EBCM Issue. Why does'nt GM have a Recall???
#21
Race Director
...from another CF member.....
New EBCMs. Below is a list of part #s and estimated prices to give you an idea of what you should pay. (Fred Beans or GMparts direct)
Part Number: 10343433
All 2003-2004: $465.58
Part Number: 12216561
All 2002: $610.16
Part Number: 12208997
All 2001: $612.80
Part Number: 9367071
All 1999-2000 w/o Control Active Brakes: $486.40
An alternative to buying a new one is to have your original rebuilt.
For EBCM repair/replace
Call Brandon
877-648-7530 at ABS FIXER
Part Number: 10343433
All 2003-2004: $465.58
Part Number: 12216561
All 2002: $610.16
Part Number: 12208997
All 2001: $612.80
Part Number: 9367071
All 1999-2000 w/o Control Active Brakes: $486.40
An alternative to buying a new one is to have your original rebuilt.
For EBCM repair/replace
Call Brandon
877-648-7530 at ABS FIXER
#22
Safety Car
You are NOT gonna get a "recall" for the EBCM issue.
* NHTSA and NTSB can force recalls for "safety" issues. The EBCM "failure" is not a safety issue. The brake system works normally, and stops the car just fine when the EBCM fails. Neither ABS, TC, or AH are REQUIRED by FEDERAL law. From Dept of Transportation's point of view these are "optional" features and are not part of the required braking system on the car.
* Other car makers have had significant problems with electronics in braking systems. Mercedes had to recall about 600,000 of their E and SL models worldwide back in about 2004 because of failures in their systems (which left you with FRONT ONLY hydraulic brakes ... which IS a safety issue).
* While it may seem like there are a "large number" of people reporting EBCM issues, if you look at the number of posts (maybe in the dozens ... maybe even a few hundred) compared to the number of vehicles owned by members of this forum, I'll bet ya you're looking at failure rates that, as a percentage of Corvettes sold, would be measured in single digits. Take a look at the Column Lock ... WAY more posts concerning that one.
* There is no "complaint" listed under 2004 Corvettes at the NHTSA site for the EBCM .... however there are a number of complaints about the Column Lock issues and the recall not fixing it. There are a couple of other complaints, but none for the EBCM. We'll see if they take further action on the Column Lock ... I won't hold my breath.
I'm not gonna worry about it ... there are several companies doing EBCM rebuilds at reasonable prices. In the meantime, until/if my EBCM goes, I'm just gonna enjoy the car, knowing that something sometime will need fixing ... such is the nature of cars.
* NHTSA and NTSB can force recalls for "safety" issues. The EBCM "failure" is not a safety issue. The brake system works normally, and stops the car just fine when the EBCM fails. Neither ABS, TC, or AH are REQUIRED by FEDERAL law. From Dept of Transportation's point of view these are "optional" features and are not part of the required braking system on the car.
* Other car makers have had significant problems with electronics in braking systems. Mercedes had to recall about 600,000 of their E and SL models worldwide back in about 2004 because of failures in their systems (which left you with FRONT ONLY hydraulic brakes ... which IS a safety issue).
* While it may seem like there are a "large number" of people reporting EBCM issues, if you look at the number of posts (maybe in the dozens ... maybe even a few hundred) compared to the number of vehicles owned by members of this forum, I'll bet ya you're looking at failure rates that, as a percentage of Corvettes sold, would be measured in single digits. Take a look at the Column Lock ... WAY more posts concerning that one.
* There is no "complaint" listed under 2004 Corvettes at the NHTSA site for the EBCM .... however there are a number of complaints about the Column Lock issues and the recall not fixing it. There are a couple of other complaints, but none for the EBCM. We'll see if they take further action on the Column Lock ... I won't hold my breath.
I'm not gonna worry about it ... there are several companies doing EBCM rebuilds at reasonable prices. In the meantime, until/if my EBCM goes, I'm just gonna enjoy the car, knowing that something sometime will need fixing ... such is the nature of cars.
#23
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Charlotte, NC (formerly Endicott, NY)
Posts: 40,076
Received 8,915 Likes
on
5,326 Posts
---my 2003 Z06 with 35K that gets tracked quite a few times per year had the C1214 failure show up this last week while spending 2 days at the Glen in the rain. Other than no ABS/AH/TC the car ran fine and I had no problems maintaining lap times. It is at the shop getting debugged today. Will see if it is a ground problem or the module.
