March 29, 2024

Wheels: Toyota to Pay Record $17.35 Million Fine for Delaying Recall

For the fourth time in two years, Toyota has agreed to pay fines related to allegations of delaying safety recalls.Kimimasa Mayama/European Pressphoto Agency For the fourth time in two years, Toyota has agreed to pay fines related to allegations of delaying safety recalls.

For the fourth time, Toyota has agreed to pay a fine to settle allegations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the automaker delayed a safety recall.

In a news release Tuesday morning, the safety agency said Toyota would pay $17.35 million, the maximum allowed by law.

Toyota did not admit any wrongdoing and said it was paying the fine to avoid a continued dispute with the safety agency. The automaker said the same thing when agreeing to pay the three previous fines, which totaled $48.8 million.

The recall the safety agency said was delayed occurred last June and covered 154,036 sport utility vehicles — the 2010 Lexus RX 350 and RX 450h — to fix a problem that might allow the floor mat to become snagged on the gas pedal.

The safety agency contends that those vehicles should have been included in an October 2009 recall of 3.8 million vehicles for the same issue.

But the agency says it was not until early this year — after it contacted Toyota about consumer complaints of floor-mat problems on the two 2010 Lexus models — that the automaker agreed the recall should be expanded.

In a statement, Toyota said it was “dedicated to the safety of our customers and we continue to strengthen our data collection and evaluation process to ensure we are prepared to take swift action to meet customers’ needs.”

The safety agency described the $17.35 million fine as a record. That is the maximum currently allowed by law; the amount is periodically increased to reflect inflation.

Some consumer safety advocates, like Clarence M. Ditlow, the executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, have long argued that such amounts are no more than a “rounding error” for automakers and that to make companies take their responsibility more seriously, auto executives should face criminal penalties.

The previous fines occurred in April 2010 and twice in December 2010.

Toyota routinely describes its recalls as “voluntary,” but under federal regulations once a manufacturer is aware of a safety problem it has five business days to inform the agency of its plan for a recall.

Article source: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/toyota-to-pay-record-17-35-million-fine-for-delaying-recall/?partner=rss&emc=rss

G.M. to Reinforce Battery in Chevrolet Volt, a Hybrid

Company officials said they had shared their plans with the federal safety regulators who had been investigating the fire risks of the Volt, an electricity and gas-powered hybrid, since November and were “optimistic” the action would satisfy the government’s concerns.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in a statement posted on its Web site, said the changes “should address the issue,” though its investigation remained open.

G.M. described the modifications as voluntary “enhancements” and stressed that neither the car nor the battery was being recalled, but that all Volt owners would be asked to take the car to a dealership, much as they would for a formal recall.

“We are choosing to go the extra mile to ensure our customers’ peace of mind,” Mary Barra, G.M.’s senior vice president for global product development, said in a conference call. Ms. Barra said the changes would make the car “even safer, because the Volt is safe.”

In June, a Volt caught fire three weeks after a government crash test damaged the car’s battery and cooling system, and further testing in November resulted in a second fire that prompted the investigation.

On Thursday, G.M. said four crash tests of Volts with the reinforced steel and upgraded cooling system were successful, with no intrusion to the battery and no coolant leakage.

The safety agency said that on Dec. 22 it subjected a modified Volt to the same test that led to the original fire, with no signs of the damage that is thought to have been the cause.

“The results of that crash test showed no intrusion into the vehicle’s battery compartment, and no coolant leakage was apparent,” the agency said in the statement. “The preliminary results of the crash test indicate the remedy proposed by General Motors today should address the issue of battery intrusion.”

The agency said it was continuing to monitor that car but expected to conclude its investigation in the coming weeks. It said testing had indicated that there was no fire risk if the battery pack was not damaged or had no coolant leaks.

G.M. is adding a piece of steel to protect the battery more during a side-impact crash. Unlike batteries in the Nissan Leaf and new Ford Focus electric cars, the Volt’s battery is not entirely encased in steel.

