GM’s Washer Fluid Heaters “Fire Waiting To Happen”
Jason Lancaster | Jun 22, 2010 | Comments 28
I found an interesting video today via TheTruthAboutCars that needs to be shared. According to Canadian Mark Whinton of CarQuestions.ca, GM’s recall of 1.5 million heated windshield washer units is URGENT.
[got a washer fluid heater unit] out of an 08′ Buick Enclave and took it apart…and discovered corrosion on the inside on that [power] contact. That’s incredible. These things are an accident waiting to happen. If that [corrosion] migrates over to the ground contact, you could have a 40-50 amp sustained draw while the car is off…that is incredible. Did they have fires? My guess – absolutely they did. General Motors better get those cars in quick.
Whatever you may think about Mark – who doesn’t seem to have anything at stake in this particular issue – you have to agree that what he says makes some sense while watching his videos (see below).
The question I have – did Toyota’s recall fiasco prompt GM to take action sooner than they would have otherwise? Obviously, no one can know the answer to that question, and my sincere hope is that the answer is “no.” Still, there is evidence of a conspiracy. The New York Times has found some emails that suggest GM knew this was a safety problem as early as 2007. While this likely nothing more than sour grapes from the now bankrupt supplier of these parts, it’s definitely interesting.
You have to wonder if Toyota’s experience of being eviscerated by press and politicians has made other automakers more proactive about safety recalls than they would have been otherwise.
Toyota’s Crisis Impacts Auto Industry
Certainly Toyota deserved criticism and public humiliation for their excessive corporate secrecy and documented attempts to weasel out of at least one safety recall. That behavior is inexcusable. Did Toyota deserve a record NHTSA fine? Most likely yes, despite the fact Toyota’s fine amount was highly political. Will Toyota get their clocks cleaned in civil court by consumers and stockholders alike? Yes, and they probably deserve that as well.
However, it’s clear that Toyota didn’t deserve to have the U.S. Secretary of Transportation say “stop driving your Toyota.” Toyota also doesn’t deserve all sorts of uninformed speculation about their electronic throttle systems, despite the fact that all of these “experts” alleging throttle problems don’t have ONE documented incident to support their claims.
However, undeserved or not, Toyota’s misconduct has opened them up to a lot of undeserved criticism…it’s sort of the American way. You can bet that execs at GM, Ford, Chrysler-Fiat, Nissan, Hyundai, Honda, and VW all recognize that what happened to Toyota can happen to them…and it’s probable these people are being a lot more pro-active about recalls as a result.
Filed Under: Auto News
I don’t agree. The fact that toyota beat there chest to many times and acted like they had a unparalleled quailty has put them in the cross hairs. Just like how this site was all about making jokes at others brands cost what goes around comes around. Saying in 2011 Tundra will be the first to meet J2807 is a prime example.
Greg don’t quit your day job. Jason this heated washer fluid GM knew for a couple of years that this fire could result. I need to find where I read this back in 2008/9. Now we will see if NHTSA will do the same to GM as they did to Toyota. We know this won’t happen and we will see the double standards at NHTSA. Good try Greg, you have prooved how simple you really are. You need to let it go. Greg one of your fellow Dodge owners “Frank” left you some real advice.
Jason,
Obviously safety is a major concern, but what is the rate of incidence (or rate of failure) that a particular problem should become a recall (voluntary or involuntary)?
Lets say, that GM was aware of a problem in 2008 but the rate of failure wasn’t reached until 2010, should they get fined?
Or, lets say, 10000 incidents (obviously overstated) with Toyota in 8 million vehicles, then the rate is .00125 (one thousandth on one percent).
Is there even a standard that NHTSA uses or is it arbitary.
Just wondering while wandering.
oooops! I meant one thousandth OF one percent.
The other thing that factors into a DOT fine is ability to pay. That’s why a company such as Chrysler will never get fined. In a nutshell the more revenue a company makes the higher the fine. I still can’t figure out why Toyota didn’t go to admin court and attempt to mitigate the fine. Toyota possibly cut a deal with DOT to avoid criminal charges. There’s a lot more to this story and I’m sure the public will never know. One other thing, companies professing quality are not a target by the US DOT. However, the media can and will draw attention to anything they feel is news worthy. If the other car mfgs toe the line because of Toyota’s fine then compliance is accomplished. I suppose that could be political.
