Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

Campaign to Initiate NHTSA Investigation into Kappa Passenger Presence Sensor Failure

15K views 100 replies 36 participants last post by  schwangster 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
Passenger Sensing System Sensor Mat Failures in the GM Kappa Platform - A Call for a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Investigation

Abstract: Based on a survey of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data from their Vehicle Safety Consumer Complaint System and data supplied by manufactures who experienced and issued recalls on Passenger Sensing System (PSS) sensor mats, there is a failure pattern of the IEE supplied PSS sensor mat in the GM Kappa platform vehicles, the MY 2006-2010 Pontiac Solstice and MY 2007-2010 Saturn Sky, which would require further investigation and action to ensure passenger safety.

2/9/2016 Update: I have gone through the whole document for a third (or fourth, or fifth...I've lost count) time and have incorporated suggestions from those who have read it over and messaged me as well as my own revisions that I caught while reading through it. I THINK I got everything. I will start working on a Social Media story now.

2/4/2016 Update: 10 more pages added comparing NHTSA reported complaints of the PSS sensor mat failure in the Vehicle Safety Consumer Complaint database versus production numbers of the two Kappa vehicles and four other GM products.

I ask that folks who wish to read the above PDF and, if you find any typos or mistakes, please let me know so I can fix them. It's not a short read.

Also, thank you to Tomato Soup and DaveOC for their help with this project. I referenced TS's great work and photo documentation on the PSS sensor mat he took apart and DaveOC helped with research information on production and sales numbers for the Kappa platform. Thank you both and thank you to all those who supported my efforts in putting this together.

Okay folks, for those that didn't follow along in the other thread and need to catch up, here is the backstory to this:

Has anyone on this site ever seen a passenger seat air bag deployed? - Page 9 - Saturn Sky Forums: Saturn Sky Forum

And this is the same discussion on the Sky forum as I am starting here.
Campaign to Initiate NHTSA Investigation into Kappa Passenger Presence Sensor Failure - Saturn Sky Forums: Saturn Sky Forum

The whole purpose of this survey of information is to get the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to open an investigation into the problem. Until they do that, GM isn't going to do anything I don't believe.

This document reviews the problem in the following manner.

First we go over why we have these sensors in the car and how the system works.

Then it moves on to the Cadillac 2005-2007 CTS recall. This recall was for the same issue we seem to have, the mat flexes and eventually breaks causing the Service Air Bag message to display. This recall is used for a baseline since GM is in charge of the Cadillac, Pontiac, and Saturn brands. There is a review of the problem, how GM determined there was a problem, the role NHTSA played in that discovery, the changes made during production to fix the problem, the timeline of the recall, and GM and NHTSA data documenting the problem and decision making process.

Then it moves on to the Kappas. There is a brief background of the Kappa development with emphasis on GM using as many parts from other cars in production as possible to speed up development time to go from show car to production, an overview of our problem, and complaint data from the NHTSA complaint system then comparing that with data trends in the CTS recall.

From there it moves on to the BMW recall of 2008, its expansion in 2013, and the inclusion of the MINI vehicles in 2015. Manufacturer data is used to compare the discovery process with Cadillac, how BMW resorted to alternative analysis data and the symptoms of the problem with both Cadillac and Kappa. Also the solutions of BMW to the problem and how BMW categorized the issue is compared to how GM solved the CTS problem.

Next up is Kia and it's 2013 Kia Rio recall for the same issue. It covers the discovery timeline of Kia, how Kia Motors America (KMA) and Kia Motors Corporation (KMC) twice conducted internal investigations into the problem without discovering the issue and finally, under pressure from the NHTSA, used alternative analysis data techniques to finally uncover the problem and issue a recall.

The last recall it covers is the Suzuki recall. The discovery process and timeline are reviewed and conclusions drawn about the length of time the problem requires to be discovered on average as well as how the company handled the recall process after pressure from Canada's version of the NHTSA (can't remember it now...Canada something).

