GM Recalls Trucks For Fire Risks From Excessive Idling – One 2014 Silverado Owner Tells A Different Story
Tim Esterdahl | Jan 20, 2014 | Comments 20
Last week, when GM announced it was recalling 370,000 of their brand-new heavy duty pickups for a “software fix” to address fire concerns, it was a bit of a headscratcher. Now, we see our first videos and photos of the issue and it is more than it seems.
One of our first photos of the GM fire recall. Looks like a pretty big deal.
When the recall was first announced, the language seemed a bit odd. GM stated that “a possible software glitch can cause overheating to occur in the exhaust components, possibly creating a fire under the truck.” Aren’t exhaust systems made to handle high heat? Apparently not, the photos and story from one Houston GM owner really speak to the issue.
The story goes that Houston wrestling coach Allen Paul received a recall notice just 30 minutes before his truck burst into flames. Apparently, he was driving his truck when he noticed the truck slowed down and all the interior lights coming on. He then noticed a fireball from under his hood. Naturally, he stopped and fled from his truck which was engulfed in flames.
Initially, the way we read the recall was that it only happened with “excessive idling.” GM told its customers to not idle the truck until the software fix could address the problem. The problem appears to only affect 4.3L or 5.3L engines and not the 6.2L.
This is what’s left of Paul’s 2014 Chevy Silverado.
GM spokesman Alan Adler told the Houston Chronicle (in response to the above story) that as of January 10, 2014 he only knew of 10 confirmed fires related to the defect. He also stated the majority of the problems were in cold weather climates.
“That’s not to say it can’t happen elsewhere,” said Adler.
Adler stated that they were aware of Paul’s truck fire and were working on a resolution.
“We’re doing everything we can to put the customer first,” said Adler.
That’s great and all, but what the heck! A truck that catches fire while driving around in it?
The reality to this story is there are just so many unanswered questions. Chief among them are:
- How can a software fix prevent a fire?
- If the problem is idling, what about trucks like those in Paul’s story?
- How can the exhaust system be built to not handle the highest temperature the truck can produce?
- How did your product testing miss this issue?
We have asked our sources for more information and when we hear something, we will update this story.
What do you think? What are your questions?
Related Posts:
Filed Under: Auto News
Typo: 6.2L, not 6.3L
I suspect there was not enough integration testing; plenty of testing in a lab with the engine in a cradle taking plenty of readings and applying many simulations. But, putting it all together, well, looks like they fell short like with Ford and the ecoBoost (CAC problem).
Eh, what’s .1L between friends. 🙂
-Tim
Tim
If you want the lowest quality possible product made, then have it designed and engineered by a corporate committee that knows absolutely knows nothing about the intended purpose of the product.
Field testing never enters into their equation.
That has been true since the beginning of time and both GM and Ford are 100% guilty.
The only way to make a product with even lower quality is to have it designed and engineered by a Government Committee.
Tim you asked four basic questions; since all the answers are 100% political I fear I would be flamed alive if I answered.
Randy
Hmm this is no surprise, considering I remembering reading a post that said GM pushed the truck out the door rather quickly to try to get an early start. I wish auto manufactures in general would stop trying to risk the public’s safety, income is all that matters to them and gets old. I’m glad this person is ok but I would hate to have this happen to me. Sure, in general there is always going to be people saying look at that “GM, Ford, Toyota, Dodge, Nissan,..etc” they’re getting recalls, it happens. It should never be because of public safety, it should of minor details thats all. Personally I think every auto owner that is found to have a safety issue should reimburse the customer 2k. You made the consumer take a risk and they trusted your inspectors/testers statics. Maybe then they would get the point it’s not just a numbers game, its also a public safety concern.
I guess that was a hot product. I would bet Pickuptrucks dot com wont be publishing this article…
Understand Randy. Mario auto manufacturers would then charge you the extra $2k just to cover that.
How can a software fix prevent a fire?