Bill
Bill
Bill
#24
#25
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK guys,
From what i read in the responses I think everyone is right in one way or other. One thing I do not agree with is that it is not a saftey issue, of course it is since I purchesed a car with ABS and with Traction control since I know the car has such a huge amount of power sooner or later I would need one or the other. On the dash it says SERVICE TC, ABS, AH; it does not however say WARNING DRIVE CARFULLY OR PLEASE STOP THE CAR. The only way for us to find out what that msg. really means is to slam on the brakes and see if the ABS all together is not working or drop the clutch off of first gear and see if the traction is working or not. The car was not designed for a mechanic to buy and understand right away what is wrong with the vehicle on the spot, the only thing I know is to service the system, not REPLACE the whole EBCM like most of us here on the forum do.
My friend had that same problem happen to him while driving down in wosconsin and ending up in a ditch because his EBCM decided to go out. Who woul dbe responsible if he had to pay with his life for a stupid problem that most of us on this forum are having. And yes It is true that you only see a few threads about this topic but count the people that do resarch instead of posting a thread.
Someone has to take care of this issue before one of us ends up getting hurt over a EBCM issue that GM knows about. If they are shipping so many and the C5 is the one that requires it, don't tell me that GM should not do at least something about it.
From what i read in the responses I think everyone is right in one way or other. One thing I do not agree with is that it is not a saftey issue, of course it is since I purchesed a car with ABS and with Traction control since I know the car has such a huge amount of power sooner or later I would need one or the other. On the dash it says SERVICE TC, ABS, AH; it does not however say WARNING DRIVE CARFULLY OR PLEASE STOP THE CAR. The only way for us to find out what that msg. really means is to slam on the brakes and see if the ABS all together is not working or drop the clutch off of first gear and see if the traction is working or not. The car was not designed for a mechanic to buy and understand right away what is wrong with the vehicle on the spot, the only thing I know is to service the system, not REPLACE the whole EBCM like most of us here on the forum do.
My friend had that same problem happen to him while driving down in wosconsin and ending up in a ditch because his EBCM decided to go out. Who woul dbe responsible if he had to pay with his life for a stupid problem that most of us on this forum are having. And yes It is true that you only see a few threads about this topic but count the people that do resarch instead of posting a thread.
Someone has to take care of this issue before one of us ends up getting hurt over a EBCM issue that GM knows about. If they are shipping so many and the C5 is the one that requires it, don't tell me that GM should not do at least something about it.
#26
OK guys,
From what i read in the responses I think everyone is right in one way or other. One thing I do not agree with is that it is not a saftey issue, of course it is since I purchesed a car with ABS and with Traction control since I know the car has such a huge amount of power sooner or later I would need one or the other. On the dash it says SERVICE TC, ABS, AH; it does not however say WARNING DRIVE CARFULLY OR PLEASE STOP THE CAR. The only way for us to find out what that msg. really means is to slam on the brakes and see if the ABS all together is not working or drop the clutch off of first gear and see if the traction is working or not. The car was not designed for a mechanic to buy and understand right away what is wrong with the vehicle on the spot, the only thing I know is to service the system, not REPLACE the whole EBCM like most of us here on the forum do.
My friend had that same problem happen to him while driving down in wosconsin and ending up in a ditch because his EBCM decided to go out. Who woul dbe responsible if he had to pay with his life for a stupid problem that most of us on this forum are having. And yes It is true that you only see a few threads about this topic but count the people that do resarch instead of posting a thread.
Someone has to take care of this issue before one of us ends up getting hurt over a EBCM issue that GM knows about. If they are shipping so many and the C5 is the one that requires it, don't tell me that GM should not do at least something about it.
From what i read in the responses I think everyone is right in one way or other. One thing I do not agree with is that it is not a saftey issue, of course it is since I purchesed a car with ABS and with Traction control since I know the car has such a huge amount of power sooner or later I would need one or the other. On the dash it says SERVICE TC, ABS, AH; it does not however say WARNING DRIVE CARFULLY OR PLEASE STOP THE CAR. The only way for us to find out what that msg. really means is to slam on the brakes and see if the ABS all together is not working or drop the clutch off of first gear and see if the traction is working or not. The car was not designed for a mechanic to buy and understand right away what is wrong with the vehicle on the spot, the only thing I know is to service the system, not REPLACE the whole EBCM like most of us here on the forum do.
