The AP reports that GM is suing supplier JTEKT North America Inc. of Plymouth, MI for faulty steering systems used in 2005 model year and later Cobalt, G5 and HHR models. GM’s suit alleges the JTEKT steering systems exhibited “excessive gear backlash,” causing a variety of noises that the General has spent $30m fixing under warranty so far. “JTEKT contends the components all met the specifications and testing requirements that GM gave it,” says the supplier’s lawyer. “The issues do not affect the operator’s ability to control the vehicle. This is a noise issue.” GM admits that the issue does not affect safety, but claims total repair costs could continue to rise as more vehicles receive upgrades under warranty. Current Cobalts and derivative models have received upgrades, although the AP does not specify when they took place. Keep an ear out for this problem if you’re considering a used Cobalt.
So is this a GM recall? And does this steering issue affect a Cobalt SS S/C as it would a base LS or LT model, or is it a different steering system in the hi-po versions?
This is a prime example of what I wrote about last week with respect to G.M.’s lack of quality control. As I stated previously LABOR is ALWAYS blamed for G.M.’s poor quality through the years. Of course there will be some labor quality problems with ANY auto company from time to time but in G.M’s case as far as my working assembly life with the company inferior parts took the stage!!!! I will reiterate, “If you perfectly assemble inferior parts you’ll have an inferior product”. This is common sense but……
Motors Liquidation or “New GM”?
GM: “Build us this component as cheaply as possible using the shittest materials.”
JTEKT: “No probs.”
GM: “It’s shit and it makes a hell of a noise and our customers don’t like it!”
JTEKT: “erm…”
GM – gotta love the thinking.
Talking to people who work for suppliers, that is exactly what goes on. They always want everything cheaper with no thought about quality. ASSISEEIT is also correct in that there is no more quality control at the Big 3. The dealership techs have become quality control when the car come in with a problem.
Thanks for this, TTAC. A late-model used ‘balt actually was on my radar (albeit a faint, F117-sized blip) as a possible replacement for my current mount, but this report pretty much eliminates it from consideration.
Makes me wonder just what those unspecified transmission issues holding up the Cruze are. GM’s usual skimping on quality components?
used in 2005 model year and later Cobalt, G5 and HHR models
So I guess they’ll be sending out recall letters to both of the customers who bought those vehicles; Hertz and Avis.
Gee, how I love it when GM goes to a “cheaper” supplier (not Saginaw Steering who built their strg systems for a zillion years), and gets EXACTLY what they paid for..he he he
@Sinistermisterman
You’ve just described exactly how the Explorer/Firestone debacle happened. “Erm..” indeed.
Do you know something about the Explorer/Firestone situation that the rest of us don’t?
From my memory and understanding the tires did indeed not include added-cost features such as a polymeric capping on the edge of the steel belts that would have reduced internal stresses that lead to carcass failure. However I also understood that Firestone informed Ford of the resulting limitations on acceptable inflation/load/speed window that this change in construction carried with it. Ford turned around and recommended an inflation pressure below said window in order to reduce the Explorer’s inherent tendency toward snap oversteer and “to improve ride” or some such claim. The excessive carcass temperatures and stresses due to intentional under-inflation led, predictably, to tire failure.
That said, it does appear that with Ford and Firestone, as likely it is with GM and JTEKT, the companies were “partners” in bringing failure to market.
Makes me wonder what other evils are lurking… Maybe a few bits here and there got missed while folks were watching CNN to see if they had jobs the next day…
This is very interesting. About six weeks ago I took my HHR on a multi-state trip and noticed while traveling through the mountains that something in the steering felt loose and clunky. When I got back home I took the car in and and asked the dealer to have a look at it. They told me that the steering column needed to be replaced, and not to worry. So after waiting for about a week for the part to arrive, they came and took the car (and left me a loaner) and two days later it was done. As far as I can tell the clunky noise is gone, but the wheel is harder to adjust up and down…oh well.
I know this might be just a tad off topic, but my local Chevy dealer’s service department has treated me wonderfully, and I have never bought a car from them. Of course, it could have something to do with the fact that I handle the service manager and most of the mechanic’s banking for them :P
Actually, this is not how it works.
