Actually, this is true, but it's also only one of the recall items that GM has issued Recalls for this year.

"It recalled 8,208 of its 2014 cars on May 7, for example, because they might have rear brakes on the front wheels."

"GM says it has informed regulators about two more recalls imminent but not yet announced. The latest batch includes safety belt, air bag, transmission and electrical issues in a range of midsize sedans, full-size crossovers and SUVs, and pickups."


GM's U.S. recalls this year

Below are General Motors' recall of vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1

Date, no. of U.S. vehicles, models affected, recall defect

- Jan. 13: 324,970 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and 2014 GMC Sierra for overheated exhaust parts

- Feb. 7 and 25: 1,367,146 of the 2005-07 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2006-07 Chevrolet HHR, 2005-07 Pontiac G5, 2006-07 Pontiac Solstice, 2003-07 Saturn ION, 2007 Saturn Sky, 2007 Opel GT, 2007 Daewoo G2X for ignition switch

- Feb 20: 355 of the 2014 Buick Enclave, LaCrosse, Regal and Verano; 2014 Chevrolet Cruze, Impala, Malibu and Travers; 2014 GMC Acadia for transmission shift cable adjuster

- March 17: 63,903 of the 2013-14 Cadillac XTS for brake vacuum booster

- March 17: 303,013 of the 2009 Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana for airbag

- March 17: 1,178,407 of the 2008-13 Buick Enclave, 2008-13 Chevrolet Traverse, 2008-13 GMC Acadia, 2008-10 Saturn Outlook for airbag

- March 17: 656 of the Cadillac ELR for electronic brake control

- March 28: 823,788 of the 2008-11 Chevrolet HHR, 2008-10 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2008-10 Pontiac G5, 2008-10 Pontiac Solstice, 2008-10 Saturn Sky, 2008-10 Opel GT, 2008-09 Daewoo G2X for ignition switch

- March 28: 174,046 of the 2013-14 Chevrolet Cruze for front axle shaft

- March 28: 489, 936 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2014 GMC Sierra, 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, 2014 GMC Yukon and Yukon XL for oil cooler fitting.

- March 31: 1,340,447 of the 2004-06 Chevrolet Malibu and Malibu Maxx, 2004-06 Pontiac G6, 2004-07 Saturn Ion, 2008-09 Chevrolet Malibu, 2008-09 Pontiac G6, 2008-09 Saturn Aura, 2010 Cobalt, 2009-10 Chevrolet HHR for electric power steering

- April 9: 2,191,014 of the 2005-10 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2006-11 Chevrolet HHR, 2007-10 Pontiac G5, 2006-10 Pontiac Solstice, 2003-07 Saturn ION, 2007-10 Saturn Sky for ignition key cylinder

- April 24: 50,571 of the 2013 Cadillac SRX for acceleration lag

- April 19: 23,249 of the 2009-10 Pontiac Vibe (built by Toyota) for air bags

- April 24: 51 of the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado HD and 2014 GMC Sierra HD for diesel transfer pump

- April 29: 51,640 of the 2014 Chevrolet Traverse, 2014 GMC Acadia and 2014 Buick Enclave for inaccurate fuel gauge

- April 29: 56,214 of the 2007-08 Saturn Aura for shift cable

- May 7: 8,208 of the 2014 Chevrolet Malibu and 2104 Buick Lacrosse for brake rotors

- May 14: 111,889 of the 2005-07 Corvette for headlight low beams

- May 14: 19,225 of the 2014 Cadillac CTS for windshield wipers

- May 14: 140,067 of the 2014 Malibu for brake boost

- May 14: 2,440,524 of the 2004-12 Chevrolet Malibu, 2004-07 Malibu Maxx, 2005-10 Pontiac G6 and 2007-10 Saturn Aura for brake lamps

- May 14: 477 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe for steering tie-rod

- May 16: 1,402 of the 2015 Cadillac Escalade for passenger air bag

- May 19: 1,339,355 of the 2009-10 Saturn Outlook, 2009-14 Chevrolet Traverse, 2009-14 GMC Acadia and 2009-14 Buick Enclave for front seat belts

- May 19: 58 of the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado HD and 2015 GMC Sierra HD for loose fuse block

- May 19: 1,075,102 of the 2004-08 Chevrolet Malibu and 2005-08 Pontiac G6 for shift cable (expands April 29 Saturn Aura recall)

Total 18,666,842
( http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/05/20/gm-recalls-fine-goverment/9329481/ )

Also, whats with the wobbly effect on the blue Opel? Is that the camera or shockwave effect? it seems to happen to late to be a shockwave effect..