My friend had that same problem happen to him while driving down in wosconsin and ending up in a ditch because his EBCM decided to go out. Who woul dbe responsible if he had to pay with his life for a stupid problem that most of us on this forum are having. And yes It is true that you only see a few threads about this topic but count the people that do resarch instead of posting a thread.
Someone has to take care of this issue before one of us ends up getting hurt over a EBCM issue that GM knows about. If they are shipping so many and the C5 is the one that requires it, don't tell me that GM should not do at least something about it.
If it stops working, it lights up and deactivates the features.
SOrny
#27
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so you think that the EBCM is something every owner has to repair out of their own pocket??? Is it not proven yet that most of us get the EBCM issue sooner or later that it is a part that fails and there is no way of going around the issue.
#28
Safety Car
Kamil,
Parts fail on cars all the time. The manufacturer replaces parts when the car is new under their warranty. Once the warranty expires, parts that fail, and labor to fix it, are the vehicle owner's responsibility. This is true whether you own a GM product, a Toyota, a Kia, whatever. Parts fail, that's reality.
Note that if you buy a Dell or HP computer, and three years later a cooling fan fails, or a power supply fails ... YOU gotta pay parts and labor to fix it (or replace it).
Stuff breaks ... law of entropy .... quit worrying about it and go enjoy the car. If it is such a downer for you .. sell the Corvette and buy something "reliable" like a Camry.
#29
Battery always charged for me
Happy and SAFE driving.
jer621
#30
Safety Car
jer621,
Maybe you could give us more details on your statement ... "My EBCM went out and nearly caused a very serious accident".
In failing, what did the EBCM do to "nearly cause" this accident ???
Maybe you could give us more details on your statement ... "My EBCM went out and nearly caused a very serious accident".
In failing, what did the EBCM do to "nearly cause" this accident ???
#31
Drifting
It is this kind of attitude that helps GM in their belief that they shouldn't fix it. This is the attitude of holding the consumer responsible rather than the manufacturer of the vehicle. If it was another make I bet this type would feel differently. It appears to be brand loyalty most of the time in that the individuals will not hold the maker of their precious car accountable. I for one definitely believe that GM should be held accountable. This is in fact safety related and should be handled as such. If you don't believe that it is a safety related item then do a search on NHTSA and browse the many topics/problems/complaints that have been attributed/filed due to problems with ABS problems or the lack ABS. Are your seatbelts safety related? Absolutely. They are a restraining device to keep you from flying through the window should you stop abruptly. Well, ABS is meant to keep you from locking your brakes up and sliding on a slippery surface. Will your brakes work without ABS? Of course they will but will they work better with ABS? Of course they will and the safety aspects of the car are sold based upon the use of ABS.
We all know the predetermining factor as to why GM won't issue a recall. That is the all mighty dollar. You would think that if they issued a voluntary recall it would show more about their concern for their customers safety. You would also think that in the long run they would make more money then they are going to lose from the loss of potential customers. I for one am quite discouraged in GM products in that they know there is a problem yet they will not do anything to correct this issue. In the long run they would come out ahead by issuing a voluntary recall versus being forced to do it. JD Powers just issued their results for short term quality rankings. It will be interesting to show what the new JD Powers report says about long term quality for GM products.
GM, get a clue and do things right before being told to do it. One way builds customer loyalty and the other builds distrust. I know which one I have for them.
PS: BTW, when we called up they said they knew that there was a problem with the EBCM and the ABS/TCS issue. And I for one have been working on getting information to the NHTSA as well as the NTSB. You know they know there is a problem when they assist some with the use of the Goodwill Policy and yet others they do not. Something else they asked us when we called them was "How many corvettes have you owned or presently own." . Well I currently own 2 and have owned 2 others in the past but now in hindsight I should have asked them why that mattered. Safety isn't based on the number of previous GM vehicles I have owned. I will be pursuing this till my hands freaking give up from typing and dialing. Once I get pissed, I am not giving up!!