This is followed by a comparison of these four recalls to the Kappa problem and the conclusions I drew from the data that was presented.

Finally, the survey of information proposes an action plan to move forward with the initiation of an investigation based on the evidence presented in the survey.

I call this a survey because it could take me six months to thoroughly go over the data I can find, writing manufacturers for more information, and querying hard copy records all over the world to get more information on these recalls, supply chains, and production processes. In the end, the only way we will see more data to be able to really determine how bad the problem is will be when GM has to respond to the NHTSA investigation I hope this generates and needs to provided hard data as to why or why not they decide to issue a recall or not.

The PDF at the top of the page is the product of over a month worth of research, data entry, analysis, and writing. It's the first time I've wrote something of this size. 63 pages of writing, 1 cover page, 3 works cited pages. Almost all primary sources. Found all of it through extensive Internet searches.

And this is just the beginning...

Below is the next part of this process. I've taken the information I put together in this survey and put together a more "Pathos" argument that relies more on a Emotional argument for the investigation for posting to social media.

One more thing, this was all done for the Kappa community. If something comes of it, its for all of us. Give me a week before you share this on other sites so I have a chance to do second and third proofread passes on it. I've already done one healthy pass but I would like to do a couple more and have others get their eyes on it so they can catch things I miss. Next week though, we can post away. For the social media message I'm making for the next replay, that can go out at the same time as you will want to link back to the main document posted above.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Social Media Short Article

Another Air bag System Defect being missed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)



According to GM and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a vehicle that sees a failure to its passenger air bag system at a rate of one failure for every 255 vehicles built doesn’t have a problem but when the same problem occurs in another, more prestigious, vehicle at a ratio of one failure for every 2,208 vehicles built, GM issues a recall. GM and the NHTSA are ignoring complaints and failures of the Air Bag System’s Passenger Presence System in the 2006-2010 Pontiac Solstice and the 2007-2010 Saturn Sky; a failure of which will turn off the passenger side air bag and put the passenger at risk in the event of an accident. These two vehicles, sharing a common design platform, are seeing complaints in the NHTSA’s Vehicle Safety Consumer Complaint system at a ratio of 4:1 over the 2005-2007 Cadillac CTS which was issued a recall for the same problem and which saw twice the number of cars produced as the Pontiac and Saturn vehicles combined. Not only has the CTS been recalled for this problem, hundreds of thousands of BMWs, MINIs, Kias and Suzukis have had the same problem with similar mats; most if not all of these produced by the same company. This problem may not even be limited to these vehicles. If you've ever had a Service Air Bag message come on in your gauge cluster while a passenger was seated in your car and you noticed the passenger air bag indicator was displaying the passenger air bag was off, you may have a similar problem with your vehicle and it's being overlooked!

It is time for the NHTSA to stop ignoring these complaints and start an investigation into this problem. Click the link to read the full report!
 
#4 ·
It would be incomplete without data from GM. The only data you'd have would be from members here who wish to share the info. The issue would be trying to cross reference this with the data in the NHTSA complaint database. I'd love to make this kind of database and have it track cars and number of issues per car with failure mileage and everything else but it still won't show a complete picture...sadly.

I hope this paper will get the NHTSA investigating the problem and that we can get some hard data from GM through that.
 
#5 · (Edited)
Whereas I applaud your research and efforts through a reasonable and scientific approach, I'm not hopeful anyone will ever get GM to consider recalling or coming up with a recall-based solution for Solstices and Sky's:

1. Airbags are considered supplemental safety devices. Considering the indicator on the dash and the DIC alerts you when the passenger airbag is not armed, the vehicle owner or driver is ultimately assume the responsibility for allowing a passenger to ride when the airbag is disabled. Now if the airbag had a track record of killing passengers with shrapnel?

2. Our cars are over, or are approaching ten years of age. Anymore, most manufacturers consider ten years to be past the typical replacement period.