GM, like other OEM’s has corporate-level specifications which relate to things such as FMVSS (e.g. 204, 208, etc.), EPA (e.g. Hexavalent Cr plating), or package clearances, temperature and corrosion resistance, as well as product-specific specifications which relate to the performance DNA of the individual product (i.e. NVH, or precision-related things like, in the case of the steering system, torsional freeplay and compliance) and finally, warranty targets. As the target price for the component is determined, the former category is (generally) not open to negotiation, but the latter category is.
In the case of the steering shafts, based on previous experience related to NVH-caused TGW’s (things gone wrong) and the related warranty costs (in excess of targets), GM added an extensive and demanding test to qualify new suppliers. Such is normal and typical of all OEMs. However, not all issues can be predicted (esp with new technologies), and engineers (fallible humanoids that they are) also make mistakes of omission or mis-estimation, and this is why FMEA’s and Engineering Specifications are called “living documents”.
Bear in mind that JTEKT’s lawyer responded in the predictable fashion, blaming the GM specification. GM’s counter-argument will be that JTEKT as a competent and very experienced manufacturer of such systems was chosen to prevent such things from happening, and (as is likely to be the case) was given system design responsibility.
For such a (safety-critical, government-compliance-related, and customer-opinion-influencing) system, the OEM in sourcing to a competent/experienced supplier is expecting the supplier to deliver on technical and commercial targets.
OEM’s no longer (or to a very limited extent) specify the dimensions or tolerances of components within a sub-system (i.e. they specify a bearing assembly, but do not the diameter or surface finish of the balls or needles), some call it Black-Box, Chrysler used to call ODD-Box (outside design & development) … the OEM buys (conversely, the Tier-1 supplier sells) a “function”, with a given performance, for a target price.
And of the supplier JTEKT? It is arguably the most qualified supplier of column-integrated electrical-assist steering systems (CEPAS) in the world, with decades of experience and millions of units on the road, given one of its forebears (Koyo Seiko) was among the first supplier of such systems…
Two interesting points, one which doe not auger well for GM in winning this argument, the other which could be spun two ways:
1. (if memory serves) rough-road NVH complaints were heard out of Mexico on the (I believe) Chevy Malibu (or Impala) a couple of years ago … so it could be that this issue is due to a common cause which was unknown at the time GM wrote their spec. and the vehicle testing protocol was developed (but I believe the Malibu issue was due to a bad sliding shaft, and backlash here, speaks more to the motor/gear-drive in the electric assist unit). GM’s counter argument here is that JTEKT, based on massive experience, should have foreseen such issues and helped to prevent them.
2. JTEKT quality: JTEKT is essentially controlled by Toyota, through multiple cross-shareholdings (Keiretsu) in the companies comprising JTEKT (Fuji Kiko, Koyo Seiko, Toyoda Machine, Hitachi Automotive, a couple others that don’t come to mind now), and is the majority supplier of steering systems to Toyota/Lexus/et al. So, this argument could be spun to make it look like JTEKT sandbagged in its efforts to supply GM (playing strictly by GM’s spec.), or that the apple has not fallen too far from the tree, and JTEKT has lost some of its quality focus in its bid to grow its business…
It will be interesting to see where this story goes, but we will unlikely ever know, because 95% or all such suits are settled out of court…
Disclaimer: The foregoing is based on memory as I did not have time to check all my facts. If more info comes to light, I’ll add comments as appropriate.
@ Robert.Walter
Very interesting post.
GM’s counter-argument will be that JTEKT as a competent and very experienced manufacturer of such systems was chosen to prevent such things from happening, and (as is likely to be the case) was given system design responsibility.
One would think GM performed some form of acceptance tests? In my experience, it’s usually uphill for the purchaser if the contract supplier can demonstrate adherence to a specification. Heck, it might even be the case that JTEKT made suggestions that caused cost to rise that were subsequently knocked back.
In those cases, the supplier is seen as a functionary (to be exploited) and not as a PARTNER. The relationship is therefore dysfunctional from the start.
I wonder if that explain dreadnought turning circle on those cars?
Only the HHR has that “dreadnaught turning circle”.
Send a truck to Daimler for a load or two. I understand they have a boatload of steering columns they are refusing to ship to Chrysler.
I can’t wait to see those $500/kwh bargain basement lithium-ion batteries GM is procuring for the Volt.
Robert.Walter added quite a lot of interesting details that those of us on the outside are typically unaware of. It surely doesn’t sound like GM went to a bargain basement supplier of questionable repute in this instance.