We all know the predetermining factor as to why GM won't issue a recall. That is the all mighty dollar. You would think that if they issued a voluntary recall it would show more about their concern for their customers safety. You would also think that in the long run they would make more money then they are going to lose from the loss of potential customers. I for one am quite discouraged in GM products in that they know there is a problem yet they will not do anything to correct this issue. In the long run they would come out ahead by issuing a voluntary recall versus being forced to do it. JD Powers just issued their results for short term quality rankings. It will be interesting to show what the new JD Powers report says about long term quality for GM products.
GM, get a clue and do things right before being told to do it. One way builds customer loyalty and the other builds distrust. I know which one I have for them.
PS: BTW, when we called up they said they knew that there was a problem with the EBCM and the ABS/TCS issue. And I for one have been working on getting information to the NHTSA as well as the NTSB. You know they know there is a problem when they assist some with the use of the Goodwill Policy and yet others they do not. Something else they asked us when we called them was "How many corvettes have you owned or presently own." . Well I currently own 2 and have owned 2 others in the past but now in hindsight I should have asked them why that mattered. Safety isn't based on the number of previous GM vehicles I have owned. I will be pursuing this till my hands freaking give up from typing and dialing. Once I get pissed, I am not giving up!!
Last edited by NocarbutaVetteforme; 06-13-2007 at 02:26 AM.
#32
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Charlotte, NC (formerly Endicott, NY)
Posts: 40,076
Received 8,915 Likes
on
5,326 Posts
Not a safety issue for any automaker. That is why all of them separate the ABS system from the base brake system. The base brake system is the safety feature and it does not need the ABS system working for the brakes to be completely operational. Despite the claims of some in this thread that an ABS failure caused or almost caused an accident the driver is still required to know how to apply the brake pedal when needed. ABS even when working cannot handle all situations and the driver is responsible for understanding how to use their foot on the brake.
Bill
Bill
#33
Drifting
Not a safety issue for any automaker. That is why all of them separate the ABS system from the base brake system. The base brake system is the safety feature and it does not need the ABS system working for the brakes to be completely operational. Despite the claims of some in this thread that an ABS failure caused or almost caused an accident the driver is still required to know how to apply the brake pedal when needed. ABS even when working cannot handle all situations and the driver is responsible for understanding how to use their foot on the brake.
Bill
Bill
http://www.safemotorist.com/articles...equipment.aspx
An even better article, don't forget to read the part about effectiveness and then try to explain how ABS is not safety related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system
And then of course there is this article directly from the NHTSA!! I think it plainly speaks for itself.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/proble...kes/index.html
Now after reading some of the information in the provided links, then proceed to try and tell everyone that ABS isn't safety related!!
#34
Safety Car
... This is in fact safety related and should be handled as such. If you don't believe that it is a safety related item then do a search on NHTSA and browse the many topics/problems/complaints that have been attributed/filed due to problems with ABS problems or the lack ABS.
Look at the Mercedes recall (NHTSA campaign ID 05V133000) and read why Mercedes REALLY screwed up ... when their equivalent to the EBCM messes up .....
Consequence:
IN THE HYDRAULIC BACK-UP MODE, THE DRIVER HAS BRAKING POWER SUFFICIENT TO STOP THE VEHICLE, ALTHOUGH GREATER BRAKE PEDAL PRESSURE IS REQUIRED AND THE BRAKE PEDAL TRAVEL WILL BE NOTICEABLY LONGER.
If you can show that a failed EBCM affects the hydraulic braking of the car (which it doesn't on a Corvette) then you will get the boys at NHTSA interested ... otherwise they couldn't care less.
#35
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree for ABS to be a saftey issue and a sometime life saver, if I may say. How about the traction control guys??? GM provided us with the traction control button to turn off and on. EBCM issue will not let us turn it back on meaning drive without traction thru a storm if it goes out or get stuck in the rain when it decides to go out.
Some of you guys say it's a waste of time to pursue this matter and let it slide and enjoy the day. Or better yet a new Camry. I love my corvette and would not give it up for the world. Did you guys ever think about if a family member of yours was driving the vehicle and something in fact did happen and it would lead to something more serious. Who would you blame??? Yourself??
