — and 5 million more airbag inflators.

This latest expansion is partially due to the death of a Georgia man, who died after his 2006 Ford Ranger struck a cow on a South Carolina road and the airbag did not deploy properly. The attorney for the family said his client was killed by metal pieces from the airbag's inflator canister.

Ford is proactively expanding its safety recall on previously effected Rnagers, but are not including the driver side airbags as well. The Ford vehicles affected by this Takata action are all 2004-2006 Ford Rangers built in North America. A total of 391,394 Ford vehicles are now affected by the expanded recall, including 361,692 in the United States and federalized territories and 29,334 in Canada. Ford dealers will replace the driver side airbag inflator at no cost to the customer. Ford customers who want to know if their vehicle is included in this recall can visit www.ford.com  and click on safety recalls at the bottom of the page and enter their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN).

According to Automotive News, the Ford Ranger death is the first reported since a 13-year-old was killed in a 2001 Honda Accord coupe in Pennsylvania in July 2015.

For more on this story, click here. For the full list of stories related to the Takata airbag recall, click here. For a full list of affected vehicles, click here.

Manufacturer image

 

Comments

@Jeff S: " It might be better that the Government allows for owners of vehicles that are 10 years old or older be allowed to disable their air bags but if they do they should be required to notify anyone who might buy this vehicle that the air bags have been disabled. It is better to know that you do not have an air bag than to rely on having an air bag that does not function properly I think that air bags serve a purpose in protecting the occupants of a vehicle but the public needs to be informed of any problems with them."

I could well agree with this. Very good thinking.

The ability to disable your air bags becomes a huge lawsuit risk. We have to remember that everyone sues everyone for anything. You are allowed to disable your airbags and someone bites their steering wheel in an accident. Now the govt is open for a lawsuit and likely the auto manufacture. This person got hurt and he/she is looking for a cash out. Reason, airbags were installed as a protection device. Now you are allowed to disable a protection device? Remember the vehicle was certified with functioning airbags to provide occupant protection. You just removed one of the protection devices, even though it is now a risk. It is a catch 22 the way I see it. screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. But people can disable their airbags if they want, just not legally as far as I am aware of.

" It might be better that the Government allows for owners of vehicles that are 10 years old or older be allowed to disable their air bags but if they do they should be required to notify anyone who might buy this vehicle that the air bags have been disabled.

@Jeff S What if: What if Washington stayed the hell out of it altogether and consumers made their own decisions without some bureaucrat's involvement.

For many years Washington used our tax dollars to subsidize the tobacco business. At the very same time the CDC is spending millions of taxpayer $$$ to "study" the effects of smoking on the public.

Today Washington's subsidies and tariffs make granulated white sugar the most expensive you can buy anywhere in the world. The CDC spends millions of taxpayer $$$ to "study" the effects of white sugar on obesity and type 2 diabetes.

They pick your pocket with one hand, slap you with the other and use YOUR money to reward their politically connected friends. What's not to like?

@LMAO--On newer vehicles I would agree, but you need to remember that vehicles last much longer than in the past and it is not unusual to see 20 plus year old cars and trucks still on the road. It is a little hard to make every automaker responsible for a 20 year old vehicles airbags. I doubt most airbags from 93 and 94 vehicles would be that safe even if the vehicle has never been in a wreck. Maybe you buy a vehicle every few years but there are many old Toyotas, Hondas, and Taurus still on the road on their 3rd or 4th owners. Are you going to hold all the automakers and the parts suppliers accountable for older vehicles still on the road? Are you going to recall every 1993 or 1994 vehicle because it might have an aging and defective airbag? Do you want every driver to have a false sense of protection on a vehicle that might have a dangerous airbag? After a while you would have to recall every vehicle ever made with an airbag which could very well put the manufacturers in bankruptcy and/or out of business.

@Papa Jim--You worry too much about the Government, its no wonder you have health problems. Do exercise you right to vote and do speak out on what you think is wrong and unfair, but don't get yourself so upset that it will cause you health problems. Government has been around for thousands of years and government will be around long after those of us still commenting on this site are gone. I am not going to worry about cows getting a permit or a study on sugar and its link to diabetes, I have much bigger issues to face.

A Jeff S, the recall below is a perfect example of it seems not matter how old a vehicle is there is still recalls or cost to manufactures. The Windstar was recalled in 2012 for vehicles built in 1997.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/05/ford-windstar-rear-axle-recall-surpasses-600000-units.html

I seem to remember the govt was trying to get Jeep to recall some fuel tanks for even older Jeeps. It just seems like a legal way to turn off airbags would turn into a giant poop storm. If someone really has an issue with their airbags, they can find the information on the internet and turn it off themselves. I would not expect a legal way of doing it though.

I doubt most airbags from 93 and 94 vehicles would be that safe even if the vehicle has never been in a wreck.

