[Safety Recall] Electric Power Steering — MY2014 to MY2016 Holden & HSV, VF Commodore & WN Caprice

[Skylarking]

... Actually, I think I read somewhere Holden were planning to replace just the electric motor, not the rack. Or did I dream that?

It's all a dream but don't worry, when you wake, you'll be back in your Ferrari

 

[426Cuda]

^ Is it the steering itself, or the front suspension changes they did for MY15?

*edit*
Additionally; wife’s car is on the GM site, although not in that Excel spreadsheet.
Sorta dagnabbit; sorta cool, finally that concern will be addressed!

Both in the case of my MSE and our company's SV6's. But, the steering itself is very different to the 2 MY14's in both our 2017's.

 

[blackve76]

With US recalls, whether there would be some embargo was usually stated within one of the bunch of docs the NTSB gets from the manufacturer. Whether it's an NTSB requirement due to a law or some agreement struck between the regulator and manufacture, i don't know.

Down under, i don't know what laws would force an embargo but i don't think used car trade suffered due to the takata airbag issue. I've even read that some people bought a new car only to recieve a recall notice the following week. Likley it's up to the manufacturer to weigh the risks of stopping trade verses not stopping trade.

All i know is that i couldn't get my MSE delivered until the rockers were repalced as Holden put an embargo on vehicle delivery until the rectification was done. It caused a bit of a delay which was anoying but i thought it was better than having the rockers possibly let go within a running engine... both from my perspective and from Holden's... I got a free "first paid service" as a small concession for the inconveniance.

I know Toyota have held unsold corrollas with CVT issues so why wouldn't a 2nd hand car be same?

 

[Forg]

I know Toyota have held unsold corrollas with CVT issues so why wouldn't a 2nd hand car be same?

I guess one justification I can think of is that Toyota are the people who put the problem there, and they're the ones fixing it.
Used Corollas are also expected to be fixed by Toyota under a recall, even if it's Sleazy Joe's Used Autos that's selling it … even if someone buys the used Corolla with the CVT problem it'll be fixed for free & Sleazy Joe isn't the one who caused the problem either.

It's a bit harder to justify when it's such a major safety issue - steering that suddenly loses assistance mid-corner.

 

[Skylarking]

I know Toyota have held unsold corrollas with CVT issues so why wouldn't a 2nd hand car be same?

My personal view is that when there is a safety recall, any vehicle that is in the possession of a new or used car sales dealer, or comes into the possession of a service agent, gets held over until repairs are completed because it’s a safety issue after all.

So, if you went in for an oil change and a service agent can’t get the recall completed in a day, then a hire car should be provide and the lot billed back to the manufacturer.

But this being Stralia, the land of self regulation, likely there are no laws forcing such embargo conditions as the manufacturers would cry poor and claim imminent collapse of civilisation should such be proposed. Meanwhile you have no choice as to who does recall repairs to your vehicle, it’s the only the manufacturers franchised dealer that can do such work.

About the only relevant Law i know of is the Australian Consumer Law which would likely classify a safety recall as a major fault. In such a case, the owner can request a full purchase price refund as their chosen remedy. However, the ACCC takes an odd view of the law within the documents they have produced. The ACCC imply recalls are somewhat different to other faults...

Obviously if one believes the fault is a major fault under ACL, you should drop off the keys and the car at the dealer and give then a week to refund you as your chosen remedy under ACL. But when/if you go to court, and especially if you win and it’s appealed, the ACCC as a friend of the court, may spruke the manufacturers views of imminent world end should the court apply the law as written. It’s all a symptom of regulatory capture at its worst.

 

[VS 5.0]

then a hire car should be provide and the lot billed back to the manufacturer

I agree with the concept, but 70K hire cars ?

 

[Smashfist]

Bugga! (Not you Smashfist, I mean the lack of full wheel alignment )

Actually, I think I read somewhere Holden were planning to replace just the electric motor, not the rack. Or did I dream that?

I have no idea, Holden haven't communicated ANY info to dealers via bulletins as yet...

 

[Skylarking]

I agree with the concept, but 70K hire cars ?

Much much more that 70k hire cars as you’ve forgotten about the takata airbag issue

But the regulatory approach is to allow you to drive a knowingly dangerous vehicle that can kill, as long as the manufacturer has some plan to fix it in some timeframe. In essence, to protect the vehicle industry they play statistical games with peoples lives.

Maybe some executive jail time would ensure appropriate product testing before stuff is actually released into the market. Seemingly, we are the manufacturers beta testers. They may as well paint the sides of our heads with coloured circular quadrants

 

[Forg]

Maybe some executive jail time would ensure appropriate product testing before stuff is actually released into the market.

Heh heh … VF on release in 2013 would have been 2004 spec instead of 2008 spec …

 

[Skylarking]

Heh heh … VF on release in 2013 would have been 2004 spec instead of 2008 spec …

Wouldn't matter as whatever the spec'd difference, at least the vehicle should be safer.

And just how many people did GM allow to be killed with their ignition key saga via their (criminally in my view) poor handling of the issue? But fudge a pollution report and you get tossed in the slammer. Double standards is the national motto north of the Rio Grande