Filed under: Recalls/TSBs, Safety, Chevrolet, GM
GM recalling 180,000 Chevrolet HHRs
click above to view more high-res pics of the 2008 Chevy HHR
General Motors stepped up and sent a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration informing them of a defect with the Chevrolet HHR that could pose a head injury risk. After testing the retro-wagon back in December, it was discovered that vehicles not equipped with the optional "roof rail" airbags fail to meet the fed's crash standards. The recall affects 181,516 2006-2008 HHRs and Chevrolet dealers will begin installing an energy-absorbent piece of plastic to the headliner on all affected models next month.
Gallery: 2008 Chevy HHR
[Source: NHTSA]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Max 3:10PM (2/13/2008)
You'd think that after this exact same thing happened on the Cobalt, GM would have learned its lesson. I guess the cost of a recall is less than that of developing a correctly engineered car.
Reply
El_Tomacco 3:11PM (2/13/2008)
Wow. How did it even make it onto the market w/o passing crash standards, let alone stay on the market unchanged for 2 years.
Reply
Josiah 3:19PM (2/13/2008)
If I were an HHR owner I'd be thrilled with the idea of this new "energy-absorbent piece of plastic".
/sarcasm
Reply
3cubed minus 3squared plus1 3:36PM (2/13/2008)
Lol
My thoughts exactly.
whofan 3:21PM (2/13/2008)
You guys would be making excuses if this were Toyota. Oh is just an over sight. Good thing Toyota is stepping up to the plate and doing the right thing.
Reply
El_Tomacco 5:10PM (2/13/2008)
Fair point. I don’t think this is an unreasonable oversight on GM's part. I just can’t understand why, if this kept it from passing Federal crash standards, the Federal Government didn’t say anything to GM two years ago.
P.S. If this were a Toyota there would be a million people bashing them for their overrated for quality and reliability. (Statistically they’re still some of the most reliable cars out there, but that’s another discussion.)
tekdemon 6:25PM (2/13/2008)
That's not true at all, you know as well as I do that the domestic fanboys would bash Toyota into the ground. Heck, they bash Toyota over much less serious recalls.
Far as I know Toyota hasn't issued a recent recall because their cars didn't pass the minimum crash test standards in some way. Just so you realize, it's pretty awful if the design doesn't meet the federal minimums, since barely meeting the minimums isn't exactly reassuring.
WheelSee 3:35PM (2/13/2008)
Anything to solve the constantly warping brakes or an engine coil that goes out after 40,000 miles conveniently outside of the 36,000 mile powertrain warranty
-wC
Reply
??? 3:36PM (2/13/2008)
El Tomacco: The question is: How did this even make it to the market.... period.
Reply
Menice 3:36PM (2/13/2008)
not me, i'd be laughing at
"energy-absorbent piece of plastic" in place of air bag no matter who it was.
Reply
SPG 3:38PM (2/13/2008)
I'm more curious then anything as to what this piece of "energy absorbing plastic" will look like.
I'm already not by any means a fan of the interior of the HHR and I'm wondering if the addition of this new safety device will make it (in my opinion) even worse.
Reply
Franz 3:43PM (2/13/2008)
Not a particularly good way to start the year....
Reply
Josiah 3:48PM (2/13/2008)
I'm amazed the HHR even sold. GM hired the guy who did the Cruiser and essentially spit out a v2. American's must love this format/style to keep buying it.
Reply
Corey W. 3:53PM (2/13/2008)
Ok, how many other vehicles are not equiped with roof rail airbags, and have passed certification?!? What are they using?!? If GM had already addressed this before pushing to market, with the same piece of plastic, would any of you comment on it or even know about it to care?!? Instead of whinning about GM, maybe you should whine about how a piece of plastic can get you past the fed's crash standards.!!
Reply
JM 3:59PM (2/13/2008)
to whofan:
not at all, since Toyota will not deliberately design a cheap/structurally inferior rooftop just to save money. The recall basically means that if the HHR will rollover, you'll might sustain serious head injury since the rooftop may not be adequate enough to protect you -- hence GM suggesting installing an 'energy absorbing piece of plastic', whatever that is.
There is a reason why a lot of people tend to be more cynical against GM/Ford/Chrysler -- its not that they're anti-american, but rather they are simply smarter than what the big auto 2.5 makes of them. Smart to the point that they can see thru these quality/long term reliability issues - hence forcing them to look at other brands to spend their hard-earned money.
Reply
DKB_SATX 6:07PM (2/13/2008)
I don't think it's an issue with the strength of the roof structure, but the composition of components that might contact your head in a side collision or rollover. A deficient roof structure wouldn't be the sort of thing you could fix at the dealer with a recall.
C.W. 4:03PM (2/13/2008)
what? is that a serious comment whofan?
i sincerely hope not... if it is, you are talking out of your rear-end.
toyota is SLIPPING in quality and catching these things as they get bigger and bigger...
Ford and GM are doing the SMART and responsible thing by issuing recalls on things before they become serious problems. if you've been around the industry for any length of time you would know these things happen... less than ever before.. but they still happen. anyone intelligent enough to make investment decisions, forecast earnings and sales/share figures knows that you dont dwell on these things. they do happen. they will continue to happen. and guess what? they even happen to Toyota. more now than ever before in toyota's case.
Reply
steveo391 4:03PM (2/13/2008)
@JM isn't toyota the one being sued by a former employer because they refused to change a design flaw that caused your seatbelts to trap you inside your car after an accident? Real smart engineering there
Reply
tekdemon 6:45PM (2/13/2008)
Steveo391, you do realize that both Toyota and GM are being sued together in that case right? The lawsuit sues Toyota, GM, and the NUMMI joint-venture.
Anyways, if the allegations are true the problem lies with the management at NUMMI and not Toyota, because part of the lawsuit is that: "...NUMMI management blocked Cameron from communicating with other departments, including the quality division at Toyota in Japan, by barring her from meetings and denying her an opportunity to be considered for travel assignments."
And the defendent herself still loves Toyota themselves:
"She expressed admiration for the Toyota work ethic, praising the corporate culture as 'awesome.' There is nothing Cameron wants more than to have her job back checking for defects, she says."
Anyways, point is, the plant management at NUMMI are a bunch of idiots who wanted higher bonus pay, and Toyota/GM determined bonuses at the plant based on how quality was-so instead of actually fixing problems they basically ignored her complaints and covered them up (allegedly anyway). If this is true Toyota/GM needs to clean up management at NUMMI.
Shipey 4:05PM (2/13/2008)
They said nothing of rollovers... this would be side-impact head protection, not a structural support for the roof.
Reply