So five fires, no injurys and the fact NHTSA closed the investigation makes TOYOTA owners jealous? They are going to deactivate the system and pay the owners $100. So what did toyota owners get for the floormat recall? Has that even been fixed?
–
http://media.gm.com/content/me....._gm_washer
–
Mickey stop trying to make it personal!
Greg first if I was trying to make it personal you will know it. Second now I’m going to play a song that someone named Greg stated. Why buy the truck if you don’t get or used what’s in it! Sounds familiar? Maybe someone bought the truck because it had that heated washer and now they are stuck with that truck and the heated washer pulled out. Does it matter how many fires it had Greg? You have yet to show proof that a Tundra had SUA and killed someone. Even with the mats.
Working around aircraft most of my adult life has taught me that corrosion is insidious. Its not a matter of will it cause failure its a matter of when it’ll cause failure. The fact that there was five fires is the proof. The recall was the right thing to do and the $100 payment for the loss of the heater is also a good thing. It looks like GM has done all they can on this one.
greg – “this site was all about making jokes at others brands cost what goes around comes around. Saying in 2011 Tundra will be the first to meet J2807 is a prime example.” First of all, if there’s a joke in this post, I’m not clear on the punchline. Second, I said that the 2011 Tundra will be the first half-ton to meet the J2807 rating standard – the HD Silverado and the 2010 4Runner meet the standard as well.
danny – I don’t know what NHTSA uses to determine actions that warrant a fine, but my understanding is that any delay in addressing a safety issue mandates a NHTSA fine. In my opinion, the low incidence of failures + the fact that GM has already addressed this issue once shows that it’s not a big deal and that GM has taken the problem seriously. However, the NY Times article suggests otherwise…we’ll see what happens. My guess? Nothing.
anonymous – I think that Toyota avoided arbitration because that was the most expedient move politically. Better to get it over with than drag it through the news.
greg – Where do you get jealous? Much of the criticism Toyota received was deserved. The point here is that GM is probably being much more aggressive than they would have been with this issue…and that’s a good thing, don’t you think? Also, Mickey is right: Where is the guy who says “that’s the truck you bought so you’re stuck with the problem.”
Mickey – Good point.
Rich – I agree, I think that GM has acted as they should have. I don’t think they deserve a fine unless someone can prove GM ignored this problem and/or tried to negotiate it away like Toyota did.
carquestions is a fraud. He has no automobile knowledge or any mechanical engineering education. The guy even can’t diagnose a simple sensor. His bias videos shows his real mission to lie about how Toyota has no flaws. While Toyota had numerous recalls, this fraud ignores it.
Johnny – You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I’d like to know if you have any concrete proof that the “carquestions guy” is a fraud. Are you an experienced mechanical engineer in the auto industry? It’s easy to say someone’s a fraud, but it’s harder to prove it.
I own a 2008 tahoe and to day. I left the dealer in castleger BC Canada. My truck was held kidnappee held for ransom. and that I could NOT leave with my tohoe unless I sigh a cotract that would not SUE them if they let me leave in it. I told them forget it. Im not sighning nothing. so I phoned the powers to be and they offerd 105 Dollars for a heated windsheld. I told him I pad more then that he said. to bad thats it. I told keep the truck. NOW you me THOUSANDS. it is allmost paid OFF. WEll his tone changed. now waiting for call…..?????
Tom – Sorry man, but I can’t understand your comment.
I have an engineering degree with an emphasis in automotive technology. Any mechanic or engineer can spot carquestions to be a fraud. And his bias views is very visible from all his youtube videos and comments. His videos only have bias opinions. Nothing of his videos provide any physical evidence to support his claims. It doesn’t take much to conclude that Carquestions has bias videos, if he ignores all of Toyota’s engineering defects.
lets examine Mark’s comments. “If that [corrosion] migrates over to the ground contact, you could have a 40-50 amp sustained draw while the car is off”
“you could have” All power circuits are protected by a fuse. Even if theres a chance a short will happen, either a fuse or a fusable link will protect the circuit.