3. Unlike what occurred during the ignition switch incidents and subsequent recall, I haven't seen any statistics where this issue was tied to a death investigation. Given these cars are limited in production numbers, the odds of a high number of deaths or injuries from a malfunctioning passenger seat sensor are reduced. Having parents lawyer-ing up because their 17 year old daughter was killed hitting a tree without the supplemental safety systems functioning? That sort of scenario alone, get's the manufacturers (and NTSB) attention.
 
#6 ·
All valid points. However...

1. While they are supplemental systems the presence is set...and with this issue in the BMW line specifically...that while the operator is made aware of the issue, a recall for the problem may still be required. BMW went so far as to state they would not state this is a safety issue.

2. Almost all these recalls documented occured after 2012 for cars built from 2004 until 2011. All recalls had model year vehicles from the 2006 to 2008 time period. Ergo age of the vehicle should be irrelevent.

3. In juries reported for all theset recalls...totally just under 1 million vehicles...is oNE yet they were still recalled.

As I stated I don't believe this will go anywhere but, if it does, it will be the NHTSA or pressure from the public through this story going viral that will be the catalyst for it getting traction.,
 
#8 ·
Media has been brought in before but sadly only local station coverage, nothing national. As Kelly mentioned, this is where the limited production and discontinued manufacturer and vehicle status makes it hard. The ignition switch issue and Takata issue affected multiple vehicles, some discontinued, some still in production even if the models were now updated. The size of those issues are what caused the media coverage as well as the fact that injuries and deaths were associated with the problem.

Our problem has a grand total of 1 injury for all the recalls issued. CTS had none, Kia had none, Suzuki had none...only BMW reported a single injury.

This is why I say only an NHTSA investigation and/or the story going viral will cause any kind of action.
 
#9 ·
Well hell, that was quick. After my email last night there are 4 new documents on the NHTSA site this morning. These all have to do with the IEE response to the Office of Defect Investigation (ODI) at NHTSA. I'm going over the documents now and trying to make heads or tails of them.

What I've determined is that the four documents are:

1. Response letter from IEE
2. Attachment to that letter that includes tables showing make/model/years of all cars with IEE productions as OEM equipment.
3. Additional letter from IEE informing ODI of corrections and addional information to the attached tables of document 2.
4. Attachment to second response letter that is an updated version of document 2.

Document one is the most informative. @TomatoSoup, you'd like this one.

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM534134/INRL-DP16001-64471P.pdf

It describes the two types of systems IEE produced. One is the OCS and the other is BodySense. They both work very differently. The OCS product is what was used in our cars. OCS was an entire system of the sensor mat, cable, interconnector, Hot-met (no idea what this is), Electronics, and Software including algorithm and calibration). However, the OC Sensor Mat was also sold separately as a component, not a system.

Both the whole system and the OC mat were sold to Lear. GM, Hyundai and Kia all received the complete OCS system. Continental received just the OC mat and then used it in their own complete OCS system which they then supplied to BMW, Nissan and Suzuki.

The great thing about this response is there are illustrations and break downs of what made each sensor mat different in each car and what groups they belong to. If you have ever wondered about what makes our mat unique, check out this document! As suspected, while our mats are different than the CTS, the basic principles are the same. From this document:

The OCS development is an interactive process. The overall seat design, geometry and vehicle environment affect the pressure that an occupant or child seat places on different parts of the seat. As a result, each OCS must be designed for the unique seating environment within each vehicle model, requiring the occupant classification system manufacturer to utilize different sensor mats, calibrations, and algorithms to properly classify occupants. The placement of the sensors, and the amount of pressure each sensor will recognize for an occupant, will vary among the different seat designs and car design.
They use three mats as examples, the Cadillac CTS mat, the Buick Regal mat, and the Kappa Mat. The Cadillac mat had 3D mesh and taped side-wing sensors. The Regal mat had no 3D Mesh but the Kappa mat does have a 3D mesh. Both the Regal and Kappa mats have no taped side-wing sensors. However, there is no mention that the overall construction process and general operation of the sensors and their matrix is vastly different from one car to the next, only the layout of the sensors and the calibration and algorithms for each application. No general difference between the designed operation of the mat is noted.

