GM recalls 64,000 Chevy Volts for shut off problem

[Saghost]

I don't think that should have been the fix, and here's why. If the car can pull power from the charge port while on, then someone will rig it up to power the car while moving. And that fix doesn't take care of the case where the car is left ON but unplugged.

Actually, the Volt can pull power from the charge port while on. It just won't qualify a source while on - so you have to turn it off before charging will start, but the car can then be turned back on and will continue to charge while on.

The moment the car is placed in Park, the engine should not be allowed to be on due to low SOC. The car should only accept charge while in Park, and only allow shifting out of Park if the charge port is vacant.

Well, GM already has one third of this for sure, and maybe another. The car won't allow shifting out of park while plugged in. I'm not certain if the car will accept a charge while out of Park (I doubt it, but I never attempted to test it.)

I actually like the addition here, though: If the car is sitting in park and reaches low enough a SoC that the engine should turn on, you'd have the car turn itself off instead?

Maybe that can be an option, with it defaulted to powering off (so folks camping outside in the car can enable it for a night or two.) This would also help the folks who left it on in the garage - after turning itself off, it would then begin to charge...

That leaves the case of the car being left in something other than Park while ON. The moment the driver leaves the car at low speed, the car should place itself in Park. There should be an override to this to allow for emissions testing, repair, and automatic car washes.

With the first generation Volt's mechanical shifter lever and cable based parking pawl, this one is a non-starter. I'm of mixed minds about the logic, but the physical implementation just isn't practical.
Walter

 

[tenstringer009]

This is probably an overly complicated solution to this problem, but would it at all be reasonable for manufacturers to include two carbon monoxide sensors (one interior and one exterior) on/in the vehicle? The idea being if the carbon monoxide levels got too high, the car would automatically shut itself off (if it were still on), and maybe even have the alarm go off to alert owners that there's an issue.

 

[Breezy]

I'm not rushing out to get this recall done. This is a hazard that's entirely within the operator's control to avoid. Nobody in my household has forgotten to turn the car off yet. Forgotten to plug it in, sure.

There is some risk in parking a car - any car - in an attached garage.

 

[AnOutsider]

If you accidentally leave the car turned on, and the car decides its battery needs charging, it will start the engine. Happened at the Toronto auto show a few years back, when I was helping at the Sun Country booth. In late evening, after everyone had left, the Volt's engine started up all by itself. Someone had left the car on. The security people discovered it and called to find out how to shut it down. It was a large space so no worries about CO, but they were worried it would set the carpet on fire (I don't know how hot the catalytic converter gets at idle but I imagine it's a risk!).

So yes it is a real problem - caused by user error sure. But you do have to protect against user error when the outcome could be potentially serious.

I can imagine the risk, for sure... but again, the car didn't turn itself on... It was already on. As you said: user error -- understandable error, and one that GM is right to help avoid, but still user error IMO.

I'm not rushing out to get this recall done. This is a hazard that's entirely within the operator's control to avoid. Nobody in my household has forgotten to turn the car off yet. Forgotten to plug it in, sure.

There is some risk in parking a car - any car - in an attached garage.

Exactly. Luckily, the volt is selling fine even with the FUD.

 

[Doug_G]

I can imagine the risk, for sure... but again, the car didn't turn itself on... It was already on. As you said: user error -- understandable error, and one that GM is right to help avoid, but still user error IMO.

Correct; but when people's lives are potentially at stake from a "dumb mistake", you should have an extra level of vigilance and care to try and prevent it.

There's a reason you have to put your foot on the brake when shifting an automatic transmission. That's an interlock designed to prevent accidents; it isn't intrinsic to the design of an automatic transmission. There are many examples of these sorts of "user error prevention" functions in modern automobiles, because these are powerful machines that are dangerous.

 

[Duckjybe]

This is probably an overly complicated solution to this problem, but would it at all be reasonable for manufacturers to include two carbon monoxide sensors (one interior and one exterior) on/in the vehicle? The idea being if the carbon monoxide levels got too high, the car would automatically shut itself off (if it were still on), and maybe even have the alarm go off to alert owners that there's an issue.

Great idea. They should mandate this in all ICE cars given the number of CO deaths over the years. Also hydrogen fuel cell vehicles apparently have an interior hydrogen sensor which would be quite a good idea given the difficulties in containing H. Installing interior sensors for things that the car produces that can kill us just seems like the sensible thing to do.

 

[AnOutsider]

Correct; but when people's lives are potentially at stake from a "dumb mistake", you should have an extra level of vigilance and care to try and prevent it.

There's a reason you have to put your foot on the brake when shifting an automatic transmission. That's an interlock designed to prevent accidents; it isn't intrinsic to the design of an automatic transmission. There are many examples of these sorts of "user error prevention" functions in modern automobiles, because these are powerful machines that are dangerous.