I know for a fact my thoughts on the subject would be what if (The Traction Control worked) or what if (The Active Handling worked) or better yet (what if the ABS worked) The EBCM messes up not just one thing in particular but the all 3 SAFTEY things that are made to put more control into the car. I mean am I correct or is this really going no where?
Some of you guys say it's a waste of time to pursue this matter and let it slide and enjoy the day. Or better yet a new Camry. I love my corvette and would not give it up for the world. Did you guys ever think about if a family member of yours was driving the vehicle and something in fact did happen and it would lead to something more serious. Who would you blame??? Yourself??
I know for a fact my thoughts on the subject would be what if (The Traction Control worked) or what if (The Active Handling worked) or better yet (what if the ABS worked) The EBCM messes up not just one thing in particular but the all 3 SAFTEY things that are made to put more control into the car. I mean am I correct or is this really going no where?
#36
Safety Car
Kamil,
I think where the "disconnect" is between your point of view and mine is as follows ...
You seem to be saying (maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that when the EBCM fails, you expect to continue to drive the car around for some period of time. Your concern is that if "something" happens during that period (say an emergency stop is required) you do not have the added protection (safety) of ABS and/or AH and/or TC.
I look at it this way ... if a part of the car that I consider vital to my safety needs to be fixed (a seatbelt, the EBCM ... whatever ...) it is MY responsibility to either get the problem fixed NOW, or not drive the car until it is fixed.
To me, expecting to continue to drive a car with a failed part that YOU consider important does not make sense. FIX IT.
YOU are responsible to get it fixed ... not GM ... not the government ... Should YOU choose to continue to drive the car with a failed EBCM (or seatbelt ... or whatever ...) that is YOUR choice.
I think where the "disconnect" is between your point of view and mine is as follows ...
You seem to be saying (maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that when the EBCM fails, you expect to continue to drive the car around for some period of time. Your concern is that if "something" happens during that period (say an emergency stop is required) you do not have the added protection (safety) of ABS and/or AH and/or TC.
I look at it this way ... if a part of the car that I consider vital to my safety needs to be fixed (a seatbelt, the EBCM ... whatever ...) it is MY responsibility to either get the problem fixed NOW, or not drive the car until it is fixed.
To me, expecting to continue to drive a car with a failed part that YOU consider important does not make sense. FIX IT.
YOU are responsible to get it fixed ... not GM ... not the government ... Should YOU choose to continue to drive the car with a failed EBCM (or seatbelt ... or whatever ...) that is YOUR choice.
#37
Kamil,
I think where the "disconnect" is between your point of view and mine is as follows ...
You seem to be saying (maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that when the EBCM fails, you expect to continue to drive the car around for some period of time. Your concern is that if "something" happens during that period (say an emergency stop is required) you do not have the added protection (safety) of ABS and/or AH and/or TC.
I look at it this way ... if a part of the car that I consider vital to my safety needs to be fixed (a seatbelt, the EBCM ... whatever ...) it is MY responsibility to either get the problem fixed NOW, or not drive the car until it is fixed.
To me, expecting to continue to drive a car with a failed part that YOU consider important does not make sense. FIX IT.
YOU are responsible to get it fixed ... not GM ... not the government ... Should YOU choose to continue to drive the car with a failed EBCM (or seatbelt ... or whatever ...) that is YOUR choice.
I think where the "disconnect" is between your point of view and mine is as follows ...
You seem to be saying (maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that when the EBCM fails, you expect to continue to drive the car around for some period of time. Your concern is that if "something" happens during that period (say an emergency stop is required) you do not have the added protection (safety) of ABS and/or AH and/or TC.
I look at it this way ... if a part of the car that I consider vital to my safety needs to be fixed (a seatbelt, the EBCM ... whatever ...) it is MY responsibility to either get the problem fixed NOW, or not drive the car until it is fixed.
To me, expecting to continue to drive a car with a failed part that YOU consider important does not make sense. FIX IT.
YOU are responsible to get it fixed ... not GM ... not the government ... Should YOU choose to continue to drive the car with a failed EBCM (or seatbelt ... or whatever ...) that is YOUR choice.
#38
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kamil,
I think where the "disconnect" is between your point of view and mine is as follows ...
You seem to be saying (maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that when the EBCM fails, you expect to continue to drive the car around for some period of time. Your concern is that if "something" happens during that period (say an emergency stop is required) you do not have the added protection (safety) of ABS and/or AH and/or TC.