This piece of the document though is VERY interesting:

The IEE OCS incorporated into MY 2007-2010 Saturn Sky and 2006-2010 Pontiac Solstice vehicles, were designed and developed for these vehicles' unique seating design, geometry vehicle environment, car design and program specifications. IEE developed the OCS in partnership with General Motors and Lear Corp. ("Lear"), General Motors' seating supplier for the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky vehicles, to meet the distinctive requirements and specifications for that vehicle platform as defined by General Motors. The testing for the final integration, including durability testing, of the system into the seat and airbag system in the vehicle was the responsibility of General Motors, as the vehicle manufacturer, and the responsibility of the seat manufacturer. [Emphasis by the editor]
IEE clearly places the blame of any durability issues of the mat squarely on GM and Lear.

The document then goes on to explain this second document:

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM534136/INRD-DP16001-64472P.PDF

What this table shows is each manufacturer, the models, the IEE Project number, IEE Part Numbers, Model year and Manufacturer part number of something IEE made. If anyone here wants to help out, I need to know what these GM part numbers are. They are all for the Kappa platform:

25828680
25855978
10345300
25817110

I'm assuming these go from newest number to oldest since 25828680 is listed for the convertibles and then again for the coupe. I am also assuming that these are the individual part numbers for the mats themselves. The part number I have been using is for the finished seat assembly from Lear and this part number has never changed. Looking at one of the pictures from my document (I believe this was TomatoSoup's mat) I do see part number 25855978 on the mat controller. This would confirm that this was a GM part number for the Sensor Mat itself but since that part was never sold separately from the finished lower seat foam assembly, GM never had it in their database of OEM parts. So this progression of mat part numbers shows that there were SOME changes to the mat over the course of production but what those changes were is still unknown.

This document though includes BMW, Kia, Suzuki, Nissan, Hyundai, GM, Lear, Mobis, and Autoliv-Korea. It looks to be a list of everyone who got IEE parts, the models and model year the parts were meant for. However, it appears that in some instances the data is incomplete (and noted as such) or the model years are perhaps when the production started as there is only one model year listed for certain manufacturers/models. Look at the document in the link above and you'll see what I mean.

There are a couple of things we can take away from these documents though:

First is that IEE is the maker of the sensor mats in our cars. While we knew that going into this, there was never any official documentation or reference linking IEE to Lear to the Kappa. We knew IEE sold to Lear for the CTS, we knew Lear made the assemblies for the Kappa, but never an official link between the two. This document is that official link.

Second, IEE included everyone who got these kinds of mats, whether it was only the mat itself or the whole OCS assembly. Kia, GM, BMW, Mini, and Suzuki are ALL on this list and ALL have had recalls for a failing mat. Even though IEE is adamant about each mat assembly being different, I feel this works in favor of a recall for the Kappa. Some of their designs, both complete OCS systems and OC mats alone, have failed and been recalled in other platforms. Because not EVERY platform these mats have been installed in has failed, it means failure rates will need to be evaluated from one make and model to another in order to determine in THAT SPECIFIC application has a failure issue. We've seen that ours does, no question. So just because our mat is unique to our car doesn't mean that it can't suffer the same failures as other IEE mats have seen.