It’s probably a sensor on the exhaust not taking the heat. No pun intended. Well okay it’s GM. My issue it has to be some fluid that is catching fire like brake fluid. If they have gas leaking by the throttle body then we have a whole new can of worms opening up. You remember the heated washer fluid?
If the problem is idling, what about trucks like those in Paul’s story?
The problem is the first trucks that shown an issue were probably just idling. Now we are seeing it’s not just idling. Now the thermostat should keep the engine down below 200 degrees. Other than a o2 sensor I don’t know what else GM has on their exhaust that would cause this. I would think that Paul’s story goes in hand with idling if the truck is running hot going down the road.
How can the exhaust system be built to not handle the highest temperature the truck can produce? Simply no QA is being done. Cutting corners to make a profit. The bottom line.
How did your product testing miss this issue? If no QA then no testing period. Now playing devil’s advocate the part in question maybe a part the manufacturer states it can handle that temp but it can’t. It just happen to be the lowest price part out there. Who knows maybe made in “China” etc.
Personally I don’t expect much from GM. Yes the great debacle of a headliner. Now if GM cut corners and went with a new manufacturer on headliners the last year because they were cheaper. Guess so because they were cut shorter so the issue prevails. Same goes for both taillights on that 06 Silverado. Factory made clear lens with 2 screw holes in plastic lens to hold it. Guess what when you tightened the plastic lens? It cracks and the pieces fall off and now you have nothing holding lens on. So traveling down the interstate the vibration makes it fall off. If QA was bad in 06 before the bail out, what do you think now? I would like to think this guy would go to another manufacturer instead of taking another Chevy. But you have the stubborn ones who don’t see this is an issue. Now that this has happen I would petition the CEO to go to congress and NHTSA to get his rear reamed out like they did Toyota CEO’s. It’s only fair to do this. If people don’t see this then they deserve to have those fire trucks and eco engines issues. GM can say they have QA but anyone who has ever dealt with QA would know better.
“GM spokesman Alan Adler told the Houston Chronicle (in response to the above story) that the as of January 10, 2014 that he only knew of 10 confirmed fires related to the defect. He also stated the majority of the problems were in cold weather climates”.
Sorry Alan but blaming it on cold weather?
“We’re doing everything we can to put the customer first,” said Adler.
Bullsh!t! 11x headliner fell on my truck which was out on it’s 3rd year so new model issue. Both taillights fell off. GM dealership knew of the TSB for the taillights and only fix the one that fell not the pass side. Guess what happened a month later….. Yes the other side fell off.
They only did the minimum. The TSB states the fix and they should have fixed both sides but failed miserable. Cost is what’s driving this.
“Adler stated that they were aware of Paul’s truck fire and were working on a resolution”.
I can tell you from experience what the resolution is. GM has a great warranty that will cover it. Really? So to me it’s just plain and simple that shows they don’t do QA. You don’t think we can let a sub out to sea without QA checking and testing a valve? There’s your answer. CEO’s need to be brought front and center period.
Mickey,
Well, you pretty much covered all my questions. In the future, I’ll jus ask you my questions. LOL!
-Tim
[…] heat is on. Not just idling the fires are catching on while driving: GM Trucks Recalled – More Than Idle, Truck Fire Photos | Tundra Headquarters Blog __________________ MIDNIGHT RIDER THIS TRUCK CAN TAKE A HIT AND KEEP ON […]
[…] use to say carry duct tape. Now you need a fire extinguisher. GM Trucks Recalled – More Than Idle, Truck Fire Photos | Tundra Headquarters Blog __________________ MIDNIGHT RIDER THIS TRUCK CAN TAKE A HIT AND KEEP ON […]
[…] Fire Sale! GM Trucks Recalled – More Than Idle, Truck Fire Photos | Tundra Headquarters Blog __________________ MIDNIGHT RIDER THIS TRUCK CAN TAKE A HIT AND KEEP ON […]
Nowhere in the article does it mention the size of the engine. I am suspicious of GM pointing to two of the remaining engines, then excluding the 6.2L for some reason. I thought, what other vehicle has the 6.2L? Could GM be trying to actively quell any rumor on the 6.2 for fear of truncating Corvette sales? Subsequently, an engine fire in a Corvette with it’s flammable body panels could prove catastrophic.