“corrosion”
how many circuits actually work with corrosion? barely any. You can ask anyone that owns a trailer, especially ones used to set their boats in water. Trailer lights don’t work from the excessive corrosion. We wouldn’t need dielectric grease to protect connections from corrosion. Maybe Mark should explain to us how 12volts of DC current is going to overcome corrosive resistance?
“…that is incredible. Did they have fires? My guess – absolutely they did”
his guess? his guess isn’t a fact. no documentation that GM actually did have fires. Mark whinton can guess all he wants. But if he wants to prove something, he needs to do it with actual facts. Bad enough he has poor knowledge of electrical circuits.
johnny – I too have an engineering degree, and I can tell you this much: GM *did* have fires, and Mark’s opinion on a design flaw seems probable. If you have an alternative explanation for the cause of the fires like this one: http://www.wlwt.com/news/23838912/detail.html – I’m all ears.
While you’re at it, go ahead and call GM and tell them that they were wrong to recall 1.5 million cars for this problem. Once you explain it to them, I’m sure they’ll recognize their mistake. LOL.
Seriously – I would agree that Mark might be embellishing here and there in his videos, but he’s a reasonable guy that isn’t afraid to state an opinion. I think he’s been reasonably fair, and I think you should check your own facts. The first time GM recalled these washer fluid heaters, it was to install another fuse. Evidently, the one you said that all power lines have either didn’t exist or didn’t work.
Well,
i dont have a degree in engineering but i have a theory too. Very similiar to the video though. Eventhough there is a weep hole on the backside of the unit, it doesn’t mean that the accumulated moisture/water drains out of that hole. water has a cohesive property. Take a tin can and poke a small hole in it. Very slowly, put drops of water in the tin can. the water level will get above the level of the hole, well at least until the effects of gravity overwhelm the cohesiveness of water. Now, you don’t have to have corrosion to “migrate”, you just need the water to get high enough to cross the little dam between the positive and negative terminals and make a connection. even a non-engineering ed-u-macated person like me, knows that water is conductive. I think he said it’s fused but at 60 amps and not keyed. thats enough to easliy cause a fire. Also, the weep hole could be the reason that humid air keeps entering the chamber and then condensing, making water droplets. if this process happens enough times, there will be enough water to make the scenerio possible. you also have to consider that since there is no weep hole on the positive side, if the water builds up on that side, being unable to drain, it will eventually jump the dam and make contact with the negative terminal. then, zap! poof!
just my 2 cents again.
“johnny – I too have an engineering degree, and I can tell you this much: GM *did* have fires, and Mark’s opinion on a design flaw seems probable. If you have an alternative explanation for the cause of the fires like this one”
why do you tell people you are a sales person? GM did have fires. BUT, Mark didn’t state that. He gave an OPINION, that they might have fires. An opinion isn’t him stating real events of these fires.
“While you’re at it, go ahead and call GM and tell them that they were wrong to recall 1.5 million cars for this problem. Once you explain it to them, I’m sure they’ll recognize their mistake. LOL.”
Did I say GM was wrong to recall any of their vehicles? Did you misread my posts entirely? My discussion is about Mark’s bias videos and the fact that he has no experience in cars or engineering.
“Seriously – I would agree that Mark might be embellishing here and there in his videos, but he’s a reasonable guy that isn’t afraid to state an opinion. I think he’s been reasonably fair, and I think you should check your own facts. The first time GM recalled these washer fluid heaters, it was to install another fuse. Evidently, the one you said that all power lines have either didn’t exist or didn’t work”
If mark is stating opinions, you shouldn’t be using his videos as a source for your articles. But just from reading your article and you using the term “conspiracy”. Your not trying to say something bad is happing in the automotive community, but making bias views that this auto maker is better than this one.
“I think you should check your own facts”
and my facts are what? electricity has a hard time flowing through conduit with high resistance? Or circuits are fused. I don’t you see discussion the real issues. Even mark looked at the circuit board in his video, and stated he didn’t know how to even read a circuit board. If he doesn’t know anything about electronics, he shouldn’t be making videos.