Third, since durability testing was not IEE's responsibility and falls on GM instead, if GM did not detect a problem with the mat design they would not have forwarded that information to IEE for correction. Ergo, if GM states that they did inform IEE of necessary updates to the mat, then GM would have had to had known that there was a problem with the mat's failing. If GM didn't inform IEE of a potential problem, then this falls back on GM's failure to properly detect and rectify the issue (coming from the standpoint that there IS an issue of course). Since in other recalls it has been noted that manufacturers have reported issues and worked with IEE to rectify similar issues, the precedence is set that if NHTSA or GM decide this is an issue, GM needs to work with IEE for a proper solution.

Well, one response received, now we wait to hear from GM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sirwm
#10 ·
The IEE part numbers may or may not indicate differences in the mats. They are probably issued for each procurement contract so they can track costs by contract. They could all be identical engineering and composition.

Typically the only reason to change engineering is to avoid cost and increase profit, replace components that are no longer available, or to address an issue. Either with manufacturing or as a result of field experience.

Interesting information
 
#11 ·
I can't speak for all parts, but for us the part number only changes when the part does. Even from different suppliers, the part number is the same if the part is the same.
 
#12 ·
IEE most likely would not have been notified by GM of any failure rates or patterns. GM would generally go back to the tier 1 supplier of the component / system experiencing failures. In this case, that supplier would have been Lear.

I believe Robo is referencing all GM numbers in his list. In which case, the part number differences would likely indicate SOMETHING changed in the component (if the part numbers are all referencing the mat.) That could simply be cost, but likely a material, design, or function change or difference.

Tier 1 suppliers would very likely have different part numbers for each OEM for cost tracking as RTE stated, but I do not believe GM does that. As John states above, GM generally calls it by one number even if it comes from different sources. Internally we use a single item number and can differentiate engineering levels by revision I/D. We can have dozens of "aka" numbers for whatever the hell our customer want to call an item.

Again, excellent work by Robo! Spot on re: if it's failing in other applications it can be suspect in ours.
 
#14 · (Edited)
But if GM isn't communicating problems to Lear it wouldn't get back to IEE. Chickenwire was right in that my statement was if the numbers changed...something changed. Doesn't mean the design was improved or anything but just that something happened that caused the part number to necessitate a differentiation between the previous numbered part and the new numbered part. The part number IEE gives as their customer's part number are the ones I posted and look like GM part numbers.

I also heard from NHTSA after they posted these documents. GM has replied and they are currently going over those documents for confidentiality issues and once they have reviewed them, they will post those too. Since IEE places the responsibility for durability in the application on GM and Lear, GM's response will be a very interesting read for sure.

Thanks for the props guys. Will keep at this until we get an answer from NHTSA on whether or not they approve or decline the application for an investigation.
 
#15 ·
If GM is spending money to replace defective seats or seat components it is going to let Lear know about it, if only to back-charge them for the parts. Lear would then do the same thing to IEE. To my knowledge, no one in the automotive industry will absorb the cost for a supplier's mistakes. We get QPRs (Quality Problem Reports) for parts that our customers even think might be bad, and the reaction generated by a part that makes it into a car and has to removed is worse. A part defect that results in a legitimate retail customer return creates a storm you wouldn't want to get caught up in.

Every part that an OEM buys goes through a very extensive approval process, and that process has to be repeated if the part is changed, regardless of who initiates the change. The approval process is also required if the part is going to be made on different equipment or if the equipment it is made on is going to be moved more than a few feet within the same facility. Virtually any change made to a part or to the way it is made results in paperwork, trial runs, and re-certification. The process is called PPAP (Production Part Approval Process) and it is not optional for "normal" parts, much less for the components of safety systems.
 
#17 ·
If GM is spending money to replace defective seats or seat components it is going to let Lear know about it, if only to back-charge them for the parts.
There is the key question to this whole situation. From everything I've seen so far, GM never believed they were dealing with a defective assembly from Lear. If they treated failures as exceptions and not the rule, then I don't believe they'd relay the problem to Lear as GM wouldn't see it as being a problem.

