Consumer Complaint Detail
CHEVROLET / C/K PICKUPS / 1997
0 Injured
0 Death
No Fire
| Components - Details | |
|---|---|
| NHTSA Complaint Number: 005031240 | Incident Date: Jul, 16 2005 |
| Consumer's City: VACAVILLE | Consumer's State: CA |
| Vehicle Transmission Type: MAN | Manufacturers Name: General Motors, LLC |
| Model Name: C/K PICKUPS | Model Year: 1997 |
| Vehicle Involved in a Crash: No | Component's Description: Visibility:windshield wiper/washer:switch/wiring |
| Vehicle Involved in a Fire: No | Persons Injured: 0 |
| Vehicle's VIN#: 1GCGK29R4VE | Date added to File: May, 23 2021 |
| Date Complaint Received: Jul, 28 2005 | Complaint Type: IVOQ |
| Incident Reported To Police: No | Purchase Date: Feb, 16 2001 |
| Was Original Owner: No | Anti-lock Brakes: No |
| Number of Cylinders: 8 | Date of Manufacturer: - |
| Was Vehicle Towed: - | Description of the Complaints: I received a letter from gm in feb 2003 stating that if a windshield wiper circuit board would be replaced if it failed by 70,000 or feb 29, 2004. it failed at 45000 miles, but on july 17, 2005. fortunately the failure was not at a critical time! the letter clearly implies that gm felt their was a problem, however instead of accepting all responsibility they also implied that not every unit would fail. the two checkpoints were time or mileage. if, however one is not a "hard" user of a vehicle, then one would expect the mileage to be the key, not the time. this is especially true of a mechanical failure like a solder joint (proposed in this case). i took my vehicle to a gm dealer and it was not listed as a recall (it never was), and i agreed to have the work done and pay for it (it is a safety issue!). it was diagnosed as a failure of the circuit module and the module was replaced. i called gm about the issue, two pleasant people placated me but refused to accept responsibility. however a dealers agent implied that had i taken the vehicle in before feb. 29th, 2004, the module would have been replaced, even though working - clearly outside their policy. the customer complaint agent acknowledged that was the case - that it would have been replaced "if diagnosed". however if the module was still working, how would it have been diagnosed as broken! clearly gm just using time to avoid responsibility for this components failure. had the wiper failed during a heavy rainstorm on a freeway or a mountain road, where i typically use the vehicle, the results could have been catastrophic - easily resulting in serious injuries. i believe gm should have worded their letter in a way that stated their operating intent to replace the module, even if currently working. i do not wish to imply i know their motives, but it certainly seems that they were deliberately misrepresenting their intent. i would like to see gm replace every module. *nm |