I'm no engineer or a rules and regulations guru but you CAN'T have a safety latch because of the whole "in case you're kidnapped and stuffed in the cargo (front or back) thing, so no more "a safety latch would solve the problem" because it's not allowed. You need a one touch/pull system to open the lid, that's the whole point of the emergency escape thing.

 

Do you mean that the message is saying that the car is electronically being limited to 82 MPH? Just exactly what does the reference to 82 MPH mean if it isn't suggesting it is acceptable to drive under 82 MPH?

 

Porsche did it but they had to incorporate a mechanism to fully release it under 3 MPH when the child escape lever is pulled.

 

How does Porsche accomplish this on the 911 or 718?

 

it means the speed is electronically limited to 82 mph. I haven’t found it yet but the reason probably has section that says the secondary latch must resist opening at speeds up to 82 mph (or maybe 130kph). That is probably instead of saying 200 ponds of lifting force at the latch, because that would be a different speed for a Corvette and a pickup. I am not saying it is well written, it just doesn’t say what you are saying.

 

I could not agree more. GM needs to bring back the C7 mechanical front hood latch and interior latch ASAP. No matter what GM thinks someone is going to get seriously insured or die. A jury is not going to side with a user error defense. Mechanical safety latches were invented for a reason.
as an aside it makes no sense to pay $80,000 or so for a car; take deliver then go around r
the cocorner a start fixing the car because you are afraid to drive home. Make sense.

 

There isn't anything in the regulations that require limiting the maximum speed to 82 MPH when the hood is being retained by the secondary latch. This is probably a requirement established by GM. Conversely, the message doesn't say it is unsafe either. And, this same message is displayed if the hood is completely unlatched.

I agree that the message was likely intended to be displayed when the primary latch is released but the secondary latch is engaged. It just isn't implemented that way.

If I got a message on the DIC that said "Engine Hot - 82 MPH Top Speed" I'd assume I can drive up to 82 MPH whether or not the speed is electronically limited to 82 MPH.

 

I don’t know, but it would have to incorporate a speed sensor, and a solenoid to actuate a blocking bolt to the latch mechanism. So not purely mechanical. Or they just don’t meet being able to opening between 0-5 kph and no one has checked it and complained. Also it may have fully open once it drops below 5 kph if it was activated while going say 30 mph from inside the trunk, without more activations. As I recall the reqa were in more than one section, and I thought those are stupid complicated for something that should be simple.

If GM has to go to a different more mechanical solution, it still will not be easy. The trunk, all the releases, and probably have to be redesigned and produced to meet the regs.

 

I guess the more discerning among us would see it and get to a stop as quickly and safely as possible. Maybe you have never had a could come up, I have. No primary or secondary latches, only pins. Teens need to learn the hard way.

I do not ignore warnings on any new vehicle. I believe them, and act with intelligence and urgency.

The same warning for both hood latch positions is a problem, but I would react the same way.

 

On Porsches, the only thing that automatically releases the safety latch below 5 mph, is the frunk emergency handle. The only other way is manual, and unless someone is trapped in there, it isn't coming open, but it won't happen inadvertently because of human error.

It's essentially the same type of system that auto lock doors in motion above 5 mph on every vehicle I'm aware for many years now. It's not controlled by software, just a very simple lock/unlock switch connected to a speed sensor. The electronic function of the release handle is always locked above 5 mph.

I have an 18-yr old Dodge truck in which the doors auto lock at about 5 mph. They still work.

What happens to "the more discerning among us" on a crowded city street or in a school parking lot when a bunch of people run across your path about the same time your hood blinds you? You have no idea they are there, or where to go to try to avoid them. You may not have time to simply slow down and stop and no way to execute an evasive maneuver.

The safety issue isn't just about YOU.

 

I don't ignore them either. I rely on them to tell me what I need to do. If I get a Service Engine Soon message I don't stop in the middle of the road. I prudently determine what needs to be done.
If the message said "Hood Open - Reduce Speed to 3 MPH" I would do it.
If the message just said "Hood Open" I would pull over as soon as it was safe.
But the message "Hood Open - Top Speed 82 MPH" implies to me that the hood is being retained by the secondary catch. That means instead of immediately stopping and getting out on the freeway to close the hood I'd take the next off ramp and stop somewhere where I can safely get out of the car.

 

Really? The C7 is activated by an electronic switch, It opens at the back.

 

The warning that says,"hood open, don't exceed 82" discussion is obviously a mistake, and will be corrected, but that's not the primary problem here. Focusing upon that is running down a rabbit hole. Obviously, most people are going to stop ASAP if they have a hood open warning.

 

This is a very diversified and knowledgeable group of individuals that have come up with all kinds of safety tethers. C8 Jake’s looks like it worked like it was supposed to and the cargo net holders stayed in place. I think most of us would feel better if Chevy used a mechanical second latch system like the Porsche 911/718 frunk system. Does GM use a similar system on any of their models that would be similar to the Porsche system with an electrical release of the first release latch and a mechanical release of the secondary latch. My Camaro and Colorado both use an under dash pull cable for the first latch release and the second safety latch release is under the hood by the latch. I think it would be very expensive to try to convert a Porsche system to work on a C8, but a GM system could be easier and less expensive to convert.

 

GM has never had any need to incorporate such a system because this the first vehicle they have produced with a frunk and requires an emergency release handle. The last one was the Corvair more than 40 years ago, but before the emergency escape handle federal safety requirement.

Moreover, Corvettes have traditionally had front mounted hinges with hood opening from the rear, where a safety latch isn't necessary because it can't fly open at speed. Obviously, that emergency release handle is not necessary in your Camaro or Colorado.

 

The full edmonds C6 review DOSENT INCLUDE THE Z MODEL. Different engine genius.

 

While agree the message is obviously in error, the comments were directed at those calling this user error. If you say it was because you ignored the warning then the warning should be able to be relied upon.
My point is:
1) There is an error in the system that causes an incorrect message to be displayed.
2) They've issued a recall for another problem with the system.
3) My guess is that the frequency of this occurring on the C8 per number of hours driven is much greater than that of other vehicles with frunks (but I don't have any data).
4) It isn't a big jump to believe that there isn't also something else wrong with the system that is causing this. It's happened to too many people that were sure they closed the hood and didn't hear any chimes or see any warnings.

 

I agree with everything you say above, and further I don't care whether it's user error or not, a flipping open hood is an unacceptable defect. That's why I said focusing on that warning is running down a rabbit hole.

I can't help but believe the engineers failed to benchmark other frunk latch/emergency release systems that are tried and true like the Porsche system. If they did, they failed to recognize that the C8 system is far more complex, and appears far more prone to defects. There is no doubt in my mind the Porsche system would have been far more cost effective as well.

Whomever approved a design without a mechanical secondary latch, made an incredibly stupid decision. The Porsche design where the frunk is securely latched, whenever the hood is down, even if the primary is not, eliminates any possibility of human error. And, the Porsche system still retains the warning chime when the primary is not latched.

 

I believe they did benchmark other systems. They went the direction of McClaren and Tesla instead of Porsche. And I believe that their systems are probably cheaper than Porsche's.

 

Do not own a C8 so I come up here to live vicariously thru you. Do remember the small challenges when I got my 2014 C7 now on my 3rd. Christ almighty what a pain in the *** this must be. If the hood is as lightweight as the C7’s would a couple of pieces of Hduty Velcro (2” wide) do the job. I know you can hang from the industrial stuff we use and it would still allow the “Fronk” to close ...just a thought