I never realized there was so much drama in working out a project timeline. Glad I didn't make it even more exciting with a Gantt chart. I'll hazard a guess that you've never performed a cost-benefit analysis of a feature in a product you were trying to bring to market, or ever been faced with sacrifices vs. meeting a delivery date.

I'll try to be as dramatic as possible, since many find CBAs to be about as exciting as project timelines.

Did you know that GM could mill the frame of each vehicle starting from a solid block of titanium, greatly increasing the safety of their vehicles. (!!!) But GM is a corporation, so greedy that by definition they are in business just to make money! ( Boo! Hiss!) Somewhere a CBA must be performed, to compare how many deaths would be prevented in relation to the incurred expenses, resulting in a measurable value in dollars per prevented death. Sadly, the cost of a frame milled from a solid titanium block might be prohibitively expensive, so we all have to ride around in steel and aluminum for now.

One infamous CBA was that of the Ford Pinto, where a decision was made to save approximately $11-per-vehicle. The preproduction projections apparently made sense on paper... $11 ea. * 12.5M vehicles = $137M cost. But the projected cost of deaths (assessed at $200k ea.), serious burn injuries (assessed at $67k ea.), and destroyed vehicles added up to < $50M. (Ford even decided against a rubber bladder that would have only cost $5.08 per vehicle.) Who was behind this dramatic conspiracy? Jack Ruby? The mob? XXL (tacitly)? Find out at http://www.engineering.com/Library/A...ord-Pinto.aspx!

Unfortunately, GM's side-saddle fuel tank design resulted in about 1,800 preventable deaths, over 20 times as many as the Pinto. Some genius decided it was cost-effective to extend the fuel tank OUTSIDE THE FRAME. (Truly dramatic, from an engineering perspective.) A design-phase CBA determined that the maximum amount warranted for correction would be $2.20 per vehicle. After production, and after the measurable trend of burn deaths became clearly measurable, GM even refused NHTSA's recall request. Learn the gripping conclusion at http://www.autosafety.org/history-gm...as-tank-defect!

Do I still need to take that clozapine? Or is it POSSIBLE that a corporation might have felt justified in deciding to manufacture a design with known safety issues?

* It was Lee Iacoca, (on the grassy knoll!)

 

Definitely yes.

 

My SS had the brake problem as well, which is not cool since the 2007 LT I had(took it back got the SS :) ) was issue free also is very unsafe when the vacuum pressure is low brakes work like a old 50's pick-up lol (more retro lol) quick fix though for sure went to the dealer they ordered the part when it came in they called me and fixed it that day also washed her :) also there was a software up grade for the braking system she runs fast stops great and 100% brakes right from a cold start

 

Do you have a TSB number or the details on the work order.

You may have gotten the new fix? The detail will tell us more.

 

Was there a TSB number? I set a record last night with only ~3 hours sitting and then the breaks were gone. I guess when the temp drops the sitting time can be less. The ss used to only need warming up if sitting over night (more than 8 Hours). But I guess now as we get into winter warming up the car is more of a requirement no matter how long it sits. I think I will visit the dealer today just to get it on record again but I have already had the download.

 

Yes.. it has been cold in Chicagoland and as it started getting colder I have to warm up my SS before I drive every time. I have brought it to the dealer twice about the brakes and both times all they did was some programming on the ECM or something. It helped a little but not as good as it should be.

 

https://www.chevyhhr.net/forums/show...19&page=14#134

 

There is something to do with the braking system on all the SS hhr models. You are supposed to let it warm up for about 30 seconds before taking off on a cold start. Something about letting the system circulate before you have full braking power.

 

Cost Benefit Analysis also finds ways to save the customer money. $2.20 per vehicle winds up translating to hundreds of dollars to the customer. I realize that your "titanium" frame scenario was probably a joke, but reality is that a Ti frame would cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Both Pinto and the original C/K trucks met all safety standards set by the government for the years they were built. In fact, there were fewer overall fatal injuries in the side-saddle C/K trucks than in Ford and Dodge's full-size trucks, even by percentage of market share. Marketing found that customers were more concerned about fuel capacity and range, so that was how the side-saddle design was born. Do you think that GM, Ford, and Chrysler should recall all of the trucks built before those years that had the gas tank actually in the cab? How about all the cars that had the gas tank in the firewall from the '20s-'30s?

 

Yes, of course the solid milled titanium frame is an example of a safety feature which is prohibitively expensive for passenger vehicles.

On the other hand, I don't understand how $2.20 per vehicle translates to hundreds of dollars to the customer.

I can't say I'm up to speed on 1960's and 1970's NHTSA vehicle regulations. However...

It is well-documented that Ford knowingly produced a passenger vehicle which always leaked gasoline when rear-ended at greater than 25 mph. Ford chose not to spend the additional $5.08 per vehicle to correct the issue. Even if it met 1960's NHTSA vehicle regulations, was it ethical to produce it?

Chrysler engineers rejected a "side-saddle" design. They had determined it was likely that the fuel tank would leak after side impact collisions as low as 15 mph, so did not meet then-current NHTSA regulations. During GM's design phase, engineers recommended that the location of the fuel tank of the next generation of pickup they were designing should be outside the cab and as near the center of the vehicle as possible, to prevent encroachment of the fuel tank during collisions. And, yes, management overrode the engineering safety recommendations.

So, would I like a truck with extended fuel range? Sure, that sounds great. How about a truck with extended fuel range that often bursts into flames after low speed side impacts? Hell no. But for obvious reasons, GM did everything they could to conceal their foreknowledge of the low impact fuel leaks, and they certainly never warned their customers before purchase. GM probably could have corrected it for about $23 per vehicle, but chose not to. Did the design meet then-current NHTSA regulations? Was it ethical to produce it and encourage people to buy it without informing them of the risks, or giving them the option to spend the $23 for optional shielding?