65 Chevy Chevelle Malibu "ss" 350/350 *ps on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM won't pay owners of recalled cars for lost value

Kenneth Feinberg, the man in charge of the General Motors compensation fund dealing with the its widespread ignition switch woes, has issued an informal, two-letter response to the plaintiffs in more than 70 lawsuits seeking redress for lost resale value of their Cobalts: "No." The cases were recently combined into one, but Feinberg told The Detroit News that the fund will deal "only with death and physical injury claims," and that "perceived diminished value" will get no consideration.
ALG, the firm specializing in establishing residual values, determined that Cobalt owners had lost $300 compared to the segment competition and doesn't envision any long-term effects from the recall situation. Feinberg's statement comes in advance of public details on how the compensation fund will work and adheres to GM's long-held position on the matter. The company has already asked a judge to throw out such suits using the pre-bankruptcy defense, even as it stopped using that defense in cases of injury and death.
With plenty of potential gain from the GM suit, however, don't expect the plaintiffs to give up yet. When Toyota was sued for the same reason during the unintended acceleration debacle, it eventually settled the case for between $1 billion and $1.4 billion just to get it over with. Since the 85 law firms involved in the Toyota litigation took home more than $250 million of that total, we shouldn't expect the attorneys to give up on a GM payout, either.

GM finds steering flaw, decides it doesn't warrant a recall

Guess what? General Motors is back in the spotlight for not recalling something. This time, though, not only does the company have an argument against a recall campaign, but its position is supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. According to The New York Times, over 50 owners of GM vehicles have reported instances of stuck or seized steering after driving long distances without moving the wheel. One owner complained to NHTSA that the "locked" steering of their 2013 Buick Verano caused a collision with a concrete barrier in a construction zone. Along with the 2013 to 2014 model year Verano sedans, Chevrolet Cruze and Malibu sedans are also affected. Considering the popularity of those models, GM needs to have a reason for not issuing a recall, right? "Based on a very low rate of occurrence – ranging from less than one half to less than two incidents per thousand vehicles – and the fact that the condition is remedied when the wheel is turned, GM determined this was not a safety issue," spokesman Alan Adler told The Times. The company has, however, issued a technical service bulletin for owners that complain of the problem. The fix is nothing more than a software update that is covered for 10 years or 150,000 miles from new. NHTSA cited GM's actions, along with descriptions of the problems from customers, in its decision not to issue a recall, with spokeswoman Catherine Howden saying, "the symptoms described would be a brief, perceptible change in steering feel that has little to no effect on the driver's ability to safely steer the vehicle." "When terms like 'notchy,' 'stick,' 'slip' or 'feel' are used, it does not indicate a meaningful increase in steering effort," Howden told The Times via email. What do you think? Is GM in the wrong here? Should there be a recall, or is the issue so limited as to not warrant one? Have your say in Comments. Featured Gallery 2013 Buick Verano Turbo: Review View 20 Photos Related Gallery 2014 Chevrolet Malibu: First Drive View 36 Photos Related Gallery 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Turbo Diesel: Quick Spin View 14 Photos News Source: The New York TimesImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Steven J. Ewing, Seyth Miersma / AOL Government/Legal Recalls Buick Chevrolet GM Safety Sedan buick verano

GM applies for LT5, LTX trademarks... are new small block variants coming?

Recently discovered General Motors trademark applications for LT4, LT5, LT88 and LTX have observers wondering what kind of high-performance offerings could be on their way. A new LT4 would mark a return of the engine designation first used on the Corvette Grand Sport, SLP Pontiac Firehawk and SLP Chevrolet Camaro SS from 1996 and 1997. Supposition at Corvette Forum - which provided advance intel on the C7 like these leaked images - believes a new LT4 could go into the high-performance trim of the next-gen, 2015 Camaro that would be more powerful than the 580-horsepower Camaro ZL1.
Seeing an LT5 again would also be déjà vu - in its former life it was a 5.7-liter V8 for the C4 Corvette ZR-1 from 1990-1994 designed by Lotus, producing from 370 hp to 405 hp. A mix of rumor and hope is that the new LT5 will be a supercharged evolution of the 6.2-liter LT1 (pictured) placed in the new C7 Corvette, and that it will go into the C7 version of the ZR1 pumping out something like 700 hp.
The LTX trademark is, as with that last letter, a complete mystery. If the "X" isn't a generic way to denote the whole LT family, it's wondered if it LTX could refer to a crate motor offering like the LSX.