mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

GM Expands Ignition Switch Recall To 588,000 Additional Vehicles, Four New Models

The recall of 778,562 Chevrolet and Pontiac vehicles due to a faulty ignition switch grew on Tuesday as GM increased the number of affected vehicles in the U.S. to 1.37 million. GM says it now knows of more than 13 deaths and 31 accidents that may have been caused by the problem.

The problem: the ignition switch causes the vehicle’s key to unintentionally move into either the accessory or off positions. Rapid, jarring movements or a heavy key chain could cause the key to wiggle out of place, shutting off power to the car and disabling the airbags.

Affected vehicles: initially, the recall only involved the Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5, but has since been extended to four more vehicles:

  • 2003-2007 Saturn Ion and Chevrolet HHR
  • 2005-2007 Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5
  • 2006-2007 Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky
All Vehicles Affected By The Ignition Recall
MODEL YEAR BRAND MODEL
2005-2007 CHEVROLET COBALT
2003-2007 CHEVROLET HHR
2003-2007 SATURN ION
2006-2007 SATURN SKY
2007 PONTIAC G5
2006-2007 PONTIAC SOLSTICE

Number of vehicles potentially affected: 1.37 million (a larger recall has not been ruled out).

The fix: Chevrolet dealers will replace the faulty ignition switches, including for Pontiac and Saturn models. Owners have been advised to drive the car using only a single key in the ignition, and to remove any unnecessary key rings or key chains from the key while driving.

Contacts: GM will notify owners by mail if their vehicle is part of the recall. The automaker also suggested to contact a local dealer. Owners can also follow this link to use a vehicle’s VIN to search for recall notices.

Sam loves to write and has a passion for auto racing, karting and performance driving of all types.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. This failure occurred in my daughter’s 2004 Saturn Ion several years ago. There was a technical service bulletin (TSB) already issued for the ignition switch problem, but I had to negotiate a long time with GM before I wrangled coverage for the repair of the problem. Fortunately, the switch did not cause any sudden shut offs while driving, just difficulty starting the car at times.

    The Ion was an otherwise fine car, but my daughter totaled hers about 1.5 years ago. The replacement- a 2013 Subaru Impreza. Nothing in the GM lineup at all similar to this reasonably priced, safe, AWD vehicle.

    Reply
    1. I am glad she’s safe! Just make sure her next car will be a GM!

      Reply
  2. Nothing really new here. GM has been replacing these ignitions in most of these cars for a while Most just get the key locked up to where you can not pull it out. I have seen more of this than a car shutting off.

    This has been a long running TSB and I know with the HHR web site many dealers have been replacing them for a while.

    It was a supplier issue. There also was a column clunk issue and GM was fighting the supplier in court on that one to recoup some of the cost to replace them.

    I think this was the effect of the lowest bidder during Old GM’s final years. These things have been remedied in the new cars and after the media lets go of this it will be forgotten in a couple weeks.

    Being the cars are all out of production this will make this less a issue. Now if this was on all the new current Malibu and Regals then it would be a real nightmare.

    Reply
    1. Scott, Is there no end to your GM ass kissing?

      Reply
  3. Regardless of the circumstances, this is the kind of publicity that every manufacturer can do without. However, if Toyota can recover from their sudden acceleration fiasco, then i’m pretty sure GM will be all right when the dust settles. I am just hoping they make suitable compensation to the families affected, Apologies are ok, but a check is usually more appreciated!

    Reply
    1. Money can’t replace a life but a new vehicle and some cash might numb the pain. .

      Reply
  4. @Marc. Good choice on the Subie for your daughter, good point on the AWD value. You couldn’t have gotten a cheesy Cruze for the price. Today’s GM commands a lot of money without much substance to justify it.

    Reply
  5. I just don’t understand how GM is responsible for this recall!

    These cars are no longer being build

    These cars are passed their manufacturer warranty

    This is something that should have to be replaced by the owner as a worn part! I’ve had to change ignitions in my cars in the past why would this be any different?

    Now if these ignitions stop working while they were under warranty then I would understand but 8 to 10 years later I can’t agree with

    I also don’t see this as a safety problem either!
    A car’s engine shuts off while driving, you as a driver you pull the car over to the side of the road and call for help!

    This happens every day somewhere in the world, are people really unable to deal with these things when cars break down?

    I think somebody has it in for GM and are putting the screws to GM every chance they get!

    GM doesn’t deserve this one!

    Reply
    1. Well, for one your Power Steering and most driving related electronics will fail to operate… Along with that, your brakes will get really hard to operate if pushed more than 2-3 times…That could definently cause an accident.

      A manufacture that puts out a defective product is most certaintly accountable. We entrust companies to sell us a product that does what is advertised, if the people knew of this problem then GM wouldnt have sold any of them…GM decided to open their pocket books to unsuspecting drivers and not acknowledge their problematic cars…That is a failure in management. There is a big difference between replacing a part that wore out, and a part that is made defective…

      Reply
  6. Did the car exceed the warranty?