When GM has investigated this in the past, they referenced their Warranty Repair Database. Under that database, they claimed they didn't see enough warranty repairs to believe it was a major issue. From my research, the failure isn't seen in sufficient regularity until around 30K miles. Most Kappas were out of warranty based on years before they ever saw 30K miles so thus the plethora of failures occurred after they were out of warranty and thus wouldn't show up in the GM Database. I truly feel GM never felt this was a issue and thus would have had no need to share the information with Lear.

I am kinda new here..i actually forgot i guess i registered at some point. Im assuming this is about the sensor switch in the passenger side seat. I checked the NHTSA site and it shows and open investigation which is cool. I linked this to my old man who is retiring as an engineer for GM to get his thoughts on it as well. You all are awesome in the work and help you give here.
You would be correct sir. I'm the one who Petitioned NHTSA for that investigation you found. Would love to hear what your father thinks about this but I understand if it may be seen as a conflict of interest for him to comment publicly on such things.
 
#16 ·
I am kinda new here..i actually forgot i guess i registered at some point. Im assuming this is about the sensor switch in the passenger side seat. I checked the NHTSA site and it shows and open investigation which is cool. I linked this to my old man who is retiring as an engineer for GM to get his thoughts on it as well. You all are awesome in the work and help you give here.
 
#18 ·
I am not questioning your evaluation of GM's, Lear's, and/or IEE's determination that this was not a major problem, but I can tell you from personal experience that if GM pays to replace a supplier's component, that supplier hears about it. That communication has nothing to do with how significant the problem may be, it has to do with who pays for it. Also, when I referred to a "defective" part I simply meant a part that didn't do what it was supposed to and that wasn't subject to alteration or excessive abuse. I wasn't making any reference to whether it had been judged to have a design or manufacturing defect.

To put things in perspective, we get seriously beat up for a defect rate of 100 parts per million. That equates to ten bad parts in the entire 100k run of Kappas.
 
#21 ·
Thanks again Robo for keeping us all up to date on this.

My best guess on this is that GM didn't do any serious reliability testing for this application. Or at best, the testing was done with some faulty underlying assumptions. I'd be interested to know:
1: How many cycles did they test to?
2: What constituted a "cycle"? IMO, in the Kappas, you would get a cycle any time you hit a bump of any significance on the road. If they counted a "cycle" as only the time a person sits in the seat and gets up, they're using a faulty assumption. The ride in a Kappa is much "bouncier" than that of the Cadillac (which is the closest mat in comparison of construction).
3: Did GM take into account the simple mechanics of entry/exit from the vehicle. The Kappas seats are far lower than the Cadillac. I did notice the MUCH better half using her hand to help push herself out of the seat the other day.
4: Did GM assume that, given the paucity of the trunk space, people would need to carry cargo in the passenger seat from time to time?
 
#22 ·
#23 ·
Thanks for that DaveOC. Normally I come over here and repost the info so people don't have to go back and forth. I can't access this site from work so it usually takes me a bit to get the data over here.

Today the NHTSA posted all the GM information. I'm still going over it but there are 5 new documents on the NHTSA site. 2 PDF and 3 ZIP files. Folks, get ready for A LOT of data.

First is the cover letter PDF. This is a good general read for anyone:
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM542582/INRL-DP16001-65061P.pdf

In this document GM addresses the major points of the NHTSA request for information. Included here are the following data points:

  • Production number by year and model of the Kappa twins

  • A list of every make and model of GM vehicle that used IEE sensor mats.

  • Information regarding changes to the IEE mat in the Kappa platform. Two changes were made but neither directly addressed the problem area we have and the last change was made in May 2007.

  • Number of warranty claims and reported claims GM and other reporting agencies received. This number is over 2,500.

  • Breakdown of these reports as supported by attached databases (these are what is contained in the ZIP files)

  • GM's assessment of the issue, what causes these issue, and that it believes there is no defect and there is no danger to passenger safety.

Request 7, which asks for GM's assessment of the issue, is a restatement of what we already know. The mat will kink and fold and bend and over time fail.