And funny you make mark out to be some kind of a hero. Just because “after the fact” he makes a video of an already existing recall. If he was someone special, he would be posting videos of engineering flaws that have not been discovered. But He just posts the same bias videos that Toyota has no design flaws. Atleast yourself admit Toyota vehicles have rust issues which was from only one other article I’ve read on this site.
johhny – First of all, my bio is here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonalancaster
I have not ever practiced engineering, but technical analysis and design aren’t a foreign concept to me. I’m sure that you’re a better engineer than I’ll ever be, but I don’t see how you can dismiss Mark’s comments so easily. As I’ve said, his explanation seems probable.
Also, you were the one who said there had been no fires – your exact words were “no documentation that GM actually did have fires”. I’m not buying that, and neither should you.
I think you’re right that I shouldn’t make Mark out to be some kind of hero. That was not my intention, but I can see how someone might get that impression. For the record, I think his video is compelling, and I think he makes a good case as to why this problem was happening. He is not a hero, however.
Did you see my comment about the fuse? You said that all power circuits have them, yet GM’s first recall on this unit was specifically to install a fuse…I know that all vehicles have a master fuse, but the threshold for that fuse is pretty big I think (you tell me – 80,90 amps?). If 50-60 amps was enough juice to allow this heater to get nice and hot (and that seems very reasonable), the master fuse wouldn’t trigger before a fire started.
The bottom line with this article, however, has nothing to do with Mark, GM, or fires. It’s about the increased scrutiny of automakers that came as a result of attacks on Toyota. I think that GM probably felt a lot more compelled to deal with this problem as a result…but THAT is only an opinion.
Thanks for commenting.
“I have not ever practiced engineering, but technical analysis and design aren’t a foreign concept to me. I’m sure that you’re a better engineer than I’ll ever be, but I don’t see how you can dismiss Mark’s comments so easily. As I’ve said, his explanation seems probable.”
civil engineering and analysis isn’t close to having a degree in auto technology or mechanical engineering.
It’s easy to dismiss Mark’s comments. Say you were a doctor, and saw someone performing voodoo medicine. Wouldn’t you call that out in 2 seconds? If you were in the actual automotive field, or even electronics, you can tell Mark has no clue in circuitry.
“Also, you were the one who said there had been no fires – your exact words were “no documentation that GM actually did have fires”. I’m not buying that, and neither should you.”
selective quoting?
Say I never known GM had a recall. I’m seeing Mark’s video for the first time. He as an author of a video needs to use sources to prove his information to the viewer.
so mark guessing there are fires isn’t proof. He should post data to prove it and not use personal opinion. When your doing anything with providing information, the requirements are providing sources and not personal opinion.
So watching Mark’s video for the first time, I don’t know if there are fires or not. do you feel like misquoting me again? BECAUSE Mark is guessing there “probably” are fires. probably is just an opinion with no facts behind it. let me know if you understand yet.
” For the record, I think his video is compelling, and I think he makes a good case as to why this problem was happening. He is not a hero, however.”
since you have no education in the automotive field, of course your going to find it compelling. I didn’t see him prove anything in the video. He just made guesses on to why it might happen without testing anything with any multimeters or an oscilliscope.
So mark taking something apart, after a recall and saying, “hmm, well i think this is what caused it” really means that much to you? GM already did the recall. So what?
“Did you see my comment about the fuse? You said that all power circuits have them, yet GM’s first recall on this unit was specifically to install a fuse…I know that all vehicles have a master fuse, but the threshold for that fuse is pretty big I think (you tell me – 80,90 amps?). If 50-60 amps was enough juice to allow this heater to get nice and hot (and that seems very reasonable), the master fuse wouldn’t trigger before a fire started.”
nice to see you thinking now
Those are all important questions. Why didn’t Mark(carquestions) discuss any of those questions in his video?
maybe you can see now he has no clue about cars. maybe you should analyze his videos a lot better. And not use a video that has no foot to stand on.
how do you like his toyota pedal video? him testing a brand new pedal trying to find something wrong with it.
“The bottom line with this article, however, has nothing to do with Mark, GM, or fires. It’s about the increased scrutiny of automakers that came as a result of attacks on Toyota. I think that GM probably felt a lot more compelled to deal with this problem as a result…but THAT is only an opinion.”
what attack on Toyota? They have a major defect? If you have no facts to back anything up, you shouldn’t make such a vague opinion, which shows huge bias. So everytime any car maker has a recall, it is because another car maker is out to get them?