Posted by: Jeff S | Jan 30, 2016 10:51:37 AM

To jump on this band wagon I am also not a fan of unibody vehicles that were wrecked getting major structural components like the front rails replaced. These are one of the first pieces welded into place during the manufacturing process and the cabin is built around it. Very specific weld points and structure points. Now you get a body shop to cut the damaged ones our and weld in new sections. At the factory the entire body is dipped in multiple baths and protection coats to seal and prevent rust. A body shop cannot do that. So a few years later in the salt belt states have what affect on these pieced together parts? I would much rather see these vehicles totaled because how can you be sure it would function exactly the same as a new vehicle in a crash.

Welding new pieces and straightening frames are a pet peeve of mine also. Body shops would not do well under those conditions though.

my health?

@Jeff S

What if Washington stayed the hell out of it altogether and consumers made their own decisions without some bureaucrat's involvement?

@LMAO--Completely agree with you about welding a unibody back together. The insurance companies are partially to blame for this in that they want to recover as much as they can for vehicles that are totaled because of major structural damage. One of our Consumer advocates on a local TV station in Cincinnati did an undercover investigation of body shops in Ohio and Kentucky that were rebuilding totaled vehicles. In one body shop they were welding together a front wheel compact vehicle with the tires on the ground and without any kind of vice. There have been several of these front wheel drive unibody vehicles that went through auctions and were sold as certified pre-owned vehicles. As a result of this investigation and numerous complaints Ohio and Kentucky have tightened their laws on rebuilding vehicles and both states now require that the titles of these vehicles show that they were salvaged. This is still not enough but it is something. There should be laws that require a vehicle that is damaged to the extent that the unibody rails need to be welded should be junked.

When I was growing up my brother was in an accident that totaled my parents' 1959 Plymouth Sport Suburban station wagon. Very little body damage was done to the car itself but the car did not have a frame and the railings under the car itself were twisted and broken. The insurance company totaled the car which at the time was 2 years old. Hopefully this car was not rebuilt.

@LMAO--I remember the Windstar recall. Ford had many issues with the Windstar. Windstar had some serious rust issues. There were also some issues with the F-150s from that era as well, catching fire and transmissions that slipped into reverse. Toyota as well has had rusting frames on their trucks. A recall on a 5 year old vehicle is much different than recalling on a 10 to 20 year old vehicle. After a while it becomes not feasible to recall every vehicle ever made regardless of age. It would be more cost effective for a manufacturer to buy back an older vehicle recalled for defects at a fair market value.

I have no problem with the airbag recall because every vehicle with one of those airbags is a ticking time bomb that may maim or kill someone.

Do you really want to play the odds that your airbag won't be one of the ones that takes off half your face or your loved ones face or even worse kills you or one of your loved ones when an airbag is supposed to protect you from serious injury or death.

The bigger question is why did Ford wait so long on this vehicle that it knew from day one of this airbag situation had the defective devices in them?

I guess customer safety is not Fords number one priority.

@PJ: "What if Washington stayed the hell out of it altogether and consumers made their own decisions without some bureaucrat's involvement?"
-- Posted by: papa jim | Jan 31, 2016 1:50:33 AM

Yes... about that 'what if...'

You would probably be dead right now because of some disease that was effectively eliminated before you were born.
You would possibly be dead right now due to any one of a number of lung diseases due to the extreme pollution we had in our air prior to the early '70s.
You would conceivably be dead right now because your car folded up around you in a crash that you walked away from in your more modern car.

Before you go wishing for government to get out of our lives, I suggest you look at some of the things government has done FOR you, instead of constantly focusing on things you imagine it has done against you.

@roadwhale you are seriously confused.

Less confused than you, PJ. But that's ok. It takes all types to make a world. If everyone were the same, we'd be robots.

Roadwhale, did the feds invent the light bulb? NO. did the feds invent the automobile? NO Where do you get this profound respect for bureaucrats and politicians?

"... did the feds invent the light bulb? NO. did the feds invent the automobile? NO Where do you get this profound respect for bureaucrats and politicians?"

Did the feds invent the drone? Did the feds invent the electricity you rely on? How about your phone? Where did you get this profound DISrespect for our government (I did NOT say "bureaucrats and politicians".)

Despite your hatred of government in general, if it were not for that government, the odds are high you would have never owned a telephone unless you were rich or a corporation. If it were not for that government, your house might have burned down due to bad wiring. If it were not for that government, we might be living under a Nazi dictatorship.

My point? While I will agree SOME (if not most today) politicians are absolute idiots, government as a whole has managed to do what it was set up to do--protect us from ourselves and from outside invasion. No country will ever have an absolutely perfect government but ours has done better than most in actually protecting its people. Especially considering its size as compared to most other nations. Yes, it still has work to do but as long as our politics remains so extremely divided with an absolute refusal to compromise, we're not going to see it. Our government was specifically designed to push for compromise; ensuring that no one branch would have absolute power. Let our government work as it was designed rather than asking for a dictatorship.

@Roadwhale. My advice, if you choose to accept it.

1. read
2. study
3. repeat

Challenge your own assumptions with the same vigor that you challenge mine.

That is all.



The comments to this entry are closed.