    Yes or no?

    If the answer is yes then the car company did what they told the customer what they were going to do!

    Build a car that will go to the warranty limits or they will fix it free of charge!

    What else don’t you understand!

    Reply
    1. A company that builds a car ONLY to go to warrantly limits should not be alowed to make vehicles…

      Reply
    2. So if I were to build a vehicle with an engine i KNEW was defective and would only last till the warranty until it suffered catastrophic failure or caused a fire and sold it for 5+ years and suddenly 10+ people died as a result of it, I would not be accountable for it?

      “Its not my problem…It outlasted my warrantly i gave them.”

      (Because obviously people buy vehicles and only expect it to outlast the warranty right?)

      Reply
  7. It’s not what the customer expects it’s what the car maker claims when they are selling it!

    If a car dies right after the warranty then the car company did it’s job of building a car that will do what’s advertised!

    Now the car company may see it’s sells fall because of it but a car company should not be responsible for what happens to a car after the warranty expires!

    Answer the question!

    Did the car exceed the warranty?

    Reply
    1. Your stupidity amazes me. GM knew about the problem for years, long before warranty expires, and did nothing, and you are defending them? I guess if one of the 13 people that died were a close family member of yours, you would be singing a different tune. Is it any wonder why millions of people in North America refuse to buy GM?

      Reply
    2. Are you actually implying the its not the manufactures problem after the warranty expires? Seriously?

      Reply
  8. Yes seriously!

    That’s why they have warranties!

    You still didn’t answer the question

    Reply
    1. Yes, the warranty is expired… Your point being?

      I assume you wouldnt mind having a manufacture sell you a defective vehicle and telling you that there is nothing they can do after the warranty expired?

      They made the mistake of selling a defective product to people who had no knowing of the issue, and you still cant push the blame on GM… Is it the customers fault for buying a GM in the first place?

      Reply
    2. And apparently you’ve never heard of “Product Liability”… Maybe you should do some research before defending an obviously guilty party.

      “Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. ”

      It doesnt matter what the warranty says, GM is responsible for selling a defective product that causes injury to the public.

      Reply
  9. How can a vehicle be defective if that vehicle travels far enough to complete it’s warranty?

    Defective part means that it will not perform to the expectations of the manufacturer!

    So if a car exceeds the warranty then that means that car is not defective!

    Like I said did the car perform while it was under warranty?

    Most of these cars were way past the warranty, most of these cars 7 8 10 years old!

    How long is a manufacturer responsible for parts that break after the warranty ends?

    I have a Chevy truck that’s 40 years old should GM still have to fix the broken on it if or when it breaks down?

    See this is what happens when people don’t take responsibility for the own problems!

    If my family member would have died because of this then I would of told them that they should of had a extended warranty to cover the repairs and for the one that died learn how to deal with life’s problems instead of blaming them on other people!

    Cars that have engine loss can still be driven or moved with no power in order to get off the road in order to call for help!

    This type of thing happens everyday and people find a way to deal with! Why couldn’t this lady do the same thing?

    Would this be different if the car had just ran out of gas? The same thing would of happened the car would still have to be driven under no power off the road!

    So what’s the difference?

    Reply
    1. I dont think your getting it.

      GM sold these vehicles with a KNOWN DEFECTIVE PART. They sold these vehicles and allowed the public to riskily drive these vehicles with a potentially deadly defect. It IS the manufactures responsibility when they sell a defective product that does not meet safety standards. You HONESTLY believe GM is innocent in this situation?

      I cant believe your putting blame on the deceased drivers…Even if they got an extended warranty, they are still dead because of a manufacture defect. I seriously don’t understand how a WARRANTY could change that fact.

      People like you make me sick, you are too proud of your brand to put justified blame on them…Get over yourself.

      (IF you would have been seriously injured because of this defect, you would have a COMPLETELY different viewpoint.)

      Oh and cars cannot DRIVE without engine power, they can merely be controlled off to the side of the road. And the difference is that GAS is not a manufacture defect, it could be HER choice to not fill up and HER problem if she got killed by it. SHE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING ABOUT THE DEFECTIVE PARTS IN THE CAR, THUS IT IS NOT HER FAULT. HER DEATH COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY GM!

      Reply
  10. The more I read this story the closer I coming to swearing off GM vehicles!!! My mom has an 06 Cobalt and is waiting for the recall letter to arrive to have it inspected. I encouraged her not to drive it until the inspection is taken care of.

    Reply
  11. JG, there is no point in arguing with Brian. He is either the biggest GM apologist alive, or he is an idiot. Take your pick.

    Reply
  12. It must suck trying to argue with a man who is right!

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel