On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote: ...
Why does anybody put a pound of crap on the key ring besides the ignition key and then complain if it has sufficient weight to cause the key to change positions.
I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in the switch than any of the other GMs.
This wasn't a part that had been in uses since the '50s though, it was a design that was new around 2002.
Because it does not do so on a Volvo, a Jeep, a Lincoln, or anything else except certain GM models.
And it's not a matter of "complaining", it's a matter of BEING DEAD.
You may have lucked out and gotten the better end of the manufacturing tolerances.
What difference would the time period make? FWIW those parts I was talking about were around from the late 70's to at least the mid 90's.
It is odd how that falls in place to cause a problem, unless the detents in the switch it self prematurely wear out because of the rocking motion of the keys on the lock.
The ignition lock turns more freely out of the steering column than when mounted in the column. You feel more resistance when it is all assembled properly.
On GM vehicles what you put the key in is the ignition "lock". On the opposite end of the lock was a rack and pinion and rod. The gear on the lock moved the rack and rod back and forth inside and along part of the length of the steering column. The end of that rod connected to the ignition switch. It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that is the problem.
It did on the late 60's-70's on most all Fords that had a wad of keys hanging on the ignition lock. You eventually had to lift the shift lever before you could turn the key. When I was a kid I always wondered why Ford owners rested their left arm on top of the steering wheel and grabbed and lifted the shift lever with their left hand every time they wanted to start the engine. I learned why when I started driving. Not exactly the same thing but the integration of the ignition lock and shift lever position was eventually compromised. Than again it may have been more if an issue with the park lever detent in the park position. What ever the case the ignition switch would not engage unless the lever was in the proper position.
Better yet, keyless ignition. I love ours.
I don't believe that--I think it's "operator error" in this case...
On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote: ...
Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are arranged--unless something comes loose internally and that would see to have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports, "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an engineering root-cause analysis.
I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the operator for doing something silly.
Same way they screwed up an intake manifold- and manifold gaskets - and didn't fix it through how many years of production of the 3.8?
They just held their nose and ignored it because they figured it was cheaper to do some warranty repairs than to re-engineer something (even as simple as a gasket)
Chryler did something similar with the 5.2--if I understand correctly the bolts were a little bit too long and bottomed out before properly compressing the gasket. Didn't help that there was a relatively thin steel plate covering the bottom of an aluminum manifold. Mine has a machined aluminum plate there now--I figured it was worth the hundred bucks extra to be reasonably certain that I would not have to take it apart again to fix that problem.
By paying attention to per unit pricing to save a few cents.
That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches, rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out. The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works. I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys are to go after any thing that moves.
and that would see to
Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.
But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so. Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could have opened it with a kitchen can opener.
It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is turned off the airbags are turned off.
Given than airbags, themselves, are a source of potential (and real) law suits, it's reasonable to turn them off when the vehicle is off. The fault still lies with the reason it's off.
I had a car that needed to be restarted occasionally (it took *many* returns to the shop before they finally found the real problem). To do it, it first had to be turned to the "off" position, which locked the steering wheel. Ugly situations followed. Similarly, several models lock the steering wheel when shifted out of "drive". Not so good when the engine dies (coasting off the road may not be an option).
Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all vehicles had them.
Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned itself off, that's a bad situation.
Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody intentionally turns it off.
It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.
Well shit happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.
My Ranger is one of the vehicles affected, it is the only the passenger side. There is a switch to turn it off and I have. Now mind that I have gotten a letter from Ford advising me of the recall (waiting for the parts to be available) but make no mention that you should turn it off. No doubt more lawyer fodder for those injured by shrapnel.
Markem wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
My Mom and my niece both have affected cars. My niece was told (after they inspected the car to confirm it was under the recall) that they had turned off the airbag. My Mom was not. Both Corollas, both at the same dealership, altho about a month apart.
John
Huh? We're talking about the craptastic GM ignition switch that turns itself off if you have too many keys on your keychain. I don't think a Ford Ranger has a GM ignition switch.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.