Ford was in the news big time for electrical fires and bad tires. So let me start a conspiracy theory that Toyota was after them. So I can pretend nothing is wrong with ford and it’s all Toyota’s fault. Toyota is after the big three. If the government hated Toyota so much, they wouldn’t be giving them tax incentives and letting them build more plants in the states.
You don’t want to comfront the truth of reality. 1 year Ford will have the best load capacity. GM improves it next year. Dodge beats them the 3rd year. This has been going on for 80 years. No conspiracy theory going on. Thats called business, selling the better and newer product.
Johnny – Your attempt to belittle my expertise because I didn’t specialize in EE speaks more to your maturity than anything else. If you think the classes you took in college somehow mean more than real world experience, you have much to learn, grasshopper.
As for my ‘attacks on Toyota’ comment, you should do some more research before commenting. Watch some of the congressional testimony – you’ll see what I’m talking about.
BTW, a true, died in the wool automotive engineer with some real-world experience doesn’t think Toyota had a “major defect.”
http://theautoprophet.blogspot.....art-1.html
Since you’re so hung up on my qualifications and Mark’s, why don’t you share yours with us?
So Toyota doesn’t have frame issues? If that was true, Toyota wouldn’t be replacing the frames. A frame failing is a major defect.
Every recall Toyota has or any bulletin, you ignore and pretend they don’t exist.
I already shared my qualifications. And I already stated how to form an unbiased article and video. Which you and mark don’t comprehend how to do.
So why don’t you respond to Mark’s failure in diagnosing the circuit board? And going over the circuit for the windshield fluid heater? Or is your only intent to make bias articles to say “hey Toyota is perfect and no other car makers are in our league”
“As for my ‘attacks on Toyota’ comment, you should do some more research before commenting. Watch some of the congressional testimony – you’ll see what I’m talking about.”
while this discussion is purely about Mark not knowing anything about cars. I’ll enlighten you on your comment.
The congressional testimoney when Toyota cars caused 20 deaths? Can you source me testimony of toyota before a court of law when any of their defects did not lead to death?
Is there a CONSPIRACY against ford when they were “ATTACKED” when Ford was using Firestone Tires. The result was tread seperation when tire pressure was under specifications. Does the government choose to go and attack auto makers each year?
Who was Ralph Nader working for when he was “attacking” all auto makers back in the 70s? What was the conspiracy in the 1970s?
Let me know when you grasp reality and not conspiracies. I shouldn’t expect much, since this IS a Toyota site and not an independent site that is just for car euthusiasts who love all cars.
Your mindset is “mine is better than yours” while in reality it doesn’t mean shit if it gets you from point A to point B.
johnny – Do you know what projection is?
yes i know projection
it is when a vector line that isn’t in the same plane is being projected upon a 2nd vector. We had to learn that in Calc 3 when you become a mechanical engineer.
No bias in calculus or engineering.
Johnny – LOL – I was referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....projection
I saw that you left essentially the same comment on half a dozen posts, so I went ahead and deleted them for you. Arguing that I’m biased is a waste of time – there’s no way for you to prove that I am, and there’s no way for me to prove that I’m not…so there’s really no point in talking about it.
You are welcome to comment and contribute, but you don’t have license to run around and piss on my leg and everyone else’s just because you’re mad. Find something better to do with your time or engage this site in a more civil tone.
If you would like to discuss this over email, you’re welcome to contact me here: admin@tundraheadquarters.com. I’ll gladly argue you with as long as you want, but I’m not going to subject the rest of the people that read this site to our back and forth.
See the comment policy for more details.
First, corrosion is not conductive unless there is metal migration from one terminal to another. This normally occurs in an acidic situation where metal will migrate form one plate to another. This is not the situation here. The real issue is the corrosion on the terminal of a high amperage connection and hence the creation of a high resistant. Remeber Power is current squared times Resistance.. take 50 amps times .24 ohms (the resistance to get 50 amps from a 12 volt battery (yes..it really is 12.5 to 13.8) and so 50 squared times .24 equals 600 watts of heat in that bad connection! This is why the fuse does not solve the problem..and hence why the unit has to be disabled!! I am a PO’s customer..and this excise shows the real reason the units are killed.
So to all those wantabee MEs out there..get the story straight!
Rich – Thank you – great explanation.