The Volt’s battery-coolant reservoir also will get a sensor to monitor the level of fluid and a tamper-resistant bracket to help prevent overfilling.

G.M. said the June fire occurred after more than four cups of coolant leaked onto a printed circuit board when the crash test simulated a rollover, and later crystallized.

Protecting the battery-coolant systems on electric cars — nearly all models being sold or developed use a liquid to regulate the battery’s temperature, except the Nissan Leaf — poses a new challenge for automakers. Fisker Automotive, which is based in California, recalled about 300 of its Karma electric cars last month because the battery maker, A123 Systems, had incorrectly installed a $1 clamp, creating the potential for a leak and consequently a fire. (Fisker already has replaced the battery packs in the cars, only 50 of which had been sold to customers.)

G.M. has sold about 8,000 Volts since the car, a plug-in hybrid that travels about 35 miles on battery power before using a gasoline engine for additional range, was introduced in late 2010.

Ms. Barra said that dealerships could begin making modifications to existing Volts beginning next month and that all Volts produced from now on would include the changes. Dealers will modify the Volts they have in stock but do not necessarily have to do so before selling them, so sales of the car will not be halted.

By acting before the safety agency closes its investigation, G.M. is able to avoid marring the Volt with a recall, at least for now. Automakers often act voluntarily to recall vehicles to minimize negative publicity after a defect is discovered, but in this case no one has determined that a defect officially exists.

Mark Reuss, the president of G.M.’s North American operations, declined to say how much the modifications would cost. Because the Volt is a small-volume car, making the changes will undoubtedly cost the company far less than a typical recall.

Nothing about the Volt’s 400-pound battery pack itself, which G.M. assembles at a factory near Detroit using lithium-ion cells from South Korea, will be altered.

“We’re as confident as ever that the cell design is among the safest on the market,” Ms. Barra said.

December was the best sales month so far for the Volt, which outsold its chief rival, the all-electric Nissan Leaf, for a third consecutive month. G.M. sold 1,529 Volts in December, for a 2011 total of 7,671. G.M. already had acknowledged it would miss its goal of 10,000 Volts for the year after low inventories slowed sales in earlier months, but it has said it hoped to sell about 45,000 of the cars in the United States this year.

“There has been some uncertainty in the market,” Alan Batey, Chevrolet’s vice president for sales, said Wednesday, when asked whether the investigation had raised concerns among would-be buyers. “We do believe that uncertainty will go away.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=6d15058e420b51b07e470bf1b7bc04bc

Wheels: Ford Widens Recall by 1.2 Million Trucks

A 2006 F-150. A 2006 F-150. More of the trucks from the 2004-06 model years are being recalled.

Under pressure from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Ford has agreed to recall an additional 1.2 million pickup trucks because the driver’s air bag may inadvertently deploy.

The models are the 2004-6 F-150s and the 2006 Lincoln Mark LT, a sibling.

In February, Ford recalled about 135,000 F-150s in the United States from the 2005-6 model years, but that was about one-tenth of the number the safety agency said should be recalled.

Ford said the 135,000 vehicles had the highest failure rates and told the agency that recalling more would lack “common sense.”

But in a series of letters, the agency accused Ford of skewing the data and said its review found the pickups had the largest number of inadvertent deployments in the agency’s history.

The agency also dismissed Ford’s argument that a warning light would be enough to warn the driver of a problem. The agency said some dealers had trouble figuring out the problem and because the deployment was as loud as a gunshot, a startled driver could lose control of the vehicle.

Ford told the agency in an April 11 letter that “after continuing discussions with the agency and to reassure customers of Ford’s commitment to safety and to eliminate any possible customer confusion, Ford is voluntarily recalling this remaining population of vehicles.”

In that letter Ford did not concede there was a safety defect. Doing so could create a problem for the automaker because in 2006 it made a midmodel year change to the wiring on the air bags. That indicates it was aware of a problem. Under federal regulations, when an automaker knows of a safety defect, it must notify the agency within five working days or face civil penalties.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=7b9ceb34ae761759c08a8b5243a075a6