GM to recall 180,000+ Chevy HHRs

[prototype66]

repost

[GXP Lover]

I can't believe some of the responses here. They litterally amazes me. Blame the customer? Please. These are basic safety tests that EVERY auto manufacturer must certify to in order to sell a vehicle. The FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) list a minimum of requirements each automaker must pass. If it fails to meet these, then it must recall. This is why you see recalls for stickers for tire pressures, air bag warning stickers, and the like that are required.

If you just casually went to a dealer and they did a "recall" for you, then it was most likely a "service bulletin" or a "customer satisfaction" program. Each of these would correct something with having to notify the customer.

It's not just plastic, it's foam. Energy abosorbing (EA) foam to be precise. This is actually used all over the vehicle in many, many locations, including in front of bumpers. This foam decelerates an object that has made contact before a hard point is hit. Thus, making the impact more likely to not cause as much damage. This has been going on for years and why it is recommended that one takes thier car in for inspection even after a minor collision.

Going back to the recall, it might make more sense to some of you if you read this:

____________________
From the January 30, 2008 Non Compliance Notice:

General Motors has decided that certain 2006-08 model year Chevrolet HHR vehicles not equiped with opitional Roof Rail Air Bags, fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact." In tests, one of the upper interior occupant protection test points exceeded the Standard's requirement.

GM's determination is based on:
On Dec. 17, 2007, a NHTSA contractor tested a 2007 Chevrolet HHR without Roof Rail Air Bags and without a sunroof. The result was above the FMVSS 201 requirement of 1,000.

On January 8-9, 2008, GM retested the Chevrolet HHR without Roof Rail Air Bags and without a sunroof at the AP1 impact location on the left and right sides. The HIC(d)s were 1,011 and 1,026 respectively. GM also conducted 4 FMVSS 201 tests on the 2007 Chevrolet HHR without Roof Rail Air Bags and with the sunroof option. The results were 921, 883, 891, and 1,117.
_________________

I certainly don't know what happened, but by looking at the report, GM could have thought the worst case was the sunroof optioned vehicle and did its testing with that, since only one is outside of the requirement (which could be an outlyer). But then again since they're just barely over the requirement, there could have been a minor change in the production process somewhere that caused this. I don't know the details. However, the barely over the number is a perfect application for the EA foam and should guarantee that the results will be below the 1,000 mark.

I hope this helps shed some light on the subject.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by milton112c

This isn't bad at all. The HHR failed GMs standards which is significantly higher than the actual legal standards so its not that bad. They could have just let this go but it shows GM has learned from the past and that quality and safety is nothing to be compromised on.

That pretty much sums up what I was going to post, but I'll add that GM seems to be doing this to be 'nice' not because there's a serious problem. Those buyers CHOSE to buy the HHR without the side airbags, sounds to me like GM is saying their choice was wrong.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by goblue

Delta I is really a mess isn't it?

- Cheap interior (Cobalt) that ranks somewhere between a Corolla and a Kia
- Loud, unrefined base engine
- Bad fuel economy from base engine
- Without side airbags, fails the basic GM standard

Its got decent handling and performance even in base trim, but the rest of the car...old GM. I hope Delta II is truly a competitive package.

My engine is pretty quiet, except when floored, then it gets growly and not in a bad way. I like it. I get between 33 and 36mpg, mostly highway of course, so I don't get your 'bad fuel economy' statement. Quite a few Mazdas, Hyundais, Kias and Chryslers do much, much worse. The interior is kinda cheap, I'll give you that, but I don't live in the car so I don't really care. I chose to buy mine without side airbags, so I guess I'm taking a chance. As for this being a Delta thing, it seems it's an HHR-only thing, not on all Deltas so your statement is a little to broad. Therefore, I disagree that it's a mess. Have you been in a Hyundai while it was moving? There are much worse cars out there. The Astra is quasi-Delta, it doesn't have any of these issues. Would you include it in your assessment?

[solman98]

I love threads like this. And people wonder why some people get stupid ideas in their heads. Wow, a vehicle that already had a 5 star side impact rating without the side airbags from the NHTSA, is getting a recall to add a little more safety absorbing material by GM.

GM should just shut it's doors and call it quits.

I choose no side aribags on mine. I'd do it again. Some of you really amaze me at the stupid comments you make on issues like this.

[kw83028]

Originally Posted by GXP Lover

I can't believe some of the responses here. They litterally amazes me. Blame the customer? Please. These are basic safety tests that EVERY auto manufacturer must certify to in order to sell a vehicle. The FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) list a minimum of requirements each automaker must pass. If it fails to meet these, then it must recall. This is why you see recalls for stickers for tire pressures, air bag warning stickers, and the like that are required.

If you just casually went to a dealer and they did a "recall" for you, then it was most likely a "service bulletin" or a "customer satisfaction" program. Each of these would correct something with having to notify the customer.

It's not just plastic, it's foam. Energy abosorbing (EA) foam to be precise. This is actually used all over the vehicle in many, many locations, including in front of bumpers. This foam decelerates an object that has made contact before a hard point is hit. Thus, making the impact more likely to not cause as much damage. This has been going on for years and why it is recommended that one takes thier car in for inspection even after a minor collision.

