- Brake Caliper for Acura
- o Brake Caliper for Alfa Rome
- Brake Caliper for Audi
- Brake Caliper for Austin
- Brake Caliper for Benz
- Brake Caliper for BMW
- Brake Caliper for Buick
- Brake Caliper for Cadillac
- Brake Caliper for Chevrolet
- Brake Caliper for Citroen
- Brake Caliper for Chrysler
- Brake Caliper for Daewoo
- Brake Caliper for Fiat
- Brake Caliper for Ford
- Brake Caliper for Honda
- Brake Caliper for Hummer
- Brake Caliper for Hyundai
- BrakeCaliper for Isuzu
- Brake Caliper for Iveco
- BrakeCaliper for Jaguar
- Brake Caliper for Jeep
- Brake Caliper for KIA
- Brake Caliper for Lada
- BrakeCaliper for Land Rover
- Brake Caliper for Lexus
- BrakeCaliper for Mazda
- Brake Caliper for Mercedes
- Brakecaliper for Mini
- Brake Caliper for Mitsubishi
- BrakeCaliper for Moskivich
- Brake Caliper for Nissan
- BrakeCaliper for Opel
- Brake Caliper for Peugeot
- Brake Caliper for Renault
- Brake Caliper for Rover
- Brake Caliper for Seat
- Brake Caliper for Suzuki
- Brake Caliper for Toyota
- Brake Caliper for UAZ
- Brake Caliper for Vauxhall
- Brake Caliper for Volkswagen
- Brake Caliper for Volvo
the long and winding road of the x-car braking controversy
According to the document submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the dispute over automobile braking: January 1979: GM
Start Production X-bodies.
March 18, 1979: GM approved the production of brake pads from \"positive\", brake pads with larger friction per square inch to \"non-positive\" brake pads with less friction per square inch
All 1980 X-approved changes
A car with automatic transmission.
Neither NHTSA nor the public is aware of the change. April, 1979: X-
To the body of the showroom; sales begin.
May 1979: vehicle safety compliance office of the State Highway Traffic Safety Administration (OVSC)
X-start two testsbody brakes.
The car passed the first Test. -
Emergency brake check required--
But the \"pass\" is mostly on the edge.
Federal regulations require the brakes to be able to stop light-duty cars traveling 60 miles/hour within 194 feet of the initial braking point.
Buick Skylark and Oz Mobile Omega Park within 185 feet metres.
The Phoenix Pontiac stands within 193 feet metres.
The quotation stopped within 175 feet.
The second group of tests is due to \"media criticism and consumer-to-consumer-
According to the NHTSA internal memo of June 26, 1981, the stability of the car during the braking process.
The car stays at 12-foot-
The NHTSA memo says the driveway is wide.
\"One exception to this is a manual transmission car. . .
When a more serious stop attempts. . .
\"Both rear wheels were locked, causing the vehicle to slip and the test driver could not correct it,\" the memo said . \".
GM officials later proved their X-with a passing score-
There\'s a problem with the car brakes.
Freedom and Governmentapproved.
But there is no publicity for the test results in the following footnotes: \"It is important to remember that the above tests are carried out under ideal conditions on a very dry surface with a high coefficient of friction, it is straight and in the range of 1% flat.
The NHTSA memo says the test driver is very skilled and there is little brake lining wear on the test car.
May 1, 1979: GM began to turn to Africa
Aggressive lining in production and service inventory to \"improve after
GM said in a subsequent communication with NHTSA.
NHTSA received first complaint 1979: NHTSA received the first owner complaint from X-Car rear-
Brake Lock that causes loss of driver control. Aug. 27-
29, 1979: General Motors is starting to be comprehensive
Change in proportion of X
Car brake balance valve (Two in each car)
Alternative inventory of production and services.
The valve and the \"positive\" brake lining are the key to the safety dispute.
Most stop pressure is on the front brake. wheel-
Drive because most of the weight is in front.
The smaller force is applied to the rear brake with a lighter load.
If the brake applies too much brake pressure after the light load, the brake may lock too early to force the car out of control. GM\'s initial X-
The car brake device allows the rear brake to withstand 41% of the brake pressure at 350 pounds per square inch (psi).
The proportional valves of steel, 41% are gradually replaced by aluminum valves, which reduce the rear brake pressure to 27% and exceed 350 psi. Nov.
26. 1979: Office of Defect Investigation of NHTSA (ODI)
In response to 10 consumer complaints, engineering analysis was carried out on the alleged braking lock-in problem. X-
At this time, the car brake was also criticized by the automobile trade publishing house.
Engineering Analysis is the first step in product recall.
December 1979: GM Buick division sent a \"service information announcement\" to Buick/Opel dealers, announcing that it would change 27% to aluminum proportional valve 41% instead of the brake difficulty.
It also does not explain why the proportional valve was changed. Dec.
10. 1979: NHTSA conducts \"subjective road test \"--
Test without instrument-
Evaluate the directional stability of the vehicle in various braking modes at different speeds.
The NHTSA\'s security compliance office says the 1980 Chevrolet test vehicle is turned to the left and sometimes to the right at Heightsspeed stops.
General Motors: no problem with brake valve. 1980: Lynn L.
Bradford, acting director, defect executive office, NHTSA (in ODI)
Ralph C. To GM.
Morrison, director of product research, told him that NHTSA now has \"23 copies about the post-
Brake card death and slip on 1980, Xbody vehicles.
\"The letter from Bradford is to request information about the alleged defects to determine whether there is a security issue.
July 21, 1980: Morrison responded: \"GM did not carry out any recall activities, did not issue any service announcements, did not make any warranty changes to the dealer, and did not issue other post-brake to the dealer involving the subject vehicle
The only possible production change to react to this issue involves a change from 0-
350 psi X 41% to 0-350 X 27%. \"Jan.
1981: James P.
Talentino, head of Tal engineering analysis, signed a letter to General Motors\'s Morrison requesting an update on the rear
Brake Lock problem
March 11, 1981: Morrison responded: not for safety reasons, but because GM found X-
The owner usually carries a lighter load in the trunk, while the load carried at the back is less
Passengers have more seats than GM originally thought.
The GM did not test \"with respect to the subject braking problem;
The so-called brake problem. . .
The safety of motor vehicles does not constitute an unreasonable risk. \" The X-
The car passed all the standard braking system compliance tests of NHTSA. X-
After the car \"no longer tends\"
Lock than other front brakeswheel-drive cars. (
GM does not provide any documentation at this point. )
April 9, 1981: X handled according to the NHTSA investigation of the general audit office
Car probe, Larry Cook, X engineer, in charge of X-
Automotive defect detector, \"First of all aware of the more aggressive brake lining used on the manual transmission 1980 X-
Body car, this could be the reason for most of the complaints about rear brake lock.
\"June 2, 1981: NHTSA and GM have 212 complaints against the rear
Lock in X-brakecars.
Of the 58 complaints, 14 involved injuries.
NHTSA has an accident report.
Death related to the rearbrake lockup.
Agency officials visit GMJune 3-
1981: NHTSA officials visited general engineering personnel in Warren, Michigan.
According to the memorandum written by Gary R.
Mr. Woodford, Wood\'s safety defect engineer. George P.
Anikis NHTSA defect office director and I are both concerned about the number of owner complaints that ODI continues to receive on this issue and the number and severity of alleged accidents. \"\"Mr.
Morrison admitted that there was a problem,
However, he questioned whether it was safe. related.
He also pointed out that a parking brake system was redesigned by X-
Cars to exclude the need for positive rear-
Woodford wrote. \"Finally, Mr.
Anikis urged GM personnel to review the matter and take appropriate steps to resolve the issue by recalling vehicles. Mr.
\"Dell Johnson said GM will review new complaints objectively and act as appropriate,\" Ford wrote . \".
July 1, 1981: NHTSA defect review team decided to upgrade X-
Auto survey of \"final defect investigation. . .