It’s a shame because any manufacturer has the capacity to fully test any new engine in the interest of preventing devastating events like this. Engine fires are unusual in a closed, pressurized fuel system and indicative of some careless development at the least.
GIven that GM has a large interest in China and knowing China’s poor reputation of quality control in ANY market they engage in, would it be a stretch to assume GM outsourced some of this vehicle’s development to such an apathetic partner?
Toyota could exploit this coverup in an effort to educate buyers that their trucks are safe, powerful and reliable. And they are in spades! The “big 3” have a few recent mishaps that seem to be brushed aside in the adoring and forgiving automotive media. In the wake of a potentially deadly debacle, i’m relieved to have my amazing Tundra, despite an ignorant Consumer Report’s article that dismisses my truck as a bona fide Toyota Camry!
This begs the question: When was the last time you had seen a “Chevy Malibu” tow the Nasa Space Shuttle?
Go Toyota!
Rick,
Wow, great point about a Corvette cover up! That hadn’t even occurred to me at all.
-Tim
Who sold the rights to the Hummer to China? So why wouldn’t GM outsource to their new partner. Who do you think will bring in China imports? Soon China will own GM and then and only then people will open their eyes. Even if you have another manufacturer build part of your truck, wouldn’t you at least test it? Like I said before no QA period. This should be pushed by NHTSA. We know why they don’t or won’t. As mentioned before closed fuel system but it still catches fire. Houston we have a problem. Or “Like A Rock” it still sinks.
[…] those that want the latest in gadgets and technology versus time tested and QA'd technology: GM Trucks Recalled – More Than Idle, Truck Fire Photos | Tundra Headquarters Blog The comments are pretty good. __________________ Black Tundra Club Member #235 Platinum Club […]
The local Houston news actually has a bit more detail on this:
http://www.khou.com/video/feat.....69931.html
If you read the last line carefully, Paul’s attorney is involved.
Just like Ford there is No Warranty!
Will GM do the right thing and provide a New Truck at no cost to him?
Or will he have to file against his insurance?
Does he have his New Truck Yet?
Randy,
There should be a link in the story to the Houston news article you found. I was going to include more, but thought I would summarize it.
I’m hoping to hear of a follow up to this and when I do, I’ll either update or run a new story.
-Tim
I read the article emanating from Houston including the responses below the story. I have installed numerous amps and speakers etc. in many vehicles and never have I experienced ANY kind of fire condition. I hope this guy with his lawyer’s assistance, gets to the bottom of this problem ASAP. GM may try to blame this guy and he needs to persevere.
Side Note: I owned an ’02 Chevy 2500 (Duramax) and it too had a recall on the Bosch sourced injectors.
On a sunday afternoon I was in the mountains of Kentucky on my way home and experienced a loss of power. I had the truck towed to a diesel shop near me and upon dropping the oil filter, diesel fuel POURED out of the engine. As per the recall, the injector(s) failed and dumped diesel fuel into the crankcase. The mechanic said the motor was “done.” GM offered me a free oil change! Lol. Nice right?! My lawyer fought and we won a settlement. I wouldn’t expect a manufacturer to offer restitution so quickly. My advice is to post your issue on the blogs and be patient. GM has a problem on their hands with this fire.
For the record, my Duramax was an amazing engine and I still feel that way.
Tim,
Here is a link to an Autoweek article in reference to the engine fires GM has been plagued with. Perhaps this is a related incident as I believe this car (SS) is endowed with the new 6.2L V8 that is also in the Vette!
http://www.autoweek.com/articl.....gn=awAlert
Rick,
That is an interesting thought. Chevy seems to claim it was a separate device inside the car, however, if more of the SS models catch fire, we will know better. Let me know if you come across anymore articles like this one. Thanks!
-Tim
Tim,
Here is another fire hazard issue at GM! Things are really “heating up” over there! Lol.
http://www.motorauthority.com/.....ntial-fire