This is a very interesting read and is the important part of the response to most people.

Now here is the data. (Note, all database files are compressed and the links to these tables are .zip files)

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM542581/INRD-DP16001-65062P.ZIP
This first table is a list of every Kappa produced. It gives a partial VIN (you will not be able to find your car by vin in this list, sorry), Madel Year, Make, Model, Production Date in a MM/DD/YYYY format, Warranty Effective Date, what state it was sold in, and production date in a YYYY/MM format. This table holds 90,938 records.

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM542580/INRD-DP16001-65063P.ZIP
This table is a list of all customer complaints to GM or other reporting parties (see the Above PDF, request 2 section for details) on the problem. This table includes what kind of report the record is (field report, customer complaint, etc), What the ID number for the complaint is, State the owner resides in, a partial VIN, Make, Model, Year, Mileage, Date reported, Air Bag Readiness, Pass Air Bag Light, a text version of the document, and comments. There are 342 records in this database. I will be pulling this apart in the near future to get a picture mileage vs failure that GM has been notified of in these documents.

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM542579/INRD-DP16001-65064P.ZIP
This is the Warranty Database records of any and all warranty repairs to our cars for this issue. This database is HUGE in the data it contains. I includes (and this is the short list) Repair date, repair mileage, Partial VIN, Year, Make, Model, Where it was repaired, customer information (name and address), Customer description of the problem, and repair notes. These are just for passenger presence senor replacement repairs only. This database covers repairs from 11/16/2005 until 5/18/2016. There are 2758 records in this database.

The databases I'll be working with over the next month to get the data together, analyze it, and see what it may tell us. I figure I can at least get some of the data I had put together for the CTS recall from these records such as average time by model year until failure, mileage at failure, and number of failures per model year. I also think we can get an idea of mileage over time from the warranty database too. Should be some great information we get from these databases.

There is on more PDF I'm trying to download and it has to be huge. I have tried to get it three times. The first two tries the download stopped with an error. I'm currently on the third but it's taking 20 minutes to download the PDF...guess it's a big one. Here is the link to this final PDF.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM542578/INRD-DP16001-65065P.PDF

Will update you when I can read this last PDF and after I get the new data processed.

EDIT: Got the last PDF downloaded. It is a huge collection of scanned documents GM submitted on the problem including vehicles repurchased by GM from their owners for the problem, service issues with the sensing system and other various examples.

Some of these examples I feel are examples of the problem and some are not. As you read through the notes, you can see which ones may be legitimate and which ones probably are not.
 
#26 · (Edited)
Request 7, which asks for GM's assessment of the issue, is a restatement of what we already know. The mat will kink and fold and bend and over time fail.
I found the following sentence very interesting also: "Installation variability during the manufacture of the seat assembly can impact the durability of the sensor system".

I wonder what "variability" this refers to and how much of an impact it causes? Maybe the failures we've seen are 'cos those seats 'weren't built right'?

Another very interesting point is that the letter explicitly says a failure in the passenger detect system will ONLY affect the passenger airbag. Many have assumed that to be the case, but that's the first time I've seen it in black and white from GM.
 
#24 ·
RT
Thanks for the update and all the hard work.

What is your interpretation of the impact of this update on the issue?

Interesting that they had 2500 + warrantee repairs for the issue.
 
#28 ·
"installation variability" = abused during installation by the line worker.

And 2,500 warranty claims on 90k vehicles = 28,000 PPM defects. And that is JUST WARRANTY claims. If a supplier had a PPM rate of 28k they would no longer be a supplier.

Well, unless they were from China and were really cheap on their pricing, then GM would be quite forgiving.
 
#29 ·
Based on the issues of air bag caused injuries or death and the fact that the seatbelts seem to be the best safety device, I am asking myself why I would want to maintain the airbag system at all? Put the money into better seat belts instead.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top