Involving rear brake lock in all 1980 X-
According to a memo written by Talentino on July 13, 1981.
July 6, 1981: Anikis informed Morrison that NHTSA considered \"1980 X-body vehicles (
Use 41% valves and positive brake pads)
Contains engineering defects related to safety.
\"In view of the seriousness of the situation and the fact that the office continues to receive complaints, I urge GM to review the matter.
\"Your response to this letter, stating what corrective action GM is planning to take within five working days,\" Anikis said . \".
According to NHTSA and other vehicle safety sources, the letter clearly invites GM to launch a voluntary recall.
July 8, 1981: Morrison responded to anikisse\'s letter of July 6, 1981, saying GM would voluntarily recall the 1980 X-
Car with 41% valves and positive rear-brake linings.
The letter reads in part: \"GM does not agree with you that the subject vehicle contains safety engineering defects --
However, in order to rule out the possibility of long-term and expensive legal procedures that may follow based on your apparent firm position in this matter, GM will initiate a recall modification relative to the vehicle in question.
The recall affected 47,371 cars.
The solution is to change the proportional valve on the car that missed the change in the production valve, rather than the remaining \"positive\" brake lining. Nov. 4-
19,1981: NHTSA test 1980 Chevrolet Citation to determine positive lining to X-car braking. Nov.
13,1981: according to the preliminary analysis, the case engineer of NHTSA concluded, \"1980 X-Rear body-
According to GAO\'s research into the case, the brake lock issue is a positive lining.
Its meaning is, August 1981, X-
The car recall is invalid and the affected car must be recalled again.
This discovery also means that all of the 1980 X-
It may be necessary to bring the car back for repair. Jan.
11, 1981: ODI received the first consumer complaint that the replacement of the proportional valve was not corrected X-
Brake problem of car
June 21, 1982: NHTSA received a final report on the results of the November 1981 Chevrolet Citation test.
The report supports the engineer\'s earlier conclusion that the active brake lining is the main cause of locking and rotation. Oct.
1982: NHTSA extension X-required by car safety center-
Including all gm x-
Regardless of the production date, the car.
\"The book marks an X-of a major public event-car fix. Nov.
1982: Anikis moved from his work as director of ODI to the office of the traffic safety project. George L.
Parker took over as acting director of acting.
The NHTSA command extends ProbeDec.
1982: NHTSA executive assistant administrator Bradford approves application for extension X-
Car Survey. Dec.
17,1982: Parker wrote that on August 1981, GM recall and GM corrective action \"did not completely solve the rear problem\"
Brake Lock problem\"Jan. 7-
13, 1983: November 1981, NHTSA, X-
X-car test results July 1981
The car test results were placed in the agency\'s public documents, mainly at the urging of the representative. Timothy E. Wirth (D-Colo. )
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce
Wirth\'s push for NHTSA has increased the pressure on the agency to act more forcefully on this matter. Jan 14.
, 1983: Bradford of NHTSA wrote that James McDonald, GM president, told him that NHTSA had initially identified the defect, \"all 1980 X-
Body vehicle with a manual or automatic transmission equipped with asbestos-
The rear brake shoe of the lining may fail in performance, resulting in an accident, injury, death or property damage.
The NHTSA survey shows that the affected cars include \"all manual transmissions X-
Car body and all automatic transmission X-
\"Body vehicles built before May 1, 1979,\" Bradford said . \".
The NHTSA official added: \"The evidence also shows\" the remedy-
Replacement of proportional valves--
\"There is no correction of the situation that may result in a performance failure.
\"This letter is another invitation to launch a voluntary recall of GM, although it is more stringent than the invitation that Anikis wrote in 1981.
NHTSA issued a press release on the same day, announcing that it will be on 1980 X-car brakes.
GM agreed to a second recall.
9,1983: William L, General Motors lawyer. Weber Jr.
