2000 Chevrolet Malibu Ls Sedan 4-door 3.1l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

General Motors CEO Provides Few Details In Appearance Before Congress

It was only two months ago that Mary Barra, freshly crowned as the new General Motors chief executive officer, visited Washington DC as an esteemed guest of First Lady Michelle Obama for the State of the Union address. On Tuesday, Barra returned to the Capitol under more strained circumstances. For more than two contentious hours, she took questions from members of a House of Representatives subcommittee investigating General Motors years-long delay in initiating a recall of millions of vehicles that contained a defect that has killed at least 13 people. Why did GM accept faulty ignition switches that were below the company's set specfications? Why did GM learn about the problem in 2001 yet take no action until 2014? Will GM compensate victims' families even though the company's bankruptcy may limit its liability? Those were a few of the questions members of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee asked. Few concrete answers were forthcoming. For her part, Barra sidestepped most of the questions, saying she wouldn't have information needed to answer them until an internal review is completed. David Friedman, the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, testified after Barra. The biggest news that emerged from the hearing was that General Motors has retained attorney Kenneth Feinberg to advise the company on its civil and legal responsibilities. He has made a career of resolving disputes and serving in a 'fixer' role, serving as the chief of the federal government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, as an administrator of compensation fund for victims of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and a similar fund for victims of the Boston Marathon bombing. Barra, who has been GM's CEO since January but been with the company since 1980, expects to meet with Feinberg on Friday, and have a concrete plan within the next 30-60 days. Yet Barra would not say for certain Tuesday that GM would compensate the victims at all. Despite repeated questions from Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Barra did not outline the company's intentions. "I assume GM is hiring (Feinberg) to help identify the size of claims and then compensate the victims? Is that right," DeGette asked. "Is GM willing to put together some kind of a compensation fund for these victims that Mr. Feinberg will then administer?" "We've hired him to help assess the situation," Barra replied. "So really, there's no money involved at this point," DeGette asked.

GM does not have to turn over its ignition switch documents

In June the lawyer representing plaintiffs suing General Motors over faulty ignition switches accused GM and its firm King & Spalding of working together to cover up the malfunction. Bob Hilliard said that certain communication between GM and King & Spalding from 2010 to 2013, mainly focused on three Chevrolet Cobalt crashes, would reveal that they conspired in "burying what they knew" concerning the defect, and furthermore that the law firm broke rules of professional conduct once it found out about "ongoing fraudulent concealment" at GM. Hilliard filed a motion in a Manhattan court to force GM and King to hand over the memos, which were protected by attorney-client privilege. Hilliard said that the alleged ongoing fraud should trump attorney-client privilege, a GM spokesman said at the time that the issues in question had already been discussed previously, and that plantiffs already had much of the communication Hilliard's motion sought. US District Judge Jesse Furman ruled in favor of GM and King, refusing to order the release of the communication. In spite of finding probable cause that GM was engaging in a crime or fraud by not revealing the ignition switch defect, Furman did not find cause to believe that GM and King's discussions at the time were centered around continuing that potential crime or fraud. Saying also that plantiffs already had many of the disputed documents, attorney-client privilege should hold sway over the remainder. The class action case goes to trial in January 2016.

GM warning 800,000 owners that their cars may need oil changes more frequently than they say

The days of changing your engine oil every 3,000 miles are long gone thanks to most cars having automatic oil monitoring systems, but about 800,000 General Motors vehicles apparently have incorrect monitoring software that is leading to premature engine component wear. According to Autoweek, certain 2010-2012 Buick LaCrosse, Regal, Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain models equipped with 2.4-liter four-cylinder engines could be going too long in between oil changes resulting in a higher-than-normal number of warranty claims for the engine's balance chain. The balance chain links the balance shaft to the crankshaft, and a worn one can produce higher noise levels.
As a fix, GM dealers will be reprogramming the software for the monitors in an effort to reduce the interval between oil changes, which varies based on driving habits and conditions. Through February 2015, the software update will be done at no cost to vehicle owners, but since this is not a recall, after that point, it will be up to the discretion of dealers as to whether or not they will charge for the service. What isn't immediately clear is whether GM plans on giving assistance to out-of-warranty customers who are experiencing engine issues from the worn chain.