@EMPIRE

You thought correctly, VW is indeed very common over here. But take out all the Golfs and Polos and what remains is either old and used, a company car or leased. Same for BMW, Audi and, to a lesser extent, Mercedes and Opel. We produce cars for others to buy, because we can't afford 'em anymore. The majority (>60%) of new middle class saloons made in Germany you see over here -- those are company cars.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Wait... Did Assange get into a small Renault at the end? MY GOD!!! It's already getting to him!!! He's delirious with all the money and power he is getting.


I think it's an Opel Corsa. Getting in a Renault would be too crazy even for him.

Sure, the assembly line day laborer may lose his job to the robotic arm, but other jobs will be created to manufacture those arms, write the software for them, service them, etc.

One factory for industrial robots is enough to supply a vast number of regular factories. The whole chain is done in this area, from software development to robot design to robot construction and naturally, it takes less manhours than it saves through increased productivity, or else it wouldn't be done in the first place.

Let's take a look at Volkswagen. Last I heard, they need an increase of 7% in sales just to keep up with rising productivity. 7% more sales or 7% less workers or 7% less wages ... every year. To see the consequences of this, one only needs to take a look at Bremerhaven or any train station along the railroad line from the factories in Wolfsburg, Braunschweig and Hannover (not to mention the ones in southern Germany) to the northern harbours, where the vehicles are brought to be shipped out. Enough bloody cars to fill the English Channel, everywhere you look. That's not sustainable, not in the least. And yet they still want to keep a dying automobile manufacturer (Opel) alive ...

Just a few days, two key railroad switches at Wunstorf were shut down for maintenance, now there are countless car trains stuck at the classification yards, enough to mobilize the whole bloody state. And they are not even back to pre-crisis production levels.

What I'm saying is this: they produce more cars than ever, more than any current market can take, and even though it takes vastly more work to build a modern car than it did 50 years ago, they still need considerably less manhours per car. That includes all the suppliers as well. And they should be damn proud of it, because that's what previous generations worked for. However, it is basically kept alive artificially and has to collapse eventually. That'll be fun. Opel will be the first, 2011 at the latest.

Only completely new areas have the ability to create enough jobs to remotely compensate for the loss caused by increased productivity and saturated markets. Telecommunications was the last one, renewable energy will most likely be the next one.

That said, there will always be endless work that needs to be done, just not jobs that create an income. For instance, the national railroad could use at least the 100k people back they let go over the last 2 decades. Though to get everything done according to regulations, 200k should be a closer bet. But since it's more profitable to cut maintenance personal by another 10%, the status of the infrastructure can only be described as desolate in large parts of the country.

Edit: damn, that's 3/4 just rambling ... sorry.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm sure there is a lot of improvement that could be made, but it becomes a matter of cost to benefit ratios. If that super-efficient car that gets 70MPG costs $40,000 to make, then you have just priced it out of the range of the average consumer. The car not only has to achieve high degrees of fuel efficiency, but it has to be AFFORDABLE. If a high-efficiency piece of junk costs as much as a Lexus or BMW, then you damn well better believe that people are going to buy the Lexus 99 times out of 100.

Consider the aptera , which is taking orders at the moment for early '09 shipping to California. It's a two seat three wheel composite electric car. They plan to ship it with a gas-generator hybrid option it '10 which they claim gets 150mpg in field (not track) tests. the hybrid is priced at $30k. I plan to buy one when the hybrids start shipping.

The only persons the Eurocar really can satisfy are single people with no family. College kids and no-family career types. Pretty narrow market...

Right, that's why nobody in the US has a two seater sports car.... Look, most family's in the US are multi vehicle, which means that one or two small commuters in addition to one big road-trip/shopping machine is not only reasonable, it already pretty standard, the only diff is that the commuter cars are fuel inefficient souped up racers which are poorly suited to the fact that they actually spend most of their life sitting in traffic.

>> ^fissionchips:
1. MPG is a terrible at-a-glance indicator of fuel efficiency, it doesn't scale smoothly as its metric inverse, litres/km.


I've heard this argument before, and I don't believe it. MPG is as good of an indicator for fuel efficiency as L/km. It's purely semantics.

Maybe it's just more popular because of marketing in the US - "bigger is better". So higher mpg = better fuel efficiency.

I think consumers should get access to more rigorous testing and numbers than the simplified city/highway. a car driven in a primarily flat region with constant warm weather will perform better than a mountainous region with 4 seasons. Also mpg (or L/km) charts vs. average speeds. Even if your average consumer only looks at 2 mpg numbers, those of us who understand 8th grade algebra might be able to make a more informed decision with a chart/graph.

If the high-efficiency BMW prototype 3-wheeler (the one that leans into turns) was sold in the US, I would buy one. As fun as a motorcycle, but much more practical (safer, can drive in rain/snow, has luggage space)

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The first US car company that tried to sell one of those tinker toy 'Euro' style cars would get creamed in the marketplace.