Frank Berndt, NHTSA\'s chief lawyer, wrote that he told Berndt that \"GM has decided to recall all 1980\" x \"cars with manual transmissions, as well as some 1980 of early production
\"Dihydroergotoxine Methanesulfonate for Injection\'s letter to Bryant was a response to Bradford\'s letter of January. 4 letter.
\"Conditions described by Sir
\"The letter from Bradford will be repaired to the owner for free,\" Dihydroergotoxine Methanesulfonate for Injection wrote . \".
The second brake.
Related recall impact 239,799 X-
Cars, including cars recalled in August 1981, for ingredients-valve fix. Feb.
25,1983: Berndt wrote that GM\'s Dihydroergotoxine Methanesulfonate for Injection sought more information about the nature of the recall and the second repair.
March 4, 1983: Berndt sender
Letters and \"special order and document production requests\" were submitted to Morrison through the GM Washington office \".
This step was taken because NHTSA investigators found that GM\'s response to the agency on December was \"incomplete \".
According to Berndt, the request for information from Parker letter is 1982.
In a letter dated March 4, Berndt said: \"In other cases, the information requested is not provided at all . \".
He added: \"We strongly urge you to comply fully and promptly with the terms and spirit of this letter and the special orders attached.
\"This letter marks NHTSA in X-
Car brake box
Agency sources said the letter also marks the NHTSA ready in X-car matter.
March 25, 1983: Morrison of GM has sworn in a response to the special order.
Since 1979, General Motors has been at 1980 X-
Car brake system \", which may have an impact on the front and rear brake balance.
\"Made at least 12 Changes in 1980 X-
Parking brake system, Morrison said.
March 30, 1983: NHTSA issued a press release announcing the second recall on 1980
The car in the brake boxAug.
1983: NHTSA filed a $4 million lawsuit against GM through the Justice Department, accusing the company of starting production and sales of 1980 X-
Although it knows that the brakes of the car are defective.
\"By December 1978, GM realized that due to-
Before the car started production, that X-
According to the design at that time, there is a possibility that the car will be locked too early under various conditions, \"the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit requires GM to recall all 1.
Its 1 million X-1980bodies.
NHTSA first filed a civil damages claim against a car manufacturer, which also alleges that GM provided \"false and misleading responses to NHTSA information requests in at least 27 cases
On the same day, Wirth issued a statement accusing NHTSA of covering up its X-
Wirth said that NHTSA\'s prosecution of GM was to reduce the impact of the report of the upcoming general accounting office on NHTSA\'s handling of the case. Also on Aug.
On 1983, General Motors\'s Dihydroergotoxine Methanesulfonate for Injection company issued a statement accusing the government of hype about its lawsuit.
\"We were surprised that the Justice Department filed an unexpected lawsuit.
Given the extensive cooperation between GM and NHTSA to develop a clear indication that it is appropriate to have no further recall or corrective action, this is especially unreasonable.
GM has taken the initiative to recall about 240,000 vehicles.
We believe that such actions are appropriate to mitigate the concerns of our customers.
Furthermore, we categorically deny the government\'s claim that false statements exist.
We will therefore strongly oppose the proceedings. \"Aug.
1983: Wirth\'s subcommittee held a hearing on GAO\'s report, which states that NHTSA\'s X-
There are \"serious problems\" with car detectors, including \"no activity for a long time \".
Key part of investigation]were]
Not in accordance with applicable guidelines.
\"Only members of the Democratic subcommittee attended the hearing, where NHTSA and GM were accused of damaging and deceiving the public.
Over the years, has become very popular as more and more people are trying it out.
Yuhuan hua yang Machinery Co.,Ltd.’s mission is to be the leading global innovator, developer and provider of Brake caliper cheap calipers products, systems, and services.
When you choose to buy instead of sliding brake caliper, the money you save may allow you to buy multiple other necessities, more than you had initially planned on buying.
Although the core manufacturing factor of Brake caliper is high technology, smart customers know that we need to enhance our material quality and producing standard.
The unique connections between Brake calipermanufacturing and customers happen when you find ways to relate on a more personal and engaging level that goes beyond a product.