Going back to the recall, it might make more sense to some of you if you read this:

____________________
From the January 30, 2008 Non Compliance Notice:

General Motors has decided that certain 2006-08 model year Chevrolet HHR vehicles not equiped with opitional Roof Rail Air Bags, fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact." In tests, one of the upper interior occupant protection test points exceeded the Standard's requirement.

GM's determination is based on:
On Dec. 17, 2007, a NHTSA contractor tested a 2007 Chevrolet HHR without Roof Rail Air Bags and without a sunroof. The result was above the FMVSS 201 requirement of 1,000.

On January 8-9, 2008, GM retested the Chevrolet HHR without Roof Rail Air Bags and without a sunroof at the AP1 impact location on the left and right sides. The HIC(d)s were 1,011 and 1,026 respectively. GM also conducted 4 FMVSS 201 tests on the 2007 Chevrolet HHR without Roof Rail Air Bags and with the sunroof option. The results were 921, 883, 891, and 1,117.
_________________

I certainly don't know what happened, but by looking at the report, GM could have thought the worst case was the sunroof optioned vehicle and did its testing with that, since only one is outside of the requirement (which could be an outlyer). But then again since they're just barely over the requirement, there could have been a minor change in the production process somewhere that caused this. I don't know the details. However, the barely over the number is a perfect application for the EA foam and should guarantee that the results will be below the 1,000 mark.

I hope this helps shed some light on the subject.

I work directly with this and know a lot about it. I'm not allowed to get into details, but you hit it pretty good here. Basically BAD engineering judgements in the past.

FMVSS201 is a law to protect UNBELTED occupants when your head impacts the headliner, pillar trim, or IP in a basic crash. If you have your seatbelt on, you will not contact this point with your head. I love that my whole job is to protect people that don't wear seatbelts.

Having roof rail airbags, or not, for safety, is NOT the issue here. It is just that RRAB vehicles have a different headliner substructure to get around the bags. The test points react different because the structure is different. Same idea applies with or without sunroof.

Edit: Weird their stating it as a side impact failure. Side impact testing has nothing to do with FMVSS201, and adding a piece of countermeasure to the headliner has nothing to do with side impact testing. So the story really isn't quite clear, but I believe the issue is 201, not side impact, since we've been developing this plastic "fix" for a while now.

[King Riffle]

Originally Posted by JeffInDFW

Ummm.....So, it didn't pass GM's crash standard for 2006 to today, and they just now caught it? Sooooo....Do they just build crap for 2 years, then finally get around to testing it? Was the original test done incorrectly? Did it fail its test back then, and they just now got around to fixing the issue? I mean, I just don't get this.

Almost word for word what I was going to post.

[kw83028]

Originally Posted by JeffInDFW

Ummm.....So, it didn't pass GM's crash standard for 2006 to today, and they just now caught it? Sooooo....Do they just build crap for 2 years, then finally get around to testing it? Was the original test done incorrectly? Did it fail its test back then, and they just now got around to fixing the issue? I mean, I just don't get this.

Yea, basically horrible engineering judgements (forced on the engineers from executives) that all went wrong. ION, Cobalt, HHR, Equinox/Torrent, plus a few others. Luckily, those executive decisions have stopped, and they let the engineers do their jobs now.

Refer to my previous post. There are many combos of the HHR: sunroof w/rrab, sunroof w/o rrab, base roof w/rrab, base roof w/o rrab. Every single one of those has different substructure under the headliner, and Engineers were told that if one passes, they all pass....LOL I can't believe the logic.. GO GM GO!!!

[joeaeguy21]

its a tiny piece of plastic and prob. doesnt do much. Im sure with testing and all the NUMBERS it prob. just gets them past that magic "safe" number. NO ONE WILL DIE because of it. ITs all in the mathmatics!

[kw83028]

Originally Posted by joeaeguy21

its a tiny piece of plastic and prob. doesnt do much. Im sure with testing and all the NUMBERS it prob. just gets them past that magic "safe" number. NO ONE WILL DIE because of it. ITs all in the mathmatics!

You are correct... Plus I think a person without their seatbelt on has a lot more to worry about in an accident than possibly hitting their head where that point is.

[GMCSonoma]

Originally Posted by prototype66

repost

link???

[GMCSonoma]

We are missing a few posts...

Please to the attached link as to why...
Basic rules for the RECALL Forum:

[calgaryhhr]

For those of you that might still be interested in this topic the notice that has been sent to myself from GM Canada about this issue states that this matter is a "Customer Satisfaction Program" and not a recall.

And for those that are saying it's partly or solely the customers fault for not ordering the airbags I'd like to say that in many cases a customer does not order a vehicle but purchases one off the lot. I've seen very few with side impact airbags available. The dealers are not ordering them equipped this way. I wanted one with side impact air bags but I didn't want to wait 3 months to take delivery so I picked up what was on the lot and of the three that were available none had airbags.

[paul8488]

Ummm... they're not saying that the foam is equivalent to roof airbags. They're saying that without the foam you have a higher risk of getting injured in a side-impact accident than with the foam. With the foam the HHR passes the test, without it it doesn't. So they're adding the foam. Pretty straight-forward.

[GM Tech Mike]

Easiest recall ever for .5 lbr/hr although I still wonder how a piece of plastic protects someone? Instead of using the hot glue gun I use adhesive spray.