Doug, I don't see that we are in disagreement here. I also believe GM is in agreement since they are updating the cars to add additional fail safes.

 

[SabrToothSqrl]

This is probably an overly complicated solution to this problem, but would it at all be reasonable for manufacturers to include two carbon monoxide sensors (one interior and one exterior) on/in the vehicle? The idea being if the carbon monoxide levels got too high, the car would automatically shut itself off (if it were still on), and maybe even have the alarm go off to alert owners that there's an issue.

Would it not be simpler to remove the device causing the deadly gas to come from the vehicle?... ie.. the ENGINE.

 

[Rheazombi]

Would it not be simpler to remove the device causing the deadly gas to come from the vehicle?... ie.. the ENGINE.

Oh snap!

 

[AnOutsider]

Would it not be simpler to remove the device causing the deadly gas to come from the vehicle?... ie.. the ENGINE.

Oh snap!

Oh snap indeed! Because silly quips are the answer.

Forget making supercharging quicker, just remove the limiting factor to quick, long-distance travel, IE the BATTERY PACK and throw an engine in it.

See? works both ways.

 

[Rheazombi]

Oh snap indeed! Because silly quips are the answer.

Forget making supercharging quicker, just remove the limiting factor to quick, long-distance travel, IE the BATTERY PACK and throw an engine in it.

See? works both ways.

Hmm, don't recall anyone ever dying from waiting an hour to charge their car. People die every year from CO poisoning from their gas cars.

False equivalency much?

 

[AnOutsider]

Hmm, don't recall anyone ever dying from waiting an hour to charge their car. Thousands die every year from CO poisoning from their gas cars.

False equivalency much?

Strawman much? I think you know exactly what I'm getting at. If not, see post #2 of this thread.

 

[Rheazombi]

Gas engines are more dangerous than electric batteries, period. The Volt is only potentially dangerous because of its gas engine. If it was a pure BEV, there would be no recall.

You said: " I see nothing about this functionality that's inherently bad. " This is akin to saying home space heaters shouldn't shut off automatically when they sense they've been tipped over. After all, it's the idiot who tipped it over in the first place! User error? "Oh well, enjoy your imminent and preventable death."

GM knows they made a car that has a gas engine that turns on automatically after the battery runs out. They know that gas engines cause CO to build up to dangerous levels in an enclosed space. They know that when the car is in EV mode it is completely silent. They knew all these things separately but didn't think to put them together as a potential hazard.

I've also read comments from Volt users on other articles that say they have accidentally left it on several times and other people have reportedly already been injured by this. Funnily enough, this development involving the Volt has NOTHING to do with Tesla, yet you keep bringing up Tesla? Give it a rest.

 

[AnOutsider]

You're right. Letting it go.

 

[flankspeed8]

If I wanted a car that had the range of the Leaf, I would have bought one. I think many of the comments on here about getting rid of the ICE are rather arrogant. Maybe once the Model 3 is released smugness would be a little more tolerable, but right now the Volt works for the 75,000 people in the U.S. who made the decision to purchase one based on the flexibility of EV for short range and ICE for long range. I could say more....but....

 

[ekewaka]

Too bad the Volt doesn't have over-the-air updates. There would be no need for a recall for this particular fix.

 

[mknox]

Too bad the Volt doesn't have over-the-air updates. There would be no need for a recall for this particular fix.

True. They can run remote diagnostics through OnStar but no updating.

 

[Duckjybe]

True. They can run remote diagnostics through OnStar but no updating.

And a hard pill for me to swallow now that I am out of warranty and have to pay a monthly fee of around $30 for the OnStar basic service. You need this just to use the smart phone app.

 

[SabrToothSqrl]

Don't get me started on the DeathStar....

but I'll try to keep it short.

So... you're telling me the CAR has all the hardware and tools it would need, to dial 911 in an emergency (let's go with air bag deployment) and play a pre-recorded message.... but it won't.. unless I fork over $30/month... even though I paid for the car, and 911 is a FREE call?

I don't know how they haven't been sued yet...

Speaking of. The Tesla could easily phone home when the air bags deploy... does it? It's all software, so... 6.3?

 

[liuping]

So... you're telling me the CAR has all the hardware and tools it would need, to dial 911 in an emergency (let's go with air bag deployment) and play a pre-recorded message.... but it won't.. unless I fork over $30/month... even though I paid for the car, and 911 is a FREE call?

I don't know about it having to automatically call, but it is a cell phone (you can even buy minutes to make calls from the car), and cellphones by law have to allow free 911 calls, even when not in service with a cell phone company.

I suspect you could make a 911 call from you Volt even after the Onstar subscription expires. I'll have to wait one more year to fully test my theory though