Warranty claim rate dust ups like this happen between OEM’s and their suppliers more frequently than most people realize. They only rarely make it to court, but it happens. Ford and Navistar spent some time in front of courts over PowerStroke diesel warranty claims rates. Ford and Firestone went at it infamously over who was to blame for the tires exploding, Explorers rolling over debacle.
Making cars is a bit like making sausage. If most people knew everything that went on behind the scenes they might not eat sausage or buy a car!
Likely not as simple as SPC/First Article. If assemblies are failing after “long-term” use, it could be due to a deficiency in how GM defines their DV/PV-testing; Lord knows I’ve seen that problem at various auto companies. None of that would be found at the plant level, or with continued QC. Yearly reval only proves you’re making the same thing as you’ve always made. If the system was doomed to fail in the beginning, QC won’t help.
This situation also brings to mind the new Camaro’s Brembo front brakes (with added wheel weights to prevent vibration during hard stops).
Does this not suggest that something is amiss inside GM?
@PeteMoran
Acceptance tests won’t catch everything. There is not testing like field testing, but no one can wait the 5 years and several thousands of miles of testing to make sure this won’t be a problem. I work for a company that outsources some development and we see issues like this with some of our suppliers from time to time. It all really goes down to what is in the contracts to see who is at fault. Also, what are you basing your comments on their relationships on? I can throw out claims of how it might work as well. Doesn’t make them right.
@ Steven02
Acceptance tests won’t catch everything.
I can do nothing but agree, in which case it would appear GM have accepted the part supplied as within specification. The problem becomes GM’s again.
I’ve had some exposure to auto part testing including accelerated aging or cycling – I guess GM would apply such a process to such a part?
What are you basing your comments on their relationships on? I can throw out claims of how it might work as well. Doesn’t make them right.
Not sure I follow what you’re asking but I wasn’t being specific to this situation. Apologies if you felt I was.
In my experience, some suppliers are seen as exploitable (for want of a better phrase). Any relationship that starts out like that rather than in Partnership, is dysfunctional, and near-as-damnit hasn’t a hope in hell to deliver quality.
I wonder if this is the same supplier that provided this part for the previous Malibu? An acquaintance had one for a company car and when he turned it in at the end of the lease he said the steering rack sounded like ‘a coffee can full of marbles’.
Goes well with the fuel leak problems that GM recalled these cars for a couple of weeks back.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/gm-recalling-53000-cars-for-fuel-leak/
So would that include the 05 and up ION? And what does the noise sound like? Creaking at low speed, thumping, like an intermediate steering shaft ? Already had the strut bushings replaced, does it sound like that?
What are the symptoms?
So what about all the other GM cars that exhibit these issues. The Malibu, Impala, G6, Aura, all G-body cars such as the Bonneville, LeSabre and Aurora etc all have sloppy, noisy, clunky steering shafts too. This problem has been going on since the 90’s and STILL exhists to this day. I would think that if this were a supplier issue, the problem would have been cleared up long ago. I’m more inclined to think that GM specified a new untested technology that the supplier just couldn’t ever quite get right yet they went ahead with it anyway. Notice that no other manufacturer is having these issues with there steering systems. Every god blessed GM FWD car or SUV that I have owned or driven with anything over 20K miles has loose, clunky noisy steering that sometimes sounds like a bunch of marbles floating around in a tin can or a boing pop noise. Intermediate steering shafts are greased, replaced, steering gears replaced, adjusted etc and the problem always comes back. And I’m not even going to get into the electric power steering fiasco that plagued the Malibus, Cobalts, G6’s, Auras and Equinoxes from 05-09!
Had the ISS problem in a purchased new, un-hooned 99 Cavalier: 24,000 miles. Same crap 10 years later?
The Cobalt was supposed to be Chevy’s “premium” compact with the VW Jetta as it’s design benchmark………
Nice know GM believes in hanging on to some legacies
GM is famous for steering component problems. Full size pick-ups and suv’s have had intermediate steering shaft problems for about 10 years. The first “fix” was to take the shaft off, pump it full of grease and reinstall it. This made the clunk go away for a couple thousand miles. Now the shaft is replaced. Look up “Pontiac G6 steering problems” for a real eye opener.
I looked at JTEKT’s website and indeed they are affiliated with Toyota as “robert.walter” states. Interestingly, Toyota’s Camry and Lexus ES cars have had click/pop problems with their steering shafts for a few years (at least 2004-2007).