Is that why there's a waiting list for Smart Fortwos? They can't keep up with the demand for them, even if the US model is half as efficient as the European model.

The Opel's rear axle was narrowed and super-hard low-friction tires were used.

Makes the car unfeasible to drive on wet roads, snow, ice, high heat, or any other real world driving conditions. The narrow rear axle and super-hard low-friction tires would have to be replaced with standard equipment to meet safety regulations. There goes the theoretical 'efficiency'...

To save even more weight, a chain drive was used.

Chain drives exchange the $4 bucks per fill-up in gasoline you save for about $2,000 a month in increased repair bills. They're also noisy and messy.

Now of course this isn't exactly a practical car. But even if you changed it enough to reduce its performance by 250 mpg, that still leaves you with 126 mpg!

Like far too many people, you are subscribing to a complete logical fallacy. You are assuming, "Well, if this thing gets 350 MPG, then even if we tweak it a LOT it would still get 150 MPG when we put it in the market." That assumption is patently false. If it was that simple then someone would be making a car right now TODAY that got over 1,000 MPG. These 'tech demo' and 'eco challenge' cars have no place in practical consumer markets for a reason. Most of what makes these fantasy-dream cars function is either illegal, impractical, or incredibly expensive.

For example - the wired blog link you supplied indicated that the record is over 10,000 miles per gallon. Following your logic, "Well SURELY we should be able to build a car with only one TENTH of that..." Well, yeah we probably could... However, it would cost about 10 million dollars to make and you'd only get 1,000 MPG when you use it exclusively on 1,000 mile long downhill racing tracks with no cargo, perfect weather, and with you pedalling like Lance Armstrong the entire time.

Of course this efficiency was set under ideal circumstances, but even with much less MPG in real world driving, this technology could still be very efficient.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/souped_down_old.php
"The Opel's rear axle was narrowed and super-hard low-friction tires were used. To save even more weight, a chain drive was used. The engine was pretty much the stock 4-cylinder that came with the car, but the fuel line was insulated and heated so the gasoline entered the combustion chambers as lean vapor.

The record was achieve by driving the car at a steady 30 mph (48 kph).

Now of course this isn't exactly a practical car. But even if you changed it enough to reduce its performance by 250 mpg, that still leaves you with 126 mpg! With modern technology, we should be able to do much better than what we're doing now."

As a comparison, the most recent record of high MPG (with ridiculously unpractical 'cars')
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2006/07/on_track_for_10.html
"The winner of this year's Shell Eco-Marathon achieved 10,128 miles per gallon with a one-person vehicle design."

This is that car
http://la-joliverie.com/index.php?id=91

Baloney. This kind of bull only makes sense to conspiracy theorists and people with lobotomies. There is no such thing as a magical mixture of air and fuel that will miraculously give cars 300MPG efficiency. Nor is it possible to give cars 100MPG, 50MPG, or anything else. The levels they are talking about are only possible under test conditions that cannot be duplicated in actual use. Sure, if you were on a 5 mile straightaway track with no wind, a perfect temperature, no traffic, no need to brake, a fixed MPH, and all the time in the world to accelerate REALLY slowly, coast when you want, no passengers, no air conditioning, and a dozen other favorable conditions... SURE you could probably achieve 75MPG or maybe even 100 under those conditions. Know what? You could probably get 75 to 100 MPG out of your CURRENT car under that kind of artificial circumstance (BTW that is called "Hypermiling"). But take that OPEL P-1 and put a family of 4 in it, a full load of groceries, in the middle of summer with air conditioning, on a windy day, in the middle of stop-and-go traffic and I bet it couldn't get 20 MPG. Wake up. There is no conspiracy. Auto companies aren't trying to 'bury' technology. The simple fact is that the technology does NOT exist on this planet in this dimension that will allow super-efficient MPG under REAL LIFE driving conditions. DUH!

as mentioned in the video, apparently by -complete- pre-heating vaporization of the fuel before intake.

this link
http://www.opel-p1.nl/custom/testcar/Shell%20Opel.htm
states

The chemically correct air/fuel mixture for total burning of gasoline has been determined to be 15 parts air to one part gasoline or 15/1 by weight. Changing this to a volume ratio yields 8000 parts air to one part gasoline or 8,000/1 by volume. The system of the present invention vaporizes liquid fuel before the fuel enters the engine. Theoretically, a homogenous mixture can yield gas mileage in excess of 300 miles per gallon.

also interesting is the .pdf of the book written by Shell engineers

149.95 MPG with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35 MPG with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59 MPG with a 1959 Opel in 1973

With this new old knowledge revealed the big 3 automakers should be forced to build it before they get any more Billions in Bailout money!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I had a 76 Opel Manta in my college days. Loved that car.