I look at it this way ... if a part of the car that I consider vital to my safety needs to be fixed (a seatbelt, the EBCM ... whatever ...) it is MY responsibility to either get the problem fixed NOW, or not drive the car until it is fixed.
To me, expecting to continue to drive a car with a failed part that YOU consider important does not make sense. FIX IT.
YOU are responsible to get it fixed ... not GM ... not the government ... Should YOU choose to continue to drive the car with a failed EBCM (or seatbelt ... or whatever ...) that is YOUR choice.
I think where the "disconnect" is between your point of view and mine is as follows ...
You seem to be saying (maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that when the EBCM fails, you expect to continue to drive the car around for some period of time. Your concern is that if "something" happens during that period (say an emergency stop is required) you do not have the added protection (safety) of ABS and/or AH and/or TC.
I look at it this way ... if a part of the car that I consider vital to my safety needs to be fixed (a seatbelt, the EBCM ... whatever ...) it is MY responsibility to either get the problem fixed NOW, or not drive the car until it is fixed.
To me, expecting to continue to drive a car with a failed part that YOU consider important does not make sense. FIX IT.
YOU are responsible to get it fixed ... not GM ... not the government ... Should YOU choose to continue to drive the car with a failed EBCM (or seatbelt ... or whatever ...) that is YOUR choice.
#39
Safety Car
Member Since: Oct 2002
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 4,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cruise-In IV Veteran
Cruise-In V Veteran
Cruise-In VI Veteran
St. Jude Donor '03-'04-'05
Sadly, the best way to tell GM what you think about it is to take your money elsewhere. It took years before GM admitted to a problem with column lock, which was a huge safety issue because it could hit people WHILE they were driving. Their current "fix" (ha!) is even more of a money maker for them. Aftermarket CLB kits do the job correctly, but GM's idea was to detect column lock and also disable either the fuel system or ignition system. GM's idea makes sure that cars have to get towed to the shop for service.
I'm one of the victims of C1214. Yes, it sucks, and it is out of warranty. It is not a safety issue as long as you drive the car normally. But with mine supercharged and everything else, it can very quickly get away from you if you don't know how to drive it or if you push it too far.
Eventually GM's karma is going to bite them in the @$$
I'm one of the victims of C1214. Yes, it sucks, and it is out of warranty. It is not a safety issue as long as you drive the car normally. But with mine supercharged and everything else, it can very quickly get away from you if you don't know how to drive it or if you push it too far.
Eventually GM's karma is going to bite them in the @$$
#40
Race Director
hmmm......
On April 15, 1996, Chrysler Corporation, facing a barrage of consumer complaints, a government investigation and a class action lawsuit, agreed to fix 275,000 1991-93 minivans [Caravan C-V, Dodge Caravan, Grand Voyager, and Town and Country], 67,000 Chrysler New Yorkers, Imperials and Dynasties, and 4,000 1991-92 Earle Premier and Dodge Monacos with Bendix ABS brakes manufactured by AlliedSignal.
The Bendix 10 ABS system utilizes a hydraulic pump that is erratic and results in reduced braking power assistance that causes a wide range of "unusual" responses under different braking conditions.
As part of its agreement, Chrysler will repair, free of charge, defective ABS brakes, will extend the warranty to 100,000 miles on ABS brake parts, and will "buy back" from owners the cost of previous brake repairs. The terms of the "reimbursement" program are still being negotiated.
The agreement to pay owners for money they were induced into paying for repairs to defective vehicle is a key provision of the class action lawsuit Chrysler has been defending and has precedence in the 1994 buy back of 33,000 minivans by Nissan at an estimated cost of $200,000,000. 1987-90 Nissan minivans had been the subject of three recalls because of engine failures and fires before The Alexander Law Firm filed suit in April 1993.
On February 2, 1994, one week before the hearing on plaintiff's motion to certify a national class action, Nissan negotiated a settlement of the class action, stipulated to the certification of a national class, and resolved a federal investigation by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration by voluntarily agreeing to the first known buy back of defective vehicles, in this case 33,000 vans at fair market value [$5,000 to $7,000]. For additional details see Johnson v.Nissan Motor Company Inc., U.S.A., Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 730558. Wall Street Journal, February 4, 1994, page A2. San Jose Mercury, C1, San Francisco Chronicle, A5.
