Jump to content

FedGov: No Manufacturing Defect in Cadillac; Other Cars 'Brake Pipe' Rust


Recommended Posts

Wow. Here's one time the government took into account personal responsibility:

If you live where salt is used to clear the roads of snow and ice, U.S. safety regulators have a message for you: Wash the underside of your car.

The message came Wednesday from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which closed a five-year investigation into rusting pipes that carry brake fluid in about 5 million older Chevrolet, Cadillac and GMC pickups and SUVs, without seeking a recall.

Instead, the agency blamed the problem on rust caused by road salt and a lack of washing. It determined that it was not the result of a manufacturing or design defect.

NHTSA's car-wash advisory applies mainly to owners of vehicles from the 2007 model year or older in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Read more

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102572795

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Auto stores sell spray cans of metal restore which converts rust back to metal. Diy should consider spraying this under their car (in a well ventilated area) concentrate on brake and fuel lines, and anywhere else the particular year and model tends to rust. Be careful too not to get it on the paint finish. Or chrome wheels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Interestingly enough, this is one time I disagree with the personal responsibility philosophy. Brakes are kind of important and a rusted line rarely gives warning before it blows. It would make more sense for manufacturers to move the lines to a protected location or develop a superior rust resistant brake line. We have to consider more than just the average car owner, do we really expect the edelry to get down and wash the underside of their cars? Should they have to pay someone if they can't physically do it? Should this be a required question for new drivers on their written test for liscense? I accept the personal responsibility philosophy for many things but believe there is a definite expectation that a part so critical to the safe function of the vehicle be expected to withstand the elements. Pads and rotors wear, salt has very little impact on them,but a tube that carries hydraulic pressure shouldn't require periodic maintenance. What's next, personally inspecting the cables and safety locks in an elevator before you get on? Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Both the owner of the car, and the owner of the property with the elevator are responsible for maintenance of the equipment not the passengers. If i owned a car that had chunks of rust under the wheel wells i should be responsible for having it inspected and repaired for safety reasons. If the owner of the elevator has rusty doors, and floors, the elevator should be taken out of service for potential safety issues. Cars do not have this requirement, but maybe should for some trouble models (Toyota trucks, and Nissans) are rust buckets after just a few years in some regions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...