2009 Saturn Outlook Recalls

On August 31, 2020, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Engineering Analysis (EA) EA20002, as an upgrade of Recall Query (RQ) RQ19003. This investigation, related to recall 14V-266, was opened to investigate instances of detachment of the flexible steel seat belt anchor cable attached to the outboard side of the front seats in vehicles manufactured by General Motors (GM). The subject vehicles included model year (MY) 2009 through 2014 GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, and Chevrolet Traverse SUVs as well as MY 2009 through 2010 Saturn Outlook SUVs. These vehicles were previously repaired for this defect under recall 14V-266. The subject vehicle population is approximately 1.3 million vehicles. Special Coverage N192219480, issued in June 2019, addressed the subject defect in vehicles that previously received the recall remedy repair for subject recall 14V-266. The Special Coverage allows for component replacement for 12 years or 180,000 miles from the initial sale date, whichever comes first. Special Coverage N192219480 instructed service technicians to inspect the driver’s seat belt anchor cable for any damage to the protective sleeve and if damage was observed, the cable was replaced with a new sleeve as well as a new closeout piece that relocated the cable to mitigate the subject condition. In view of the Special Coverage conducted by General Motors, the high detectability of the subject failure, and the low rate of occurrence, this Engineering Analysis is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the ODI reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov. Please see the attached document “EA20-002 Detailed Closing Summary” for more a detailed closing resume summary.

On May 19, 2014, General Motors LLC (GM) notified the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) that it would conduct Safety Recall 14V266 to address fatigue and separation of the flexible steel cable that connects the front outboard seat belts to the seat-mounted belt pre-tensioner in 1.4 million model year (MY) 2009-2010 Saturn Outlook, 2009-2014 Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia and Chevrolet Traverse (Lambda Platform) vehicles.The remedy was to inspect for signs of damage and replace pre-tensioner anchor cables as needed. Re-work was conducted to relocate the pre-tensioner anchor cable out of the occupant entry path. ODI has subsequently received four (4) Vehicle Owners Questionnaires (VOQ) reporting anchor cable separations with no apparent warning in covered vehicles after the Recall 14V266 remedy had been applied.ODI opened RQ19-003 to assess the effectiveness of the actions GM took in Recall 14V266 and review the full warranty and complaint data related to seat belt anchor cable separations and replacements. ODI continues to receive occasional cable failure complaints both for the subject vehicles and other GM models and model years that have also been previously recalled addressing this condition.Although the cable separation complaint rate is very low, over the past three years ODI has received two (2) additional VOQ?s citing belt cable separations for Lambda platform vehicles outside the scope of recall 14V266, (11217092, 11118075) and complaints for other GM models covered in a number of similar Safety Recalls:* 15V269, 2011-12 Chevrolet Malibu (11181115, 11288168); * 16V209, 2014-15 Silverado 1500, Sierra 1500 (11254364, 10935183, 10953851, 11025376, 11282043, 11288701, 11309884); and * 16V518 2014-16 Caprice Police Pursuit, SS (10905644, 10990669, 11340893).ODI's review of GM's data confirms the low potential failure rate for the vehicles covered by recall 14V266. However, ODI believes that complainants may not recognize accumulating cable fatigue damage from the visual cues available in routine vehicle use.ODI is upgrading RQ19-003 to an Engineering Analysis to more closely assess seat belt conditions and strength levels in the field. This work will include the collection of seat belt samples from a wider range of recalled and peer vehicles for detailed analysis and testing.The ODI reports (VOQs) associated with this RQ19-003 can be viewed at NHTSA.gov under the following reference numbers: 11144704, 11076704, 11185619, 11151922, 11164011, 10967518, 11113486, 11115648

As of July 16, 2014, out of a population of 248,453 subject vehicles, NHTSA received 473 consumer complaints of inoperative head lamp. Many of these complaints indicated that the head lamp harness suffered damage from overheating. After reviewing the complaints, ODI found: -69% (328) alleged that a single head lamp was inoperative. -18% (86) alleged that both head lamps were inoperative but not at the same time. -9% (41) alleged that both head lamps were inoperative but the complaints did not indicate whether the failures had occurred at the same time. -4% (17) alleged that both head lamps were inoperative at the same time. -One additional complaint cited wire harness damage to both sides but did not specify an outage -No crashes or loss of vehicle control were reported. -Any alleged thermal damages were limited to melting of the head lamp harness and the head lamp housing. -A head lamp would intermittently fail to come on or flickers before becoming completely inoperative. For the seventeen complaints that alleged simultaneous failure of both head lamps while attempting to turn them on or while driving, the head lamp failures likely had occurred one at a time. The subject vehicle's head lamps are connected in a parallel circuit and each circuit is fused. Therefore, failure of one head lamp or its harness should not affect the other head lamp operation. Over the last 25 years, ODI has opened numerous defect investigations of the loss of headlamp illumination.Investigations that resulted in safety recalls involved simultaneous loss of illumination from both headlamps. NHTSA does not consider the loss of a single headlamp as presenting an unreasonable safety risk-such failures are readily detectable by the driver while allowing the vehicle to retain forward visibility and conspicuity from the remaining headlamp.There is typically enough time between the failure of the first headlamp and the second during which the vehicle operator can obtain the needed repairs. Based on the information currently available, NHTSA does not believe that the headlamp condition as alleged by the petitioner indicates the likelihood of a safety-related defect that would warrant a formal investigation.Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the petition is denied.Further specifics can be found in the Federal Register Notice ODI complaint ID numbers are referenced on the next page.