In November, 1995 The Alexander Law Firm of San Jose, California and Berman, Devallerio, Pease & Tabacco of San Francisco filed Villarreal v. Chrysler. Santa Clara CV 753706 arising from the sale or lease of thousands of vehicles manufactured by Chrysler Corporation from 1990 through 1995 which are equipped with defective anti-lock brake systems which can cause the brakes to unpredictably fail when the brake pedal is depressed. These defective ABS systems were manufactured by the Bendix division of the AlliedSignal Corporation, and are commonly known as the "Bendix 10 ABS."
All of the Chrysler vehicles which contain these defective ABS systems were sold or leased with express and implied warranties. These warranties assured consumers that these Chrysler vehicles were free from defects and were properly equipped for the use for which they were intended. In violation of these warranties, the Chrysler vehicles were equipped with defective ABS systems that were prone to failure. By equipping its vehicles with the defective Bendix 10 ABS systems, Chrysler breached its express and implied warranties.
Defendant Chrysler has been aware of the serious problems with its Bendix 10 ABS system for years, and has known of the possible injuries and deaths that could result from ABS brake failure. Since early 1990, and perhaps even earlier, Chrysler began to receive numerous complaints and requests for brake repairs by consumers. Indeed, internal Chrysler memorandum, written by Chrysler's senior staff supervisor Rick Cortright, state that Chrysler has seen an increase in consumer calls about the Bendix 10 system.
Notwithstanding notice of the defect, Chrysler, until April 15, 1996, has denied any obligation to its customers in all of its public statements and in its defense of this class action. Rather than honor its warranties, Chrysler has sought to forestall complaints arising from Bendix 10 ABS brakes through a deliberate and active public relations campaign of misrepresentations.
Rather than admitting to the defects in these vehicles, and seeking to repair them, Chrysler has repeatedly denied that the Bendix 10 ABS systems are prone to failure and has affirmatively misled its consumers with respect to the safety of its vehicles. Fortunately that has now changed.
As a result of Chrysler's previous failure to respond to consumer complaints, many consumers complained to various consumer or governmental groups, including the Center for Auto Safety ("CAS") and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). Virtually thousands of such complaints have been received by NHTSA, leading to its ongoing investigation into the ABS systems in various minivan and other car models manufactured by Chrysler.
The class action lawsuit filed in Santa Clara County is not a personal injury case. Plaintiffs and members of the Class brought this action for equitable relief to require Chrysler, at its expense, to warn all California consumers of the defects in its ABS systems and to require Chrysler, at its expense, to retrofit all vehicles with ABS in California before the brake systems fail and injure more people. Under Chrysler's announced action, some of the damage done by Chrysler will be corrected, but partially, incompletely and not for all owners.
Through this class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs, and members of the Class, have demanded that Chrysler be compelled to recall and retrofit all vehicles manufactured between 1990 and 1995 which contained Bendix 10 ABS system, be ordered to replace the existing Bendix 10 ABS systems with a non-defective braking system and pay restitution of all costs incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with the replacement or repair of the Bendix 10 ABS systems installed in their vehicles. The class action also seeks economic damages for the diminution in value of Chrysler vehicles and punitive damages to ensure that Chrysler never again callously disregards the safety of its customers and the public.
The complaint is based on Chrysler's breach of its written warranty and the implied warranty provisions of California's Uniform Commercial Code, breach of the implied warranty and fitness provisions of California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, unfair and fraudulent business practices under California Business and Professions Code ยงยง17200 et seq., negligent misrepresentation, and equitable relief.
The Bendix 10 ABS system utilizes a hydraulic pump that is erratic and results in reduced braking power assistance that causes a wide range of "unusual" responses under different braking conditions.
As part of its agreement, Chrysler will repair, free of charge, defective ABS brakes, will extend the warranty to 100,000 miles on ABS brake parts, and will "buy back" from owners the cost of previous brake repairs. The terms of the "reimbursement" program are still being negotiated.
