Last post on Feb 09, 2013 at 9:37 AM
You are in the Chevrolet Malibu
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Malibu, Sedan
#4520 of 4972 Catastrophic failure of both front suspension springs - Chevy Malibu 99
Jun 10, 2005 (12:01 pm)
I helped my in-laws purchase a 1999 Chevy Malibu. Five weeks ago, my father-in-law went to drive the car, and he noticed the front passenger side of the Malibu was lying on the ground. After having the car towed to the dealership, they said the passenger side front suspension spring was broken, but since the car was out of warranty (it has 109,600 miles), my in-laws would have to pay for the fix. My in-laws take the Malibu into the dealership for regular maintenance, and they never noted any problem with the suspension. They said the car must have hit a rock or something, although everyone we've talked to said it would take more than a rock to break a front suspension spring, and if it did, why didn't it break the spring at the moment of impact?
My father-in-law then asked the service department to take a look at the other spring, and they said it was fine. Earlier this week, my mother-in-law went to get into the car, and the car was lying on the ground again, but this time, it was the driver's side suspension spring that was broken! My in-laws live in Georgetown, Massachusetts, and my mother-in-law had driven out to Shrewsbury (a little over an hour drive) with my wife and kids. My mother-in-law had planned to drive back home that morning when she noticed the front of the car on the ground. I keep thinking of what would have happened to the passengers of the car if the either spring had failed while it was moving on the highway. My father-in-law called the dealership in anger and demanded them to tow the car back to the dealership in order to fix the spring that they said was fine. But they said no, so since my in-laws need their car, they had it towed to a local dealership in Shrewsbury to have it fixed.
My concern at this moment is that GM received a set of defective springs, and that they're on the verge of failure with 99 Malibus hitting the 100,000 mile mark. Both of the broken suspension springs have been saved so that someone could make an analysis of why they broke. My in-laws have also saved the bills from both repairs. At this point, what is their best course of action in order to receive compensation from GM and/or the dealership since I believe a catastrophic failure of such an essential component to a car, with only a little over 100,000 miles on it (mostly highway), is simply unacceptable and dangerous.
It's sad since my in-laws loved their Malibu when they first purchased it (my father-in-law has been a Chevy man his whole life), but between the brake problems with the car, other repair issues, and now the double suspension spring failure, they're ready to make their next car a Toyota.
#4521 of 4972 Re: 98 ignition switch anti-theft system [jdunbar1]
Jun 10, 2005 (3:30 pm)
I have had exactly the same experience with my 2001 malibu as jdunbar1. Also the anti theft system keeps my car from running as well. I've had this repaired during warranty but now that the same problem is occurring after warranty GM doesn't want to make it right. I don't think I should have to spend $800.00 a year on this car because of a mfg. defect. It has 60,000 miles on it but they are road miles. Anyone have any suggestions for a fix or how I can argue this out with GM and win?
#4522 of 4972 the new commercial
Jun 11, 2005 (6:21 am)
hello, i own a 2005malibu and i was wondering if anybody saw the new line of commercials from chevy. it compares MalibuLT vs. CamryXLE. and i have to tell you the Malibu is a better value. and it also compares the Cobalt to Corolla, and i also own a Corolla. and i have to admit there are some stuff on the cobalt that the corolla doesnt, anyway i like my CorollaS. both my cars are 2005s thanks Tiger
#4523 of 4972 Re: Catastrophic failure of both front suspension springs - Chevy Malibu 99
Jun 11, 2005 (10:03 pm)
GM and/or the dealership since I believe a catastrophic failure of such an essential component to a car, with only a little over 100,000 miles on it (mostly highway), is simply unacceptable and dangerous.
100,000 miles is alot of miles-regardless. So-how long should a car maker be liable for a car it produces? I can't believe so many people can't accept the fact cars need repairs when you start to chalk up the miles. After 60,000 miles it is not unheard of to have the following happen; strut replacement, water pump, timing belt, (if applicable), brake calipers, etc. It's very unreasonable to ask for compensation on a car that has 100,000 miles on it. Maybe car makers should be responsible for the life of the car? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
#4524 of 4972 Re: Catastrophic failure of both front suspension springs - Chevy Malibu 99
Jun 12, 2005 (6:51 am)
Is it reasonable or not, but manufacturers are responsive for safety-related defects for the life. Not only car manufacturers: the tobacco companies, the companies that used asbestos, etc. This is the law of country.
#4525 of 4972 Re: Catastrophic failure of both front suspension springs - Chevy Malibu 99
Jun 12, 2005 (8:51 am)
I agree with Chuck1. Although I feel that two spring failures in such close proximity is a bit odd, I would hate to see car makers sued because wear items (even if safety related.) give up the ghost after 100,000 miles.
#4526 of 4972 Re: Catastrophic failure of both front suspension springs - Chevy Malibu 99
Jun 12, 2005 (12:35 pm)
This is not a sound reasoning position. Then I guess car makers should be responsible for brake pads? Those are one of the most important safety item cars have! You know, some people don't get their brakes fixed until they hear the metal against metal. Should they be liable for those cars as well?
#4527 of 4972 Re: Catastrophic failure of both front suspension springs - Chevy Malibu 99
Jun 12, 2005 (12:42 pm)
" I would hate to see car makers sued because wear items (even if safety related.) give up the ghost after 100,000 miles.'
Thanks...some people would make the case that at 100,000 miles this cars useful life is 50% over. Some would even say that it has only another 50,000 miles left. I can't possibly see how a car maker could be held liable. You could make a case that EVERYTHING on a car is safety related. Heck, if your mirrors crack or somebody knocks them off in a parking lot four years down the road, you can't change lanes safely. Or if a tail light bulb goes out, how will they see your intent to change lanes? While I believe both of those parts going out is suspect, just pay for the repair and forget about it. Also, take those old parts and throw them out...they will just collect dust in garage!
#4528 of 4972 Re: 98 ignition switch anti-theft system [joe3891]
Jun 13, 2005 (7:34 am)
this anti-theft system is wearing me out. can you please send me a copy of the pdf also.
#4529 of 4972 Re: 98 ignition switch anti-theft system [deb14]
Jun 13, 2005 (8:49 am)
Sorry for the confusion, the PFD in msg #4503 was for the A/C controller repair, the title is misleading.