The agreement to pay owners for money they were induced into paying for repairs to defective vehicle is a key provision of the class action lawsuit Chrysler has been defending and has precedence in the 1994 buy back of 33,000 minivans by Nissan at an estimated cost of $200,000,000. 1987-90 Nissan minivans had been the subject of three recalls because of engine failures and fires before The Alexander Law Firm filed suit in April 1993.
On February 2, 1994, one week before the hearing on plaintiff's motion to certify a national class action, Nissan negotiated a settlement of the class action, stipulated to the certification of a national class, and resolved a federal investigation by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration by voluntarily agreeing to the first known buy back of defective vehicles, in this case 33,000 vans at fair market value [$5,000 to $7,000]. For additional details see Johnson v.Nissan Motor Company Inc., U.S.A., Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 730558. Wall Street Journal, February 4, 1994, page A2. San Jose Mercury, C1, San Francisco Chronicle, A5.
In November, 1995 The Alexander Law Firm of San Jose, California and Berman, Devallerio, Pease & Tabacco of San Francisco filed Villarreal v. Chrysler. Santa Clara CV 753706 arising from the sale or lease of thousands of vehicles manufactured by Chrysler Corporation from 1990 through 1995 which are equipped with defective anti-lock brake systems which can cause the brakes to unpredictably fail when the brake pedal is depressed. These defective ABS systems were manufactured by the Bendix division of the AlliedSignal Corporation, and are commonly known as the "Bendix 10 ABS."
All of the Chrysler vehicles which contain these defective ABS systems were sold or leased with express and implied warranties. These warranties assured consumers that these Chrysler vehicles were free from defects and were properly equipped for the use for which they were intended. In violation of these warranties, the Chrysler vehicles were equipped with defective ABS systems that were prone to failure. By equipping its vehicles with the defective Bendix 10 ABS systems, Chrysler breached its express and implied warranties.
Defendant Chrysler has been aware of the serious problems with its Bendix 10 ABS system for years, and has known of the possible injuries and deaths that could result from ABS brake failure. Since early 1990, and perhaps even earlier, Chrysler began to receive numerous complaints and requests for brake repairs by consumers. Indeed, internal Chrysler memorandum, written by Chrysler's senior staff supervisor Rick Cortright, state that Chrysler has seen an increase in consumer calls about the Bendix 10 system.
Notwithstanding notice of the defect, Chrysler, until April 15, 1996, has denied any obligation to its customers in all of its public statements and in its defense of this class action. Rather than honor its warranties, Chrysler has sought to forestall complaints arising from Bendix 10 ABS brakes through a deliberate and active public relations campaign of misrepresentations.
Rather than admitting to the defects in these vehicles, and seeking to repair them, Chrysler has repeatedly denied that the Bendix 10 ABS systems are prone to failure and has affirmatively misled its consumers with respect to the safety of its vehicles. Fortunately that has now changed.
As a result of Chrysler's previous failure to respond to consumer complaints, many consumers complained to various consumer or governmental groups, including the Center for Auto Safety ("CAS") and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). Virtually thousands of such complaints have been received by NHTSA, leading to its ongoing investigation into the ABS systems in various minivan and other car models manufactured by Chrysler.
The class action lawsuit filed in Santa Clara County is not a personal injury case. Plaintiffs and members of the Class brought this action for equitable relief to require Chrysler, at its expense, to warn all California consumers of the defects in its ABS systems and to require Chrysler, at its expense, to retrofit all vehicles with ABS in California before the brake systems fail and injure more people. Under Chrysler's announced action, some of the damage done by Chrysler will be corrected, but partially, incompletely and not for all owners.
Through this class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs, and members of the Class, have demanded that Chrysler be compelled to recall and retrofit all vehicles manufactured between 1990 and 1995 which contained Bendix 10 ABS system, be ordered to replace the existing Bendix 10 ABS systems with a non-defective braking system and pay restitution of all costs incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with the replacement or repair of the Bendix 10 ABS systems installed in their vehicles. The class action also seeks economic damages for the diminution in value of Chrysler vehicles and punitive damages to ensure that Chrysler never again callously disregards the safety of its customers and the public.
The complaint is based on Chrysler's breach of its written warranty and the implied warranty provisions of California's Uniform Commercial Code, breach of the implied warranty and fitness provisions of California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, unfair and fraudulent business practices under California Business and Professions Code ยงยง17200 et seq., negligent